Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

41 Views

A topic that we keep talking about but rarely see in today’s society is ethics. For example, Leftists (and some NeverTrumpers for that matter) have their panties in a bunch over allegations Kellyanne Conway violated the Hatch Act. For those of you who are unfamiliar with it (mainly because you have more of a life than your humble commentator), the Hatch Act prohibits federal employees from engaging in political activities. Originally, it was meant to curtail the likelihood of bribery and corruption, but as we’ve seen in the past few decades, the Hatch Act is like training wheels on a Slip N Slide.

Of course, the Trump Administration is pushing back by defending Conway’s right to free speech, which made Leftists lose their shit and start talking about ethics.

Yes, folks, my irony meter broke just typing that sentence.

While I wait for a repairman to fix my irony meter, let’s talk about ethics, shall we?

ethics

What the Left thinks it means – a set of guiding principles that everyone else should follow

What it really means – a set of guiding principles that people today make up as they go along

Cynicism, thy name is Thomas. In my defense, though, I have seen a lot of ethical lapses in my nearly 50 years of schlepping around on this water-covered rock, from Watergate to Washington State and more stops in between than I can shake a stick at. That is, if I even have a stick to shake. Politicians, athletes, celebrities, and even Joe Average have all been getting looser with their ethical standards.

Remember the 1990s, where sex scandals would pop up like the men in said sex scandals? Granted, it was the 90s, the decade that gave us Crystal Pepsi, but at least we had some standards. Nowadays, sex scandals are more resume enhancers than career enders.

And it’s not just in the sexual arena, either. In general, we are allowing more and more stuff we used to decry not even 10 years ago. Recent surveys just within the past 2-3 years have shown college students are okay with plagiarism, cheating, and lying. Even adults are starting to throw their hands up in the air and give in to unethical behavior. (See Congress for proof of this.)

Neither major political party has clean hands when it comes to ethics, unfortunately. For every Democrat calling out Republican corruption, there is a Democrat doing the same thing, and vice versa. The problem is few people are willing to call out members of their own “team” when they are in the wrong. A big part of the problem is the entire “team” concept. In every political case where ethics are looser than Bernie Sanders’ grasp of Econ 101, you will find people lining up behind someone as scummy as they come in order to defend these scumbags against “partisan attacks.” There is a bevy of great reasons the Founding Fathers didn’t like political parties, and this is as good of a reason as any.

Outside of the political arena, I think people have decided to give up trying to do the right thing because it requires them to think of other people as fellow human beings instead of inconveniences interrupting your self-worship. We’ve gotten so used to taking shortcuts that we’re not even trying to find the road anymore. Besides, doing the right thing means you actually have to do something other than  sending #somebodydosomething to your Twitter peeps. On top of that, we’re always looking for self-gratification, which defeats the purpose of ethical behavior by taking the emphasis off the ethics and puts it onto ourselves.

Yes, I realize not everyone shares the same ethical background, so calling out a lack of ethics in any situation is bound to make people mad, upset, or just downright offended. Maybe your ethical framework makes it okay to cut corners or take a few pennies here and there from the till at work. Maybe you’re trans-ethical and self-identify as an ethical person. Regardless of where you stand on the topic, there is always going to be points of conflict. What might be right for you may not be right for some, so we may try to soften our stances to allow others to feel good about their behavior.

That’s why we’re in this ethical quagmire in the first place. By trying to be understanding of other people’s differences in ethics, we soften up our own ethics to the point even the most reasonable expectation of your fellow men and women becomes milquetoast so we don’t get in trouble. In social situations, that may not be a bad move, but it’s a terrible way to live a life. Everybody has standards, but we shouldn’t surrender ours because a transgendered woman with rainbow hair and more piercings than Julius Caesar outside the Forum wants you to accept his/her demand to breast feed. If you’re not okay with that, you shouldn’t force yourself to be okay with it. Holding your tongue in a situation where your ethics are challenged is surrendering without a shot being fired.

Look. I get we’re supposed to be tolerant of other viewpoints, but that tolerance needs to be two-way. I’ve made it a point in recent years to live by a simple code: do what’s right for everyone involved including yourself. And, yes, that means calling out ethical problems regardless of who might be hurt by it. One cannot be ethical without being honest, and brutally so at times.

So, let me be one voice in a chorus of people who think Kellyanne Conway should submit to whatever legal punishment awaits her should she be charged with violating the Hatch Act. Ethical standards shouldn’t be upheld in some cases and ignored in others just because of who violated them. We should hold all of our elected officials to the same ethical standard: don’t break, bend, or skirt the law, period. If a politician can’t hack that, he or she isn’t fit for the job and should be given a pink slip at your earliest convenience.

As for the Democrats and NeverTrumpers complaining about Conway, clean up your own houses first. Ditto for the Trump supporters backing Conway. A bad person with questionable ethics isn’t going to change as long as there’s no incentive to change. That means we’re going to have to stick firm to what we believe to be right, dig in our heels a bit, and be ready to defend said beliefs. It won’t be easy or always rewarding, but ethics are worth it every time.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

42 Views

This past week, there was a great disturbance in the conservative Force, as though millions of voices cried out in anger and were silenced. Turns out YouTube just demonetized Steven Crowder’s videos after a Vox reporter got mad at some of the “harassment” he received from Crowder’s fans. That Vox reporter, Carlos Meza, refers to himself as queer and, surprise surprise, got upset when Crowder called him one! (Granted, there were other statements made to deride Meza, but the point is still the same.)

After YouTube initially said Crowder didn’t violate their Terms of Service, they reversed field like an NFL running back and demonetized his videos, meaning they wouldn’t be promoted and he wouldn’t receive ad revenue from them. Had it not been for Meza’s complaining to YouTube about their allowing Crowder a platform, we might not have the chance to analyze this relatively new Leftist tactic to shut down conservative speech: deplatforming.

deplatforming

What the Left thinks it means – not allowing hateful or potentially dangerous speech an audience

What it really means – a Leftist tactic to discourage discourse they don’t like

There is a key concept central to understanding deplatforming: this isn’t directly a free speech issue. Our right to speak doesn’t guarantee an audience. This principle is backed up by the fact so many talk shows get cancelled after the first season. Complicating matters in Crowder’s case is the fact YouTube is a private company and can set its own rules for use.

That is as long as those rules are enforced equally. And in YouTube’s case, they make Barney Fife look like Sherlock Holmes. Put simply, YouTube’s enforcement is all over the board, with conservatives and those perceived as conservatives (i.e. hateful according to Leftists) bearing the brunt of the punishment. Channels that promote racism, homophobia, and general hatred are struck down while those that promote racism, heterophobia, and general hatred go untouched.

And it’s not just on YouTube. Leftists on college campuses (or would it be campusi?) have found ways to prevent people from Ben Shapiro to Milo Yiannopoulos from speaking on campus through the use of procedural roadblocks, false security issues, and general overall whining, while they allow more radical left-leaning speakers a free pass in spite of outrage at what these speakers have said and done in the past.

As a side note, I’ve created a pretty reliable test for parents and students to determine the best schools. It’s called the Mumia Test. If the college your son or daughter wants to attend has had or would consider infamous cop-killer and Leftist icon Mumia Abu Jamal speak via telephone or other communication method, don’t send him or her there because it’s too far gone.

Anyway, the Left is able to have its cake and eat it too through deplatforming. They can still portray themselves as champions of free speech (that they approve of) while making a case that not all speech is worth hearing. And it’s consistent with the letter of the First Amendment, but not the spirit. Back in the Founding Fathers’ day, their remedy for bad speech was good speech. They didn’t run to George Washington whenever something bad was said about them (and, believe me, a lot was said about Thomas Jefferson that would make TMZ look like the New York Times before Leftists took it over and turned it into, well, the print version of TMZ.

The reason Leftists rely on deplatforming conservatives whenever they can is simple: they can’t hang in the marketplace of ideas. Leftist ideology is all about control: what you see, what you hear, what you do, what you think. If they eliminate the competition, they have more control over all of that. Part and parcel of that approach is they don’t have an answer for what conservative rhetoric outside of name-calling and forcing platforms to abide by its own rules, even when it would require using situational and biased decision making.

This is why YouTube demonetizing Steven Crowder (and many others who are being caught up erroneously by YouTube’s algorithms) is such a big deal. Crowder’s comments/insults were crude and over the line, but others who have said far worse have been given a lighter punishment…if they’ve been punished at all. And if you think this is “whataboutism” to defend Crowder, check out fellow YouTuber Gazi Kodzo, whose nickname in some parts of the Interwebs is “Black Hitler.” He has been just has hateful as Crowder (if not moreso, given his open hatred for whites and straights), but there does not appear to be any attempt to demonetize him on YouTube.

Yes, I know the tech giants went to Capitol Hill and swore up and down they were enforcing the rules right down the middle, but that’s as believable as Joe Biden writing his own material. The truth is YouTube, Google, Facebook, et al, lean left and apply the rules with that in mind. Hence, Crowder gets deplatformed and Kodzo gets ad revenue. Unfortunately, those tech giants are pretty much the only games in town if you want an online presence.

That’s why it’s important to fight back within the rules, and that starts with your mindset. If you express any opinion to the right of Che Guevara, no matter how reasonable it may be, Leftists will attack you, often personally as a means to get an emotional reaction out of you. As someone who’s been at the receiving end of such vitriol, it’s hard not to fight fire with fire, but I’ve learned to fight fire with sugar water. Don’t sink to their level, address the meat of their concerns (provided they have any meat), and let them keep escalating. In time, they will either get frustrated you aren’t taking the bait or will act in a way that even the Leftist gatekeepers can’t ignore the bad behavior of their online allies and drop the hammer. Most of the time, it will be a Nerf hammer, but the goal isn’t to get them deplatformed because you complained. It’s to protect yourselves and let the haters deplatform themselves.

It’s harder to do the same on college campuses than it is online, but it’s not impossible. Demand to hear other speakers from all sides of the ideological spectrum. If the colleges and universities can’t or won’t fulfill that need, find ways around it. Nothing says a college conservative club can’t have an off-campus event with a famous or semi-famous figure in conservative circles. Plus, the added bonus is if there are any threats of violence from Leftists or actual violence and property damage from Leftists, the police can get involved, thus bypassing campus security altogether. And I’ll bet there would be more than a few members packing heat (check local CCW/open carry laws before attempting), so security shouldn’t be an issue. Just serve cake and punch and you’re set!

Although deplatforming isn’t against free speech, it’s certainly a corrosive force that undermines it. With a little intellectual judo, though, it can be overcome while maintaining a true appreciation and love of free speech.

Plus, there could be punch and cake involved, so that’s a win-win!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

73 Views

If you’ve noticed more rainbows recently, you might think it’s due to all the rain in the Midwest or people protesting the opening of a new Chick fil A. June is Gay Pride Month, so members of the LGBTQABCEASYAS123 community will be out and about letting their Pride flags fly.

And along with that, a Leftist agenda.

Not every LBGTQ person is a Leftist, but the idea has been hijacked by the Left, which makes it a great addition to the Lexicon.

gay pride

What the Left thinks it means – a celebration of gay people and a force to bring equality for them

What it really means – a sense of pride stemming from trying to separate people

Leftists look at everyone in terms of labels: what color you are, what gender you are, what color of wine you drink when insulting Trump supporters, and so on. That helps them make decisions about who they’re dealing with quickly and without much effort. And once they label a person, it gives them a sense they control the person or people being labeled. Combine that with the Left’s natural tendency to believe they know what’s best for everyone, and you have a recipe for intellectual domination.

This is especially true of the gay rights movement. Leftists think they know what’s best for gays and at least try to appear to support them, including appearing at Pride rallies. They support legislative remedies to what they see are “gay problems,” support judicial remedies, and back candidates who are friendly to the gay rights movement or are gay themselves. And who is on record in support of gay pride? You guessed it. Canadians. Oh, and Leftists, too.

Where problems arise is when you look at the source of pride itself. The popular line of thought today is that being gay is genetic, meaning it’s out of our control, which means gay pride is taking pride at something you didn’t and couldn’t plan on. Like…oh, I don’t know…having brown hair because it runs in your family. Yet, I don’t see any Brunette Pride rallies being formed because it’s no big deal ultimately. The Left wants to treat gay people as though they’re Fabrige unicorns, rare and delicate, which makes it harder for people to see gays as anything but and helps Leftists make the argument that they’re oppressed and need protection.

In other words, creating oppression out of little for fun, profit, and, oh yes, votes.

To hear Leftists talk, gays of all backgrounds are in danger because of the mean ole GOP who wants to take extreme measures to prevent them from existing. Just listen to how they treat Vice President Mike Pence based on well-spun narratives with little to no basis in fact. Yet, in spite of the barbed rhetoric to the contrary, Vice President Pence has been cordial to gay people he’s encountered. Whatever he believes doesn’t prevent him from treating gay people as, well, people.

This is where the separation part comes into play. By creating imaginary oppression and casting anyone outside of Leftist circles as the enemy, Leftists have forced gays to choose between the Leftist hivemind and being ostracized like Pence. And when the Left offers gays the illusion of happiness, it’s hard to say no. It’s even harder when they see how Leftists treat non-Leftist gays. Let’s just say marching in every Pride parade from now until the end of the world (or 12 years, whichever comes first) won’t absolve the Left’s homophobia where conservatives gays are concerned.

This alone should be enough to make gay people question how deep the Left’s commitment to gay pride is. Passing legislation or getting favorable judicial rulings on same sex marriages don’t mean much if the people behind them don’t respect gays as people. And, from where I sit, the Left doesn’t give one-tenth of one shit about gays as people. They see you as tokens to move around a game board as they see fit. Meanwhile, outside of a handful of hateful religious types like the Westboro Baptist Church, most people don’t care if you’re gay. They just want you to be good people. That’s it.

And, let me just say you’re not doing any favors with some of the antics at and after Pride parades. Assless chaps may make you feel empowered, but they’re scaring the normal folks into creating a negative stereotype of all gays, lesbians, trans people, and so on. The biggest enemy of gay pride is the gay pride movement itself. Most groups have swallowed the Leftist Kool Aid like it was their last drink before hiking through Death Valley, so they will advance agendas that have little to nothing to do with actually being gay while letting the outliers be the only thing people see.

My approach to gay pride is simple: I don’t care. If you’re proud of being gay, then be proud and proclaim it any way you see fit. However, when you do that, remember what you say and do will get amplified by people who oppose you or wish to use you as a means to an end. Put simply, one can be proud of who and what you are without turning it into a Robert Mapplethorpe LARP.

The great irony in gay pride, or any pride for that matter, is in how public some people feel it needs to be in order to be respected. To me, pride is like being a badass: if you have to advertise it, you’re not one. Using gay pride to build bridges between the heterosexual and homosexual worlds is a great place to start. Not everyone will be thrilled, but most people will accept you as you are as long as you’re willing to do the same. That’s what the Left doesn’t want the gay pride movement to know, and it’s obvious why. As long as gay people feel ashamed or scared, the Left can always swoop in and be a white knight, and once they do, they will hold that over your heads for the rest of your lives.

It really doesn’t matter to me if you’re gay, straight, bi, trans, queer, pansexual, potsexual, polysexual, asexual, or just there. Just be a decent human being and I’ll respect you and try to be and do the same to you. From personal observation, that seems to be what most people want, no matter what gender you like to have sex with.

So, to the gay pride supporters out there, I hope you have a great month and I wish you the best. Now, I have to get ready for my Brunette Pride rally next month.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

162 Views

Hello! I was forced to take a bit of a vacation last week due to Internet issues, but I’m back and I have a humdinger of a Lexicon entry this week.

Abortion has become a hot button issue in the past few weeks, almost as if…there’s an election coming up soon….With state laws in Georgia, Alabama, and Ohio limiting abortion options and political officials in New York State and Virginia seemingly saying abortion can be done up to and even after birth, both sides of the abortion debate are on edge more than people in a crack house next door to a police station. But I ran across a new term the Left is trying to use to promote their pro-baby-death position: reproductive freedom.

Put on your biohazard suits and have a barf bucket ready because this one is a doozy…

reproductive freedom

What the Left thinks it means – a woman’s right to do what she wants with her body, especially when it comes to terminating a pregnancy

What it really means – a new way to get people on board with the idea killing babies is freedom

Someone in the Leftist PR department must have seen recent polling data showing more and more young people are deciding not to bump uglies and have abortions after the fact. The word “freedom” has a lot of power and emotional heft because we like the concept so much. Whether it’s people shooting off firecrackers on Independence Day (or several weeks before it, depending on where you live) or women fighting for what they consider to be a fundamental right, freedom comes in all shapes and sizes.

When paired with “reproductive,” we have a phrase that evokes the love we have as well as the desire to leave the room whenever abortion comes up in conversation. And, yes, this is by design. The Left loves to combine words to create a name that hits you in the heart while not giving you much to hang your brain on. All they want you to do is feel the way they want you to feel.

Of course, that only exercises part of your brain, but it’s the more important part. Whenever we discuss reproductive freedom, we need to think as well as feel. And when that happens, the Left can’t operate as effectively because it allows us to see behind the curtain.

Let’s deal with one important fact about the Left and reproductive freedom: the Left needs abortion to control women. You read that right, kids. The Left gets a lot of money and political power through promoting reproductive freedom, and they wield that power without considering any other possible position on the subject. If you are against reproductive women, it’s because you hate women.

That’s going to come as a big shock to the pro-life women out there.

And that’s not the only fact The Handsmaid’s Tale cosplayers ignore in their desire to obtain what they claim the want. If you really look at it, reproductive freedom is primarily slanted in favor of women. They claim it’s because old white religious men keep making laws that restrict their right to terminate a pregnancy. At the same time, they rely on old white semi-religious men and women to give them the upper hand in the sexual arena. Yet, it takes a man and a woman to create life. How exactly is that fair to men and women? Spoiler Alert: it isn’t. Reproductive freedom is designed to give women every benefit at the expense of men.

This is not to say men’s hands are clean when it comes to reproductive freedom issues. There are untold number of guys who fuck and run, leaving a woman to deal with the consequences of having intercourse before she was ready. Then, there are rape and incest victims to consider. Put simply, for every position on reproductive freedom, there is a position not considered, or at least not considered in full.

What isn’t so muddy is the fact reproductive freedom when practiced as the Left wants all but guarantees a bad result. Look at Planned Parenthood’s latest advertising blitz saying “Abortion Is Health Care.” That may be true, but it’s health care that guarantees at least one of the patients dies in the process. You wouldn’t go to a tire place where two of the tires will blow out while you’re driving, so why go to Planned Parenthood at all?

That’s where things get a little tricky. If you take Planned Parenthood at their word here, how can it be “healthcare” when Planned Parenthood officials are on video saying they sell baby parts after abortions? On the other side, if we accept the pro-life stance, how can we exclude cases of rape and incest as valid reasons to have an abortion, which is part of some of the legislation being proposed and/or signed into state law?

This is why we need to have a long, hard discussion about reproductive freedom so we can find common ground. The extremes don’t want an answer, but I’m willing to bet most of the country does if for no other reason than to have both extremes shut up for a change. And, no, dressing up like a vagina and holding a sign calling a fetus a parasite or yelling at young women that they’re going to Hell if they get an abortion isn’t helping. Instead, let’s do a bit of thinking.

Abortion rates have been declining for the better part of a decade. This means Planned Parenthood and the Left are losing power and influence, which means they have to do something to keep both. What better way than to rile up both sides to react in a way that will guarantee reproductive freedom gets front and center? Put another way, this whole push for reproductive freedom right now is all an act, and as long as we continue to take the bait the act will continue.

The only way that act will have its curtain call is if we talk, not as enemies, but as people with different perspectives. Once that happens, reproductive freedom loses its power and we can get to a better place on this subject.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

100 Views

Happy Mothers Day to all the mothers out there! Now, for a bit of bad news. We’re in the midst of a Constitutional crisis! And if we don’t address it, our country will be irrevocably damaged, the Presidency will be forever tarnished, Tyler Perry will make another Medea movie, and untold other horrible things. (At least, that’s what the Left keeps telling us this week.)

With all of the problems (real and imagined) we have to deal with, the Left’s drumbeat of “Constitutional crisis” may either be worrisome or tiring to the point where we just accept it in the hopes it will go away. Well, as a Mothers Day gift to you, I’m going to do my best to take away that fear and misery so you can have a good day. (And I didn’t save the receipt, so you can’t return it.)

Constitutional crisis

What the Left believes it means – a matter that threatens the very fabric of our country and system of government

What it really means – a matter where the Left tries to use the Constitution to hide the real crises

I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating: The Left loves to control the language as a means to control how people think about an issue, and the use of Constitutional crisis is no exception. Even when we don’t think about it, we still have a deep respect for the Constitution because it’s the cornerstone of our country. So, when paired with “crisis,” we tend to take it more seriously because of this respect for the Constitution.

This leads us to the question of whether we have a Constitutional crisis right now because of President Donald Trump and his Administration. To hear the Left talk about it, we’re either not in one and heading towards one 0r are in one and we need to act now. To someone like you and me, the answer isn’t so clear cut, but the phrasing makes it sound and feel like we are, and that’s what the Left is going for here: emotions over logic. Once you let your emotions run the show, the Left has their hooks in you and they won’t stop exploiting your emotions to make a point

The danger of that approach, though, lies in repetition. When such an emotionally charged phrase like “Constitutional crisis” gets used repeated or used in situations where it doesn’t really fit, it loses its power and people start to question its use across the board. It’s the “Boy Who Cried Wolf” phenomenon, or in this case, the Party That Cried Collusion. Once we’ve reached that stage, even real Constitutional crises get painted with the same broad brush and general apathy sets in.

Spoiler Alert, kids. We’re getting there.

After 2+ years of pounding the collusion drum like a John Bonham solo, the Mueller Report was a disappointment to the Left because it wasn’t the slam dunk the Left thought (i.e. prayed) it would be. Now, because it didn’t pan out, the Left needs to drive home the Constitutional crisis point to make up for the collusion point being ineffective. And, to make matters worse, they are using the same playbook now that they did when Russian collusion was the hot topic on the Left.

Which brings us to the next logical question: are we in a Constitutional crisis because of the Trump Administration? The answer is…well, complicated. To be fair, there are some actions and decisions Trump made that trouble me as a Constitutionalist. In his favor (and to my general dismay), he’s continuing a long line of Presidents who have treated the Constitution as a paper napkin at a barbecue joint. The continued use and abuse of the PATRIOT Act, eminent domain abuse, the bullying and blackballing of conservative voices in the public square, and many others I can list rise to the level of Constitutional crisis.

Trump winning an election and exercising power permitted by the Constitution? Not so much.

Even the most recent “example” the Left trotting it out may be in the kiddie pool of Constitutional crises, that being Attorney General William Barr declining to give additional testimony before Congress about the Mueller investigation after being subpoenaed by the House Judiciary Committee. On the one hand, it makes it look like Barr, Trump, and the whole Administration has something to hide which gives emotional heft to the Left’s argument. On the other hand, what good would it do? Barr testified in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee and gave answers to questions the House Judiciary Committee would probably repeat, so it’s a waste of time.

But there’s another, more sinister reason House Democrats want Barr to testify again: to try to catch him in a lie and, thus, try to discredit his previous testimony and keep both the Constitutional crisis and Russia collusion narratives going. If you doubt this, consider the fact Leftists are demanding we see the unredacted Mueller report in direct defiance of a law Democrats put into place following Kenneth Starr’s investigation into Whitewater prohibiting the release of grand jury testimony in the circumstance we find ourselves in today. And the cherry on top of this collusion sundae is the fact no Congressional Democrats with the authority to see the mostly unredacted report have done so.

This is the point where many people jump off the bandwagon and start asking questions. Are Leftists really as concerned about the Constitution as they say they are now, or are they just using it as a shield against earned criticism from the Russia collusion narrative going belly up? Let me consult my Magic 8 Ball here…there we go…yep, Signs Point To They’re Making Shit Up.

To be fair, neither major party has a good working relationship with the Constitution in decades. But one party has consistently used it as both a bludgeon and a shield to justify their actions and beliefs, and it’s not the Republicans. Ever since Trump won in 2016, the Left has tied itself into knots trying to either undo the election or make it so Trump and his supporters pay for their “wrongthink” whenever possible. The great irony here is neither of those options are in line with what the Constitution actually says. And the matter is worsened by the fact most of what the Left wants to hold Trump accountable for occurred before he was elected President, thus creating a new Constitutional question they haven’t considered in their rush to bring down the President. I wouldn’t call that a Constitutional crisis just yet, but it could become one if the Left doesn’t think about it soon.

Oh, who am I kidding? They won’t even think about it for a microsecond because the answer may doom the Trump Russia narrative.

From where I sit (in my living room, by the way), the Left’s use of “Constitutional crisis” is a political ploy to keep beating a dead horse to the point PETA is organizing protest marches against it. The best advice I can give you is to dig into some of the real Constitutional crises out there (like the ones I mentioned above) and compare them to the Left’s caterwauling over a situation that boils down to not wanting to accept the 2016 election results.

Wait, didn’t someone say not accepting the results of an election was bad? It was someone famous…a woman I think. Wonder what happened to her…

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

115 Views

Amid all the talk about important issues (like Avengers: Endgame being soooooooo awesome), the country of Venezuela has been undergoing internal strife that has come to the surface in the past few weeks. To give you the short version of events, their economy sucks, their current leader is a tyrant not above using the military to kill people, and there’s a new guy trying to take over with the support of the United States.

Naturally, the Left, with all of its vast foreign policy knowledge and gravitas, is siding with the dictator.

Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-On’tKnowShit) recently said the sanctions we put on Venezuela crippled its economy, thus causing the unrest there. (Of course, it couldn’t have been because they dabbled with socialism during a time when there was oil money coming in like a giant petroleum slot machine looser than Bill Clinton’s morals, right? Naaaaaaah!) The concept of sanctions in general is interesting and deserves a closer look.

sanctions

What the Left thinks it means – harmful foreign and economic policy decisions designed to force countries to adopt our standards

What it really means – a step designed to  try to prevent war

The way sanctions work is by cutting off a need for a certain country, like money or medicine, in the hopes they’ll get their acts together and stop being assholes. Granted, sanctions don’t always work because in order for them to be effective, the target country has to believe the sanctions have teeth to them.

Remember Saddam Hussein? This is a perfect example of the sanctions with no teeth approach. The United Nations imposed strict sanctions against Iraq when he was trying to make moves on Kuwait in 1990. After their first attempt failed, they imposed more sanctions noting Iraq failed to comply with their initial sanctions. After Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm showed Saddam had the strategic acumen of Wile E. Coyote, Iraq at least tried to pretend they were complying. Of course, they weren’t, but they knew the UN was (and still is) all talk and no action unless the US gets involved again.

So, what did 10+ years of UN sanctions get us? A second trip to Iraq, more lives lost, and sand getting into the nooks and crannies of a lot of good men and women. Then, when it was time to go back to war, the Left came out against Iraq War II: Electric Boogaloo demanding we give the sanctions that didn’t work in the first place more time to, well, not work.

Venezuela is different, however. Their economy was already tanking like Adam Schiff’s chances of being anything more than a bug-eyed freak with more leakage problems than a Wiffle Diaper before the sanctions were put in place. And from there, it only got worse. I’m talking literally eating zoo animals due to widespread starvation worse. And many of the same Leftists who wanted us to let the sanctions work in Iraq blamed sanctions for Venezuela’s mess. And this is while they’re saying we shouldn’t get involved militarily.

That’s the part the Left doesn’t get about sanctions. You can’t pick and choose when you support them, especially if you’re wanting to avoid warfare. The military has three main jobs: kill the enemy, break their stuff, and prevent the enemy from doing the same to them. When we go to war, we can’t half-ass it. That’s right. We have to whole ass it! But the thing we try to do before then is to exhaust all possible options.

That’s where sanctions come in. As much as the Left thinks we’re a bunch of shoot first, ask questions never cowboys, we don’t automatically break out the new toys against an opposing country. If so, Israel wouldn’t have a problem with its neighbors anymore…because there wouldn’t be enough of them to form a softball league. When asking nicely doesn’t work, we have to try to flex our might in another way, and that means cutting countries off from money and/or goods. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t, but at the very least it shows we’re willing to give these countries a chance to redeem themselves either through willing compliance or through the threat of revolution. If that doesn’t work, then we consider warfare.

Put another way, sanctions are meant to be a deterrent to war, not a cause of it. If the Left really is against military action, they should consider supporting the sanctions until the leader chosen by the country’s legislative body is put into power. Either that or get ready for war (and I don’t mean organizing anti-war protests or trying to get President Donald Trump impeached).

Of course, these are the same people who sided with the dictator, so the chances of them making a smart decision here are slim.

Oh, well. At least Avengers: Endgame kicked ass, right?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

141 Views

When you consider the clown car of Democrats running for President right now, there are some names that come to mind. Kamala Harris, Joe Biden, and Elizabeth “Chief Running Mouth” Warren, for example. Somewhere further down the list is Tulsi Gabbard, a Democrat from Hawaii. To put it mildly, she’s not quite as entrenched in Leftist ideology as most of the people in the clown car with her. In other words, she has her head out of her ass.

Recently, Ms. Gabbard gave a speech at the “She The People” conference where she was attacked, not by conservatives, but by Leftists including the Women’s March because she…refused to call herself a woman of color. If that isn’t grounds for her to be drummed out of the country, I don’t know…what in the blue hell the Left is thinking! At any rate, we have an opportunity to delve deeper into the concept of people of color.

people of color

What the Left thinks it means – groups of diverse individuals whose experiences should be recognized and celebrated

What it really means – another way for Leftists to separate people

The Left loves to break down Americans into labels they determine and, thus, control. In the Leftist hive-mind, every person is the sum total of their parts: race, gender, gender identity, economic status, and so on. Once they figure out what constitutes you, they take this information and create concepts intended to appeal to those different elements of who you are and make you into Leftists.

And for the most part it works, but not always. So, what happens when you refuse to abide by the Left’s interpretations of what you should be? They “otherize” you. It’s like you don’t exist, or they try to make you feel you like you shouldn’t. Just ask Tulsi Gabbard.

The funny thing is the only diversity the Left doesn’t care about is ideological. Although Gabbard is not the second coming of Ronald Reagan by any stretch of the imagination, she is more conservative than Leftists like. The fact she didn’t mention anything about her own status as a woman of color at the She The People event is one of the smartest things she could have done because it shows she doesn’t subscribe to the concept of using that status to advance her political career.

But not to Leftists. The fact she is a woman of color means, in Leftist thinking, she has to make it the focal point of her entire being. And because Gabbard isn’t doing that, the Left sees it as a betrayal of all women of color. After all, if a woman of color breaks off from what the Left thinks women of color should be, it might…inspire others to follow suit. And once that happens, they might…stop voting for Leftists! And we can’t have that, can we?

To borrow a phrase from a certain former President, yes we can.

The Left’s strengthening by division only works if you don’t feel you have any power to affect your life in any way. Once you realize what kind of power you have, the Left’s promises don’t look so good, especially when you have to give up your individualism to fit in. And there’s no guarantee you will stay in the Left’s good graces, even if you do everything they say and think the way they do.

Just like Tulsi Gabbard.

The thing is people of color don’t need to fixate on their race to get ahead, and conservatives don’t want them to. They just want you to pull your own weight. If you do that, you’re cool to the Right And most of the time, they won’t tell you what to say and do. They’re too busy working to bother with running your life.

I don’t care what you call yourself or how you self-identify, but just know that when you do, you’re purposely separating yourself from the rest of the world. That will build walls where they may not be needed and keep us separated as a country. Be proud of who you are, but don’t let it become your totality. I want you to expand your horizons, not because it hurts Leftists, but because it will make you a better person.

And when you really think about it, we’re all people of color. So, why would it matter what color you are? In short, it doesn’t. Only to people who wish to control you think it matters. But here’s the kicker. The Leftists attacking Tulsi Gabbard for not identifying as a woman of color when it’s clear she would be considered as such shows their commitment to diversity isn’t even skin deep.

And it also shows how clueless the Left has become.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

156 Views

There are times when a topic for a blog post is harder to find than the point of an Elizabeth Warren Presidential run, but there are other times when the perfect topic drops into your lap. Ladies and gentlemen, the latter occurred, thanks to the Mueller Report.

Whether you were hoping Robert Mueller’s report would exonerate or condemn President Donald Trump, the world waited with bated breath for a 400+ page report with redactions. It was almost like watching fans waiting for the next Harry Potter book Harry Potter and the Quest to Buy J. K. Rowling a 43rd House. And what we found was…well, let’s just go to the definition and analysis.

the Mueller Report

What the Left thinks it means – a report that proves Donald Trump obstructed justice and worked with the Russians to steal the 2016 Presidential election

What it really means – one of the most expensive door jams in American political history

I’m not usually cynical, but when it comes to politics and the theater of the magnitude of the Mueller Report, it’s hard not to be. From the beginning, I felt it was going to be an inconclusive waste of time (and taxpayer money) because no one was going to be happy with the outcome. If the report proved beyond a reasonable doubt Donald Trump worked with the Russians to win the 2016 Presidential election, a good chunk of the country would say it was fake news, no matter how well sourced it was. If the report showed Trump was as innocent as a newborn, a good chunk of the country would claim the report was a sham and that Trump used his power and influence to affect the outcome.

And what we got was firmly between these two extremes. A redacted report (as required by law after the Starr Report) made the Left mad because they know there’s good stuff that proves Trump is guilty. And even if there isn’t, they claim there’s enough there to warrant impeachment. The report also made Trump supporters ecstatic because it showed (even with the redactions) that the President wasn’t guilty and the investigation was a sham from the word go. To me, however, the Mueller Report doesn’t prove Trump’s guilt or innocence because it wasn’t meant to do either.

At its core, the Mueller Report was a mutli-million dollar job project for people who want to keep our eyes off the real issues in this country, not the least of which being the federal government spying on a private citizen in the hopes of getting some dirt to help a severely flawed candidate limp into the White House because it was “her turn.”

But I’m totally not cynical.

Yes, there were a number of Trump associates who plead guilty to crimes…that were unrelated to the campaign itself. Yes, the funds seized from the aforementioned guilty parties was more than the cost of the investigation…which ultimately didn’t turn up anything concrete about the actual subject matter of the investigation, Donald Trump. Yes, the report uncovered suggestions that Trump may have possibly broken the law…but leaves that open to interpretation to the point of being irrelevant. Yes, the report did leave the job of holding the President accountable to the crimes (real or imagined) to Congress…which is what they are supposed to do anyway. In other words, we’re pretty much back where we started, but now we have a report.

Yay for us?

The real kicker here is the Mueller Report might be worthless at the jump because it may not be used as grounds for impeachment. Under that little document the kids today call the Constitution, a President can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. But what if the crimes are committed before the President is sworn in? That’s a question the Left hasn’t thought to ask before now in their rush to impeach Trump, and it’s a question the Right hasn’t thought to ask before now in their rush to defend Trump. And it’s a pretty big question to be overlooked.

Put simply, the Mueller Report is a lot like making hot dogs: you’ll enjoy it better if you don’t think about what went into making it. The problem (among several I could rattle off here) is the reason we have the report in the first place is fundamentally flawed and politically motivated, which makes any result questionable at best. I’m not a fan of the President, but I have to call bullshit when I see it, and basing an entire impeachment case off the Mueller Report and what lead up to it is USDA Grade A all-American bullshit. Expecting good results from bad faith is foolish.

It’s important that we separate the report from the man, however. Robert Mueller may be a choirboy or a criminal, but until we know the man, we should not judge him. From where I sit, he has kept his mouth shut for the most part while investigating the allegations, so that speaks well of his commitment to justice. Let’s not malign him until he acts or says something that warrants it.

In the meantime, let’s direct our ire towards the Mueller Report and make sure we’re not getting caught up in the debate over minutia coming from it. There are serious legal, Constitutional, and ethical concerns that need to be addressed before any action can and should be taken.

But knowing politicians, they can’t be bothered with said concerns because they ruin the political narrative.

But, still totally not cynical.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

148 Views

There have been some major news stories breaking over the past week, but none has been bigger than WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange being arrested in London at the behest of the United States. Assange is a polarizing figure to many. To some, he’s an unsung hero who kept governments’ feet to the fire. To others, he is a dangerous individual who should have been arrested and jailed a long time ago.

And, as you might expect, the Left has been conflicted over his work. When it was George W. Bush getting skewered, Leftists loved Assange. When it was Hillary Clinton catching his ire, he was a Russian asset. And when President Donald Trump said he liked WikiLeaks and asked them jokingly to get her emails, Assange became persona non grata to the Left. (Persona non grata is Latin for “person without cheese.” Or something like that.)

Time to delve into the wonderful world of WikiLeaks and Assange.

Julian Assange

What the Left thinks it means – a dangerous individual who is a threat to international security

What it really means – a 21st Century version of a hired gun

The Left’s attitude towards Assange is no surprise to me because they’ve played this game before. Remember Cindy Sheehan? The Left loved her when she would protest against George W. Bush, but when she decided to run against Nancy Pelosi, Sheehan was painted as an unstable grieving mother who couldn’t find her way out of a ditch with a map, a ladder, and a sign. The Left will use whomever they want in whatever fashion they want until that person becomes a liability to them.

And Julian Assange fits that bill perfectly.

I’ve been following his efforts to shine light into the cockroach infested halls of government for years, and it’s clear he has no allegiance to any one ideology or movement. He is truly a merc with a modem. That can lead to some interesting discussions about the morality and legality of what he does. On the one hand, he is revealing information the powerful don’t want you to know (or in Hillary’s case relying on the stupidity of her campaign staffers to openly give out the information inadvertently). Knowledge is power, especially in the Information Age. Yet, what if that information results in an innocent party getting hurt? Some could argue people like Bradley “Chelsea” Manning were damaged by working with Assange. And he/she may not be the only one, just one of the more visible victims.

This raises a question that hits at both the legal and moral parts of this discussion: is disobeying a bad law for good ends justifiable? Not an easy one to puzzle out, is it? Once you factor in such elements as severity of the crime (stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family versus stealing a loaf of bread to kill your family), the frequency of the crime (a first-time offender versus a serial killer who uses baked goods to kill his victims), circumstances (a poor child versus a rich white man who washed out of culinary school and wants to take revenge on the world), and so on, the hard and fast solution we want becomes murkier and harder to obtain. Yes, Assange broke the law in at least 2 countries, and the reasons behind that lawlessness may be the result of a lawless process, but it’s hard to get past the fact the law was broken.

Of course, none of that means jack squat to the Left. They will justify lawlessness in pursuit of their own ends without fail. How do you think Al Sharpton keeps getting sweet gigs in spite of his criminal behavior? The minute Sharpton flips the script and sounds like Rush Limbaugh with a tan, the Left will turn on him faster than you can say Tawana Brawley.

But this relationship isn’t one way. Seems the Left had no problems wanting Assange taken out. I seem to remember someone from a recent previous administration who wondered out loud whether Assange could be taken out with a drone strike, but I can’t remember who that was…I’m sure it was nobody important. After all, the previous President would never let someone make a joke like that or make a similar joke about his daughters and the Jonas Brothers.

Anyway, even a joke like that would be enough to motivate him to counterattack in the only way he knew how: by releasing damning information about Hillary Clinton. Personally, I’m surprised he had the bandwidth, storage capacity, and patience to limit it to just her emails, but bully for him all the same.

Here’s where I part company with Assange. Although he’s shown he has no allegiance to the Left or the Right, I can’t quite trust him. Call it the David Brock Effect. Brock was a Republican (or so the self-professed liar said in his book Blinded By the Right), but then shifted hard Left. Whenever someone shifts that drastically, even if I agree with the outcome, I can’t completely trust that person. People with integrity can change their minds without it affecting their core convictions. I don’t get that from Assange, just like I don’t get it from Brock because I’m not convinced they have core convictions beyond the here and now. That tells me their convictions can be bought and sold depending on who’s cutting the check. What’s to say Assange doesn’t goes after Trump tomorrow if George Soros drops a few million dollars in his lap?

Granted, this is speculation on my part because I don’t know Assange well enough to say definitively. He may be as consistent and dogged as I am to get to the truth. We will see in the coming weeks and years whether he is an opportunist or a soothsayer. In the meantime, I will enjoy the Leftist meltdowns.

Popcorn, anyone?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

123 Views

On April 2nd, people in America celebrated Equal Pay Day. I didn’t, of course, because I was too busy working. Although Hallmark hasn’t figure out a way to capitalize on this event, it’s significant to Leftists because it helps them bring up the gender wage gap, a hot button issue over the past couple of decades. According to Leftist studies, women make 78% as much as men for doing the same work, hence the wage gap.

And hence Equal Pay Day.

And hence the reason I’m adding this to the Leftist Lexicon.

Equal Pay Day

What the Left thinks it means – a date symbolizing the amount of time women have to work into the current year to match what their male counterparts made in the previous year

What it really means – Kwanzaa, but with more gender politics and less economic theory

The idea of Equal Pay Day comes from the National Committee on Pay Equity, a conglomeration of women’s and civil rights groups, professional associations, labor unions, and such committed to ending gender and race-based pay discrimination. In other words, they’re Leftists, which means their grasp on economics is as tenuous as the plugs in Joe Biden’s hair during a CAT 5 hurricane. And they’re the ones who keep putting out reports showing how unfair the gender pay gap is towards women.

Of course, that’s assuming their numbers are accurate and account for all factors instead of cherry-picking the data that proves their point. Since I made the previous statement, you can assume the numbers aren’t right, and you’d be right. Mark Twain once said there are lies, damnable lies, and statistics, but the National Committee on Pay Equity use all three to advance their agenda.

Many economists, social scientists, and generally learned people have all but destroyed the idea of the wage gap, and they have done it far better than I ever could. However, I will give you an idea of why the gender pay gap, and Equal Pay Day in general, is bollox. Men and women are wired differently, so they make different choices. Whether to stay home and raise children or be a working mother. Whether to pursue a major in hard or soft science. Whether getting that degree in post-modern albino lesbian feminist comedy writing will be in demand once you get out of college. (That last one is easy to answer. There is no future in post-modern albino lesbian feminist comedy writing because they lack a sense of humor.)

These choices affect a woman’s future earning capability, which isn’t necessarily reflected in the rhetoric of the Equal Pay Day crowd. Additionally, there are cases where women are paid more than men for the same job. Just ask Google, who did their own internal study and found the gender pay gap was in favor of women instead of against them. Wait a second…isn’t Google known for being Left leaning? Why…yes! Yes it is! But I’m sure the cases of women being paid more than men are reflected in the Equal Pay Day calculations, right?

Not so much.

The problem with the gender pay gap is the statistics don’t hold up under closer examination, which puts the need for Equal Pay Day in jeopardy. In fact, once you take all the factors I mentioned (and several more I didn’t for the sake of brevity) into the equation, the gender pay gap evaporates to pennies on the dollar. In some fields, women make more than men when all of the factors are taken into account, but you don’t see men asking for an Equal Pay Day in those fields, and you won’t find any Equal Pay Day advocates pushing for it because it destroys the narrative.

It should also be pointed out the National Committee on Pay Equity also breaks down how much different minorities make as compared to whites. (Remember, they have civil rights groups as committee members.) And their methodology with these is just as bogus as their statistics about women’s pay.

Underneath the calls for equal pay for equal work, there is a base assumption: The White Man is keeping women down. So, in order to get back power and money, the Equal Pay Day folks have to take down The White Man. It’s fiscal revenge porn with a touch of blaxploitation films mixed in!

However, taking this path not only shows how racist and sexist these folks are, it underscores their lack of economic knowledge. I’ve mentioned this before, so please forgive the duplication. Leftists believe all of economics is a zero-sum game where if someone succeeds, it means that person is stealing from the less fortunate (in Leftists’ minds). However, that’s not the case most of the time. Our economy is elastic in nature, meaning it expands and contracts due to market forces and conditions. One person’s success doesn’t prevent someone else from being successful. In other words, the only zeroes in the economy are those who believe in the zero sum game.

Here’s one last tidbit for you to consider. It’s already illegal to pay people differently for the same work, and it was a law passed well before the National Committee on Pay Equity was even a thing. Of course, their response is that businesses find ways around the law to continue the practice. Well, if anyone from the National Committee on Pay Equity is reading this, let me ask a couple of simple questions.

Who is doing it, and why haven’t you brought them to justice?

It’s far easier to complain than it is to do something, and with Leftists, any problem can be turned into a money-maker. When the National Committee on Pay Equity gets around to filing suit against any of the companies they say make Equal Pay Day a necessity, then I’ll give them a second look. Until then, to quote the great philosopher Tallahassee from “Zombieland”, it’s time to nut up or shut up.