image_pdfimage_print

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

This past Thursday, 350 newspapers joined in an editorial writing campaign lamenting President Donald Trump’s attacks on the press. And because it’s a social media age, it came with a hashtag, #FreePress. These editorials and the hashtag are designed to make people aware of the vital role a free press is to maintaining a healthy democracy.

Or at least that’s what they say.

Freedom of the press is a hot-button issue, partially because of President Trump’s seemingly endless attacks on the press, and partially because the press has earned quite a bit of scorn in recent years. (I’m looking right at you, Jim Acosta and April Ryan.) Whether you consider reporters to be brave warriors against an oppressive government (which begs the question of why they’re allowed to report if the government is so oppressive) or stenographers for the Left, it’s a good time to discuss freedom of the press again.

freedom of the press

What the Left thinks it means – the freedom for the press to publish what it wants without government interference

What it really means – the freedom for the press to publish facts and let the people decide without government interference

The Left loves to conflate what they think freedom of the press is with what it really is because, to them, a free press should be unfettered by editorial, social, or political norms. And for a long time, it was. Where the two concepts part company is that the former doesn’t take said norms into consideration anymore when deciding whether to run with a story or sit on it for a while. Remember, some of the same people who decry Trump’s attacks on the press were pretty silent during the Clinton and Obama years in spite of the egregious acts those two Presidents took against the press.

Or was it that the press allowed themselves to ignore?

There’s the rub. (Settle down, Mr. Clinton.) The media have immense power to create a perception of reality simply by deciding what deserves our attention and how it’s presented. The free press are gatekeepers of information and can either promote or kill a story with a single editorial decision. Such power needs to be used judiciously and impartially as possible. Unfortunately, the free press has decided to abuse that power to cater to an ideologically-driven audience. And it worked for a long time.

Then, talk radio, Fox News, and the Internet came into being. Although they too fall into the same trap the press has, they provide an alternative view to what is being presented by other sources. You know, like the 350 newspapers parroting the same editorial about how freedom of the press is important? The Left has always seen talk radio, Fox News, and the Internet as one-offs that can be ignored/discarded/mocked, but they miss one important element: these sources are also branches of the free press tree. Just because they’re ideologically different from you doesn’t make them any less factual or balanced.

And speaking of balanced, who do you think is the most balanced news network in reporting on President Trump? That would be…Fox News, with a smaller difference between positive and negative coverage than the rest of the free press. MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times, and others have made it a personal vendetta to spew as much negative news about Trump as they can. Trump could walk on water and they would say it’s because he’s afraid to swim.

The #FreePress situation is a self-inflicted wound from people who keep turning the handle of the Gatling gun pointed at their feet in the hopes a bullet will ricochet and hit their target. Their main problem unless they change their tactics is they’ll either run out of bullets or run out of feet without even getting in a shot on their target. Say what you will about freedom of the press, but what we are seeing now from the press isn’t something that necessarily should be shrouded in the concept of a right. What the free press is doing currently is a disservice to the bedrock principles that made freedom of the press worth fighting for in the first place.

When I was just starting to learn about how to be a reporter, my journalism professor drove it into my head to leave my feelings out of what I saw and report on what happened using the best judgment available. The example he used was whether a newspaper would be okay to run the picture of a dead body next to a story about a gruesome murder. Would the picture be newsworthy? Absolutely. Should it be run? That’s a tough call. The editor making that decision would have to balance the benefits of running the photo against the negative implications that would arise from running it.

Today’s loudest defenders of freedom of the press have their thumbs on the scale of that decision, and it has created an environment where there are people who actually do want to limit the freedom of the press, including our President. And last time I checked, the President has access to nukes, so it might be a good idea to slow your roll a bit.

Having said that, freedom of the press isn’t under assault as much as those proclaiming it is are trying to make it out to be. Unless, of course, you consider being held to a level of accountability to be oppressive, which news flash…IT ISN’T! Journalism isn’t an occupation for the faint of heart, and those who take up that line of work deserve a level of respect until they try to take shortcuts, either out of laziness or out of allegiance to an ideology. And if it’s not one, it’s the other.

If the #FreePress crowd is really concerned about the negative image they’ve cultivated (admitted with President Trump’s help), they need to take a step back and do an honest accounting of what they’ve done and continue to do. Take the emotions and politics out of it and deal with the facts. If you can’t do that, you are part of the problem and you need to relearn Reporting 101. If you can and you feel you did nothing wrong, see the previous point. If you can and you can’t take pride in what you’ve done and do, then fix it and encourage others to do the same. To borrow a different hashtag with a similar sentiment, #WalkAway.

And to the reporters, editors, and media types jumping on the #FreePress bandwagon under the guise of protecting freedom of press, remember one thing. Freedom is a constant fight. You don’t get it by virtue of your occupation or ideology; you earn it by working to preserve it. A hashtag and a constant stream of negativity towards a President you don’t like in defiance of the truth, or conversely a constant stream of positivity towards a President you do like in defiance of the truth, doesn’t cut it. Earn the respect you seek.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

At the recent Netroots Nation event (basically, it’s Nerd Prom for Leftists who are actually nerds), California Senator Kamala Harris called out people critical of identity politics, saying it’s a term that “is used to divide, and it is used to distract. Its purpose is to minimize and marginalize issues that impact all of us. It is used to try to shut us up.”

For the first time in my life, I agree with Senator Harris. I’m guessing, though, not for the same reasons.

Identity politics has taken on a whole new meaning within Leftist circles, which isn’t all that surprising. The Left is comprised of a loose network of like-minded individuals working together to achieve their goals while at the same time jockeying for position like roller derby competitors so their goals are the ones that get the most attention. In other words, it’s like Jim Acosta, Jesse Jackson, and Chuck Schumer fighting over a live microphone.

And with that, we delve into this week’s Leftist Lexicon entry!

identity politics

What the Left thinks it means – issues that affect all Americans in one way or another because they affect the least powerful among us

What it really means – the politics of labels and division

To most people, I’m an average (albeit devilishly handsome) guy. To those who practice identity politics, I’m a litany of adjectives that would choke most bad writers. Since I’m heterosexual male, I’m cis-gendered who identifies as male. I’m lower middle class, so I’m a member of the working class or the underprivileged. I lean libertarian on most items, so I’m alt-right/fascist/Trumplican/white supremacist/mouth-breathing moron/the God of Hellfire and I bring you…

You get the picture. For every personal aspect, identity politics has a label for you, even if you don’t want or need it. But that’s the thing: the Left needs it to simplify its thinking. If they can figure out what you are (or what they think you are), they can identify what boxes you can check off in their Great Victimhood Lottery. Then, they can appeal to you on a personal level. You know, just like a cult leader.

And if you happen to be a contrarian like your humble reporter, those labels can be used to dismiss your opinions as wrong-think. If you support the Second Amendment, you’re a “gun nut” or an “ammosexual.” Listen to Rush Limbaugh? You’re a “right wing nut job” or a “mindless sheep.” And so on. Once Leftists identify you as a non-preferable identity based on your labels, they can and will dismiss you on any and all subjects. You could be a highly-accredited peer-reviewed published climate scientist who read a little Ayn Rand in college, but to the Left you’re scum.

Isn’t that lovely? The party of tolerance, ladies and gentlemen.

Although identity politics makes things easier to understand, it leaves out a lot of what the Left loves to call nuance. Everybody is unique, which makes it hard to put them in boxes without creating a big mess. Just because someone fits a certain arbitrary category doesn’t mean he or she is a perfect candidate for it, nor does it mean he or she will voluntarily conform to the expectations of said category. Why, it’s almost as if people are…diverse! If only there were an ideology that proclaims to be all about diversity…oh, wait, there is!

Unfortunately, the diversity the Left practices is of the superficial variety. The color of your skin, your sexual orientation, your religious background (save for Christians), and other factors are what they look for instead of ideological, intellectual, or even socio-economic factors.

And that’s where identity politics falls apart. Once you boil someone down to what he or she looks like, you miss out on the true beauty he/she brings to the table. Assuming an albino pan-sexual lesbian crossdressing midget who likes clog dancing will automatically be a Leftist removes what makes said person unique and limits what Leftists know about him or her. To use a concept Leftists love to use against others, they are removing people’s agency (and that is another blog post altogether).

Instead of looking at people as what makes them different from each other, why don’t we look at what unites us? We are all human beings with all the positives and negatives that come with being human. Anything beyond that is minutia. And this is one reason why #WalkAway has become so popular. People are tired of being stripped down to labels and being told those labels define what we must believe. The beauty of humans is that we aren’t limited by what we’re born with or as. The only limitations are the ones we impose on ourselves.

And really that’s the heart of identity politics: imposing limits on everyone in the hopes we will agree with said limits. That creates an implied need for help, and the Left is all too happy to oblige. The problem is their “help” never actually…you know…helps. It’s designed to keep people dependent upon the Left for every need, including self-esteem and personal identity. That’s slavery on a whole different level, kids.

So, Senator Harris was right. Identity politics has become a pejorative, but it’s not because of the critics. It’s because identity politics sucks.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

It’s been a bad stretch for CNN over the past couple of years. Once they were the beacon of news reporting, able to get the hottest stories before anyone else and bring it to their audience with solid facts and analysis. Today they are getting beaten in the ratings by The Food Network. How did CNN go from the #1 news source in the world to making The Weekly Reader look like they have gravitas by comparison?

Do what Leftists do: blame Donald Trump.

Although Trump’s use of “fake news” to describe CNN has a lot to do with it, there are several other factors that play just as important a role. I hope you brought your hazmat suits because this one’s gonna be toxic!

CNN

What the Left thinks it means – a news network targeted by conservatives and Trump supporters for telling the truth about Donald Trump

What it really means – a news network that has lost its way in the pursuit of being liked by Leftists

Although CNN has been around for a couple of decades, people really took notice of it during the first Gulf War in the early 1990s. They had reporters on the ground (including one Wolf Blitzer whom we’ll be talking about here in a bit) giving up-to-date reports on the fighting in Kuwait and how our military forces fared against Iraq’s military. That impressed a lot of viewers, myself included, and it made me proud to be learning the journalism trade at the time.

Shortly after the Gulf War ended, CNN went back to reporting the news, and giving airtime to a certain Democrat President who wowed audiences, ate Big Macs while being seen jogging almost every day, and seemed to echo what the media wanted to hear. Yes, CNN had a serious man-crush on Bill Clinton, and that crush grew into another arm of the White House Press Office. Slick Willie could do no wrong in their eyes.

After Clinton left office, CNN remembered “Hey, aren’t we supposed to be watchdogs against the government?” and went back to reporting hard news. When Barack Obama was elected, those watchdogs went back to being lapdogs and had a new man-crush to impress. Now, we’re back to CNN being watchdogs, albeit deaf, dumb, and blind ones. Although I do hear they sure play a mean pinball.

Today’s CNN bears little resemblance to the CNN of the early 1990s. Here are a few of the current “stars” on CNN.

Wolf Blitzer – a reporter who cut his teeth in Iraq, but got stomped like a new kid in a rough school during an episode of Celebrity Jeopardy where the questions were dumbed down

Jim Acosta – a Sam Donaldson clone washed in hot water, always shouts questions at the President even when told not to, gets threatened by people chanting “CNN sucks” and flipping him the bird

Brian Stelter – host of a program “Reliable Sources” but gets so many facts wrong people are thinking his show is ironically named

April Ryan – a White House correspondent whose questions rival those of Jim Acosta at asking ideological “gotcha” questions based more on fee-fees than facts

Chris Cillizza – a political editor who is concerned about the incivility against the media in this country while unwittingly contributing to it

And there are many, many more. Right now the only passible journalist at CNN is Jake Tapper, and he’s 50-50 at best. Still he has a higher batting average than the bulk of CNN reporters and newsreaders.

Put simply, if CNN were a theatrical production, it would definitely be a Greek tragedy because they keep harming themselves unintentionally while in the pursuit of looking like they’re on top of their reporting game. And they have their enablers…I mean fans who will defend them against any insults slung their way by Trump supporters and other people who don’t think CNN’s doing a good job.

Guess which group I’m in.

And before the Left goes to their default excuse, my disdain for CNN has nothing to do with Trump. It does, however, have everything to do with what I consider to be professional malpractice. I studied journalism in college, so I know how the way reporters are supposed to do their jobs. What we’re seeing out of CNN in 2018 is The Resistance with press passes. Oh, they’ll claim to be doing their jobs and wrap themselves in the First Amendment, but they don’t realize when people tell them CNN sucks or flips them the bird, those people are exercising their First Amendment rights. The same Amendment that gives CNN the right to report on the news of the day gives people the right to react to that reporting, or in many cases the lack thereof.

Just look at how Jim Acosta and his cohorts have reacted to a recent Trump rally in Florida where people were very expressive with their disdain for CNN. They and many others painted those Trump supporters as a hate mob fueled by the President saying CNN was the enemy of the people. Well, here’s a thought: maybe you’ve earned that designation by playing favorites instead of playing fair. There are limits to this, though. The minute you physically attack a CNN reporter, you have taken this disdain too far. Flipping the bird to Jim Acosta isn’t nice, but it’s not violence, nor does it provoke violence (except possibly for the target).

Let me give CNN a piece of free advice. Get back into the reporting business. It’s Journalism 101: the reporter should never be the story. Remember Dan Rather? Although he’s a darling of the Left now, he let himself become the story when he tried to make George W. Bush look like a draft dodger who went AWOL. The problem? The facts didn’t match up with the reporting and Rather had to resign and be forever tainted as a liar. Apparently, lying about a Republican is a resume enhancer to the Left.

Instead of learning from Rather’s mistake, CNN is doubling down and making themselves look foolish in the process. (Which I’m perfectly fine with, by the way.) But if CNN wants to be taken seriously as a news network in the future, it needs to dump the Rather reporting method and go back to what got them to being a respected news organization in the first place.

If not, expect reruns of infomercials to beat CNN in the ratings.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

If you’ve been watching the Left lately, you’ve probably noticed they’ve been trying to make socialism sexy again. If you haven’t, consider yourselves lucky because…well, they’re trying to make socialism sexy again. What started with the Bern Outs in 2016 has been reborn in 2018 thanks to new Leftist “it girl” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez beating out a Democrat stalwart in a House race in New York. Granted, both Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are couching their pro-socialism talk by supporting what they call “democratic socialism”, but it’s still socialism.

As a result, Leftists are putting a new coat of paint on an old ideology in the hopes of attracting new people to their cause. In the meantime, let’s traipse into the world of socialism.

socialism

What the Left thinks it means – a social system where everyone pitches in to help each other

What it really means – a socioeconomic system where everyone is encouraged to be mediocre

One of the Left’s primary talking points when talking about socialism is to try to separate the social element of it from the economic element. For that, they bring up communism as the economic side of socialism, which is of course complete bunk. Socialism and communism are ideological cousins of the kissing variety, if you know what I mean. They really can’t be separated effectively because they have the same basic tenets: government control of all aspects of an economy and its societal counterpart. There are slight differences, I grant you, but those difference revolve around how much force is used to attain the equality they both claim to want to achieve. Socialists tend to rely on a call to community unity, while communists rely on a call to arms. Put another way, socialism is communism on pot, and communism is socialism on PCP.

Even so, socialism is attractive to people because it seems so friendly. Bernie Sanders wasn’t on the stump telling people to tear down the ruling class. He looked too much like your grandpa or crazy uncle you occasionally see at family reunions. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t look like a female Che Guevara; she looks like someone you might have gone to school with or saw in a coffee shop. Even some of our best-known celebrities say socialism is okay, and we can trust celebrities, right?

That’s one of the great historical ironies about socialism. It’s an idea that curries favor with the wealthy, but it’s rarely acted upon by those same people. Socialism is easy if you never intend to be held to its standards, but for those who went along with it and weren’t rich enough to live behind the gilded gates of private communities, it sucks.

And that’s a dirty little secret behind socialism: there is a class structure within it that negates what it stands for. The former Soviet Union is a prime example of this. (And before any Leftists say the Soviets weren’t real socialists, see my earlier comparison of communism and socialism.) Although the average Russian communist was living hand to mouth, government officials had far more luxuries (and, oddly enough, freedoms) than their proletariat brethren. Socialism runs on the same principles as communism and the results are the same. There will always be the haves and have-nots, thus making socialism as realistic as James Comey’s excuses for why he didn’t prosecute Hillary Clinton.

Leftists pushing socialism like to point at Europe and some of our own government programs as proof socialism isn’t scary. Why, we could just look to the Swedish model of socialism and use that (at least according to Bern Outs). The problem? Sweden isn’t really socialist. They are capitalist economically and statist socially, meaning…they’re ultimately capitalist because they have to be. Money doesn’t come out of thin air, and in Sweden it comes from…wait for it…high taxes. The minute the haves decide to move away to a country that doesn’t tax them for being rich, there is no backup plan and their socialism-lite goes the way of Crystal Pepsi and New Coke. For socialism to truly exist, there has to be an income source that can be drawn upon. In other words, socialism doesn’t work unless there is wealth to be distributed.

Then again, socialism doesn’t work, period. But we’ll get to that later.

But what about our government programs, like Medicare and Medicaid? Surely they are examples of socialism working, right? Annnnnnnd no. These programs aren’t actually socialist either because they take mainly from the working class instead of the rich and give to the non-working class and poor. In short, if you put in any significant amount of time at a job, you’re a have. Doesn’t matter if you make the poor on Skid Row look like Bill Gates. You are a source of income to socialists because you have what others don’t.

Really makes you wonder why anyone would back socialism, doesn’t it?

And here’s the kicker. There can never be true socialism because humans aren’t uniform and many have  a desire to excel. Granted, some people want to be good at Xbox, but it’s still a desire that cannot be taken away. When you have that, you will always have people who are better than average and others who are worse than average. Try building a society based around equality when you can’t even find two people who are equal across the board and share the same interests at the same level. You’ll have better luck finding a Kardashian with actual marketable skills.

The way socialism deals with the problem is to treat everyone as though they were exactly the same. It works great if you suck at your job because you get paid as much as the ones who are doing just enough to get by. On the other hand, it sucks if you’re great at your job because you have no incentive to do more than you have to since you’re getting paid the same. That tends to make everyone mediocre at best. It also tends to stop innovation because you aren’t rewarded for it. Capitalism isn’t perfect, but you’re more likely to get rewarded for hard work and being good at a job than you are under socialism.

So, why is socialism so popular today? That’s a good question. I think it’s due to a combination of factors from a lack of historical and economic knowledge to trying to protect kids from experiencing failure by celebrating even minimal effort to making the marginally passable into the excellence of today. (I’m looking at you, Starbucks. Five bucks for coffee made from beans more burnt than my skin after falling asleep on the sun?) At the core of it all, however, is the elevation of laziness as a virtue and the downgrading of excellence to a vice.

No matter whether it’s someone who looks like your grandpa or your college roommate telling you socialism is the wave of the future, remember we’ve tried socialism before in America. It’s called the Mayflower Compact, and it didn’t work out so well for the Pilgrims. And if it didn’t work when there were far fewer people in the country, there’s no way it works with today’s America.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Recently, President Donald “Sick of Winning Yet?” Trump met privately with Russian President Vladimir “No Beans for Me Because I’m” Putin in Helsinki. And as expected, the Left reacted like they usually do on a day ending in Y: they lost their collectivist minds. After decades of telling us we should be more like Russia, the Left pulled a 180 and said Russia was our enemy. (Couldn’t have something to do with the fact Russia may have had a hand in exposing the DNC as a corrupt bunch of morons, could it? Naaaaaaaah!) And because Trump met with Putin in private, there is a new word that has formed on Leftists’ lips: treason.

Seven little letters, one big accusation.

Although I’ve covered this topic before, in light of the current Leftist freakout du jour, let’s take another look at treason to see what all the fuss is about.

treason

What the Left thinks it means – helping an enemy to undermine America at any time

What it really means – a highly-charged term that is being waaaaaaaaay overused right now

Since we’re dealing with a political/legal term, let’s take a look at what the US Code says about treason. Title 18 of the Code states the following:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Death or imprisonment and fines? There go my summer vacation plans…

Seriously, the US Code opens up a lot of questions pertinent to the current discussion of whether Trump’s meeting with Putin rises to the level of treason. The first question is what constitutes an enemy of the United States. Well, that’s open for debate. For example, I would consider Michael Bay to be an enemy of the United States because he doesn’t know how to make a good movie. Furthermore, anyone who keeps going to his movies are giving him aid and comfort by encouraging him to make more Transformers movies. Others (presumably Mr. Bay himself included) would disagree.

In the current scenario, the Left wants us to see Russia as an enemy, which would support their claim Trump committed treason. The reality, however, is a bit more complicated. Russia isn’t quite our enemy. They do things that make it look and sound that way, but they are still considered to be somewhat friendly towards us. And make no mistake, I trust Putin slightly more than a used car salesman at Uncle Sleazy’s Auto Emporium (where their motto is “205 Fraud Convictions Don’t Stop Us From Making Great Deals”). My personal misgivings aside, Russia and the US have maintained a tolerable relationship. To call Russia an enemy is like calling Bill Nye the Science Guy a source for accurate information on climate change: it might be right, but not often enough.

Leftists also point to Trump’s frequent criticisms of our intelligence agencies as proof of his treason, but even that’s a stretch thanks to a little thing the kids like to call the First Amendment. Although Trump’s mistrust of intelligence (both literal and governmental) can be harsh and undeserved at times, he has a right to speak his mind and to redress grievances with the government. And that includes the intelligence community. For the Left to be right…err correct on this, they would have to say the President exercising his First Amendment rights is tantamount to treason.

Let that sink in for a moment. Then get a really stiff drink to steel yourself for the next sentence.

This is what the Left is going for in lieu of a message for the midterms.

Even though Trump’s not running, the Left is using the “Treason Summit” as a means to hold Republican candidates accountable for what the Left says Trump did. Granted, the Right does this, too, but it’s stupid no matter who does it. And with the charge itself being more tenuous than the plot of a murder mystery written by Joe Biden, it makes the Left look unhinged. That may be what the cool kids are doing, but outside the DNC bubble, it doesn’t play well to test audiences. That’s why #WalkAway is a thing now.

Pushing the treason argument is a calculated move, but one that reeks of desperation. As much as the Left keeps talking about a “Blue Wave” in November, the current environment isn’t conducive to a wave, blue or otherwise. The DNC is losing donors, money, and long-time candidates at an alarming rate, so they need something to fire up their base to try to stop the bleeding. And apparently their solution involves accusing Trump of treason because…well, they’re still working on a reason that sounds better than “because we want him removed from office for beating Hillary Clinton.”

Ah, but there’s the problem. If you allow yourself to get caught up in the emotion without taking a moment to ask whether a private meeting between two world leaders constitutes treason, you’re going to get really disappointed when people outside of your circles aren’t willing to join you in your quest. Face it, kids. Crying “treason” right now isn’t going to help you win back the House and Senate, and it may wind up hurting you in 2020, which is going to be the next time you will have a chance to beat President Trump. Impeachment has gone nowhere. The Mueller investigation has gone nowhere. And treason will go nowhere, and for the same reason as impeachment and “Mueller Time”: a lack of discernable evidence that can’t be reasoned away.

In the meantime, let’s grab some popcorn and a cold drink and watch the fireworks!

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Even before most of America knew Brett Kavanaugh’s name, Leftists were more scared than a Frenchman at a World War II reenactment that the new Supreme Court Justice would overturn Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that made it legal for women to get abortions. Whether it was talking about a “woman’s right to choose” or “healthcare for women”, the Left has it bad for protecting the Roe decision under any and all circumstances.

Including making themselves look like jackasses in the process.

I try not to delve too much into these serious issues much for two reasons. One, I will invariably evoke an emotional response out of a reader which tends to devolve into an online shouting match and open questioning of my lineage. And before we get there, my mother was not a female dog, so you can just drop it. The other reason is because trying to find a lighter touch on a hot-button issue like Roe v. Wade is like asking Lindsey Lohan to babysit while you’re off on a two month European vacation; it might be okay, but more than likely it’s going to wind up badly.

So, with that in mind, let’s take a look at Roe v. Wade.

Roe v. Wade

What the Left thinks it means – A Supreme Court decision that is essential for women’s autonomy, healthcare, and self-worth

What it really means – Bad law based on lies

Hopefully, I wasn’t too subtle with my opinion on the subject matter. I occasionally get accused of being obtuse.

In my younger days, I was pro choice for the same reason Bill Clinton is: to score with the ladies. Unlike Bill, however, it didn’t equate into so much as a second glance from women. On the other hand, I didn’t get impeached for using an immature intern as a personal humidor, so I got that going for me.

As I got older, I decided to do some research on the matter and read some of the legal arguments made in the Roe decision because I know how to party! Anyway, the gist of the arguments in favor of allowing a woman to have an abortion came down to an interpretation of when life began. The lawyers arguing in favor of abortion said British common law made it clear a baby could be terminated within the womb because it wasn’t recognized as a true human being.

Yeah, about that…seems British common law says nothing of the sort. In fact, there is a concept known as the “quickening” referring to a human’s life or spirit. To put it simply, our British ancestors believed a child in the womb had quickening and, thus, was a life. Kind of a problem for the pro choicers who say it’s just a “clump of cells”, wouldn’t you say?

Beyond that, the Supreme Court turned abortion into a federal issue because it broadened the Constitution to include a right that wasn’t really in there: the right to privacy. The arguments made to invent this right were based off the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which has nothing to do with privacy at all. Here’s what it says:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In other words…no state can make a law that doesn’t apply to everyone…which still has nothing to do with privacy.

For all of the legal, Constitutional, and emotional arguments in favor of keeping Roe v. Wade as is, there is one hard fact that the Left doesn’t want us to consider: abortion kills a baby almost every single time. It’s not a clump of cells. It’s not an unviable tissue mass. It’s not a part of a woman’s body. It is a baby. Full stop. With all of the blatant dishonesty and excuses, it’s hard to imagine how much fear the prospect of a child being allowed to come to term puts in the Left.

That’s because the Left makes serious bank off keeping Roe v. Wade in place. Any time a politician suggests even a slight restriction on abortion, the Left whips its supporters into a frenzy and asks them for money. The supporters send money (and dress up like giant vaginas for some reason) to Leftist politicians who will defend the right to kill babies in the womb. Then, sometimes these politicians get into positions where they can allocate federal tax dollars to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood (not directly of course because it would be illegal) who then pays executives with said funds who then turn around and donate money back to the politicians who got them the tax dollars to begin with. No matter how much the Left tries to launder the funds they use for abortion clinics, it is literally blood money.

As much as I disdain abortion as a practice, Roe v. Wade will remain unaffected at least for now. Even with Brett Kavanaugh’s potential appointment to the Supreme Court, it would still take a legal challenge to Roe before any judge, let alone a Supreme Court Justice, would get a chance to render a verdict. But the Left still needs to keep that sweet abortion cash flowing into its coffers (especially considering the DNC makes Arthur Andersen look fiscally responsible). That means maintaining the lies they’ve told since the original court case was settled.

But now that you know some of the ins and outs of the lies, you can be ready to address the lies when they’re told.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

To hear the Left talk about the upcoming midterm elections, it’s a lock. They will take back the House and Senate and finally put President Donald Trump in his place (and out of the White House, if they have anything to say about it). Yet, with all great plans, there is a fatal flaw.

And this one starts with a hashtag because why not.

Started by a former Democrat, #WalkAway has caught on among people who saw their party get nuttier than squirrel poop and no longer represented their views. In response, current Democrats acted as they normally do…and started calling the #WalkAway movement names.

Unlike Leftists, I’m willing to give them a fair shake (and a little publicity, perhaps) by exploring their movement in greater detail than the Left can be bothered to muster.

#WalkAway

What the Left thinks it means – a hashtag movement created by Russians, Republicans, and/or Trump to cost the Democrats the midterm elections

What it really means – a group of former Democrats and Leftists who are finding their way out of the Leftist morass

I truly understand what the #WalkAway movement is about because it wasn’t that long ago I was just like them. I was a proud Leftist, believing every word, fighting for every cause, and generally living my life according to the Leftist model. And it sucked. Imagine the worst day of your life, a day when you were at your lowest and most touchy. Now, imagine living that same day over and over again. That’s what being a Leftist feels like.

Eventually, it got to a point where I couldn’t be a Leftist anymore and I struck out on my own politically. It’s not easy by any stretch of the imagination. It’s like being the black sheep of the family, only with a lot less wool. Moving away from the Leftist promises of utopia and into an uncertain ideological world was one of the toughest things I ever chose to do, but it was also one of the most fulfilling.

To put it mildly, Leftists hate free thinkers more than Hillary Clinton hates the Electoral College. They need people to believe only what they’re told, no matter how bizarre or out of character it seems to be. They don’t start right with normalizing extreme positions; they try to get you to build up to it (with their “help” of course) so you can’t back away from the end goal. If you deviate even one micron from the script, they will harangue until you conform or get cast out.

Guess where the Left is right now with the #WalkAway movement, kids. That’s right! They’re in the haranguing stage. Art Bell couldn’t come up with the sheer number of conspiracy theories the Left has devised to explain the movement away. They’re connected to Russia. They’re not really Democrats. They’re Republican plants. They’re angry Bernie Sanders didn’t win. They’re turning frogs gay. (Sorry, that last one was from Alex Jones, but I was on a roll.)

Many people put in that situation crack under the pressure, but some use that hardship to stiffen their backbones and stand up. Granted, everyone has a different “trigger” as it were, but a lot of accounts I’ve watched and read come down to one central event: the #WalkAway folks got turned off by the current crop of Leftists running the Democratic Party. When your party’s freshest face is a 28 year old former bartender turned fully avowed “democratic socialist”, you know your party’s taken the bullet train to What Can We Advocate That Will Guarantee We Will Lose Elections-ville.

But that’s the beauty of the #WalkAway movement. It’s not about politics as much as it is about wanting a better America. Many have become Trump supporters, while others are still deciding what their next ideological step might be. But their stories have a similar ring of truth to them. They all got turned off by the direction of the party they supported and decided to stop chasing broken promises of Leftist utopia and start chasing their version of the American Dream.

Time will tell if #WalkAway becomes a driving force in politics or if they fizzle out like Err America. But one thing is for certain: the Left is scared. That means they’ll throw everything they can at them to make the #WalkAway movement submit or be so discredited as to become pariahs. Ask Alan Dershowitz about his last trip to Martha’s Vineyard. Eye-opening stuff.

While the Left seeks to consolidate its power before the midterm elections, it is starting to look like an exclusive party where only some people are let in and given power. And although Hillary Clinton won the popular vote in 2016 by around three million votes (just ask her), that number is starting to contract at the worst possible time for the Left. They need every single vote (even the posthumous ones) to try to check President Trump legislatively and seek revenge for the ultimate sin: making Leftists look like the unhinged asshats they truly are.

As much as I disagree with the President, it cannot be understated how his election to the Presidency created the environment that gave us Maxine Waters becoming a national figurehead for the Democrats and the #WalkAway movement becoming a real threat to the Party of Aunt Maxine. The road ahead will be dangerous for both sides of that equation, but moreso for those who have chosen to walk away. Coming out as a recovering Leftist can be more harrowing than coming out as gay or letting Anthony Weiner use your laptop, and with the kinds of things Leftists are known to do and justify doing to Trump supporters, that danger is real.

But, I urge the #WalkAway movement to be fearless, for the greatest weapon the Left has against you is your emotions. They will make you out to be only slightly more popular than jock itch as a means to bring you back in line. Threats of violence, doxing, or other modern tortures await you if you choose this path.

But you won’t travel alone. As long as I have breath in my body, I will #WalkAway with you. J

ust not so fast. I’m not as young as I used to be and I have missed my cardio workouts for, oh, the past 3 decades.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

As we gear up for another Independence Day, many people take time to reflect on America and what makes it great. When you think about it, we do have a pretty neat country. In spite of all of our flaws, we typically try to do the right thing. It may take us a while to get there, but we get there eventually. What drives Americans? What spark fires our imaginations and makes us take chances in the hopes of finding a better way?

Porn.

Actually, it’s the American Dream. Depending on who you ask, the American Dream is either alive and well, dead and dying, or never existed in the first place because of the aforementioned flaws. The first two conditions are often politically-motivated, but that last one tends to be a foundational concept of the Left. Instead of accentuating the positive, they obsess over the negative and paint a picture of our country so bleak even Sylvia Plath painting a still life in a dark basement would seem like Up With People.

So, let’s dip our patriotic tootsies into the waters of the American Dream.

the American Dream

What Leftists think it means – an impossible-to-achieve ideal that seeks to whitewash America’s multiple flaws while giving people false hope

What it really means – an ideal that inspires people to dare to be great

In spite of the Left trying to make America look like the Bizarro World version of the Emerald City, people from all over the world still want to come here, as millions of others before them did.  Whether they were coming to start a new life, get experience, escape oppression, or just because their calendars were free, those immigrants wanted to be here. That’s not by accident, folks. That was because of, for lack of a better term, the American Dream.

Trying to nail down what the American Dream means is trickier than arm wrestling an octopus because it’s different for everyone and linked to the times in which we live. In the 1950s, the American Dream was a house, white picket fence, two cars in the garage, and kids and a dog. In the 1960s, the American Dream was a reduction in racial discrimination. The 1970s gave us an American Dream that included first wave feminism and a focus on the self. (Oh, and a lot of cocaine.) The 1980s showed us an American Dream of patriotism, success in the business world, and family values. (Oh, and a lot more cocaine.)

When we got to the 1990s, the American Dream shifted away from what we experienced in the 1980s. At that time, it went from thinking long term to living in the moment. We needed stuff and we needed it now! And it hasn’t gotten much better since then. Today’s American Dream might be getting a brand new iPhone when they become available in, oh, 3 minutes, or maybe it’s to become a YouTube star, or maybe it’s just having the Starbucks barista get your triple shot low fat soy milk caramel macchiato at just the right temperature. Dream big, I always say!

Even though the American Dream has changed, the heart of it remains. Whether we strive for the house and family or the perfect cup of coffee, we know it’s out there. All we need to do is believe we can find it and put in the work to make it happen. That’s what makes it such an attractive concept to so many, including your humble correspondent. At the turn of the 20th Century, America became home to people who had similar aspirations and drive. We were (and still are) a nation built on exploration and pushing ourselves to our limits, all for the shot of making it. From Plymouth Rock to New York City, if you can make it here, you can make it anywhere.

You know, that would be a great idea for a song! Let’s get someone on that right away!

Until the money starts rolling in from that totally original idea, I will continue to look for ways to live my concept of the American Dream, and I encourage all of you reading this to do the same. And don’t forget to appreciate the freedom we have to live our dreams.

Happy Independence Day!

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” – “The New Colossus” by Emma Lazarus

“Especially if we can get them to vote Democrat.” – the DNC corollary

Just like a Tyler Perry movie, it seems impossible to get away from the topic of illegal immigration. (Editor’s Note: As Tom was writing this, three more Tyler Perry movies have been shot and will be released in the next 9 hours.) However, a new twist to the discussion came out recently, thanks to Leftists. In an attempt to remove the stigma of people illegally coming into America, Leftists have claimed these people were seeking asylum, which makes the alleged separation of children from parents even worse Naziesque. (Editor’s Note: As Tom was writing this, Leftists make 9,348,178,399,298,804,367,316 Trump/Hitler comparisons.)

Maybe it’s time we educate ourselves (and hopefully Leftists) on what asylum actually means.

asylum

What the Left thinks it means – extending America’s protection to the less fortunate, regardless of circumstances

What it really means – extending America’s protection to the less fortunate with certain conditions

Contrary to popular Leftist belief, asylum is a bit more complicated than just showing up with a suitcase and an expectation to be let in. There are forms that have to be completed (because…government) and a process to be followed (also, because…government). Although this tends to go against my inclination to want a smaller government, this is one area I can understand. Abuse of the asylum option means any Juan, Ricardo, and Jorge can claim it even if the real reason they’re fleeing their home country is because they have overdue library books. Then again, being married to a librarian, that might be a federal offense.

And it’s abuse of the asylum option the Left is advocating right now. By turning every illegal immigrant as an asylum seeker, it waters down the spirit of why we have it in the first place. When someone seeks asylum, it’s because he or she are seeking protection from his or her home country. In other words, we are sticking our necks out for these people and allowing them to come here and be protected. That’s one of the reasons we take the steps we do. If we take in a mass murderer because he or she requests asylum, it makes a mockery of asylum and makes us look worse than David Duke on…well, any day.

As bad as the photos from the detention centers are (which seem to be at least faked more than a Stormy Daniels…”performance”), imagine the damage that could be done to us by making asylum as easy to get as the aforementioned Ms. Daniels. Yet, that’s what Leftists want to do because it suits their needs, politically and financially. And when you add money and power to a situation, the Left will do everything in its power to guarantee a result in their favor.

Case in point, the efforts to malign President Donald Trump for what amounts to inheriting a problem previous Administrations left for him. Trump hasn’t been flawless in his approach, but he has made more strides in two weeks than the Presidents from Reagan to Obama did in years. You can argue about the specifics (and believe me I have), but at least we are moving forward instead of just moving a can down the road.

Asylum should be granted to those who can show they have a legitimate concern with retaliation from their home countries, but those who request it have to do it the right way. It shouldn’t be granted to anyone who wants it. Much like citizenship for those who emigrate here, it has to be earned. Leftists want it to be given like water at a marathon.

But I’m willing to meet the Left halfway on this. They can get their expanded asylum on one condition: they have to take responsibility for those granted asylum on everything from providing basics to ensuring they get American citizenship to guaranteeing their new charges don’t break the law.

So, what do you say, Leftists? Do it…for the children.

Share This:

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Senator Elizabeth Warren is scared. Of what? Aside from taking a free DNA test to establish her Native American history, she is scared of what judicial nominees proposed by President Donald Trump might do! They might actually…rule in a particular ideological manner. (You know, like what many of Barack Obama’s judicial nominees did? I’m looking right at you, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.)

Fortunately, there is a term Chief Running Mouth’s concerns: judicial activism. And it’s especially fortunate for me, since I can write this week’s Leftist Lexicon!

judicial activism

What the Left thinks it means – judges ruling against common sense and the will of the people for purely conservative goals

What the Right thinks it means – judges ruling against common sense and the will of the people for purely liberal/Leftist goals

What it really means – judges ruling against common sense and the will of the people for purely ideological goals that have no basis in logic or existing law

Although I’m primarily focusing on the Left’s concept of judicial activism, I have to look at the Right’s concept of it briefly. Conservatives tend to look at the law as sacrosanct and rigid, so when a judge forces the law to bend a bit, it can be disconcerting to say the least, especially if the change doesn’t seem to make sense. Take the recent court rulings related to Christian bakers being sued by gay couples. Conservatives and libertarians, such as your humble correspondent, saw the change made by judicial fiat as shaky and illogical while limiting the freedoms of others. Even if we agreed with the end goal, the way we got to that goal can be an example when the bench made law.

And the Left is perfectly fine with it, as long as they agree with the decision.

The Left sees the law as more flexible than Plastic Man doing yoga. If there is a law stating “No Dogs Allowed”, the Left will find a way to turn it into “Only Dogs That Self-Identify As Dogs Not Allowed, and Even Then It’s Okay.” Why is this? Because the more gray a law is, the more flexible it becomes and the more exceptions that can be turned into law by finding a judge that agrees with the Left’s ideology. Given enough time, the Left would find a way to make it illegal to miss “The View”.

This dichotomy between the Left and the Right as it pertains to the law shows us two of the purposes of the law. One is to protect the public (which is what the Right tends to favor), and the other is to punish those who violate it (which is what the Left tends to favor). Put another way, the law is like a gun: it depends on how you use it that determines the result.

Now watch my email box overflow with Leftists complaining about “gun culture” or some such.

The point is a single judge’s decision in a court case may not be limited to that one situation thanks to a little thing the kids like to call precedent. Whenever there is a court decision, it can be used again and again like the Russia excuse for why Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election. And when you have Leftists involved, those court decisions can and will be used in all sorts of bizarre and unrelated ways. Need to justify shutting down a Christian baker who refuses to decorate a cake for a gay wedding for dogs? Well, according to Schmedlapp vs. Throckmorton (a case that had to do with two neighbors fighting over who owned the crabgrass on a particular parcel of land), the baker has to do it because the judge said something about dogs being gay over crabgrass. Never mind the fact the judge was using the term “gay” to mean “happy”! Words matter!

Ah, but there’s another element of the law the Left doesn’t like to discuss: the spirit of the law. As much as they say they see nuance, the Left completely ignores it when it comes to the law because more often than not it ruins what they want to achieve through judicial activism. You can muddy the waters with language, but it’s a lot harder to do with the spirit of the law because it tends to be contextual and specific. Once you start bringing facts and context into the equation, judicial activism becomes more transparent and less justifiable.

To Chief Running Mouth’s point, it’s not that Trump is appointing judges who aren’t impartial. It’s that he’s appointing judges that aren’t partial to the Left, and that can only mean disaster for them. But if the judges Trump appoints are equally as loose with the law as the Left’s appointments tend to be, we will have the same problem, just with a different colored team jersey. Any judge who lets ideology trump the law should be removed from the bench because he or she is putting a thumb on the scales of justice and creating more headaches down the road. And when you consider the current jurisprudence cholesterol that clogs up our legal system (just watch any judge show for a week for proof), we don’t need to add judicial activism making the problem worse!

Share This: