Tag: leftist lexicon

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Since its inception, the Internet has been home to three main things: porn, cat pictures, and conspiracy theories. Whether it’s “exposing” the Bilderbergs or finding the CIA’s connections to if the cat can haz cheeseburger, there are parts of the Information Superhighway that lead to sketchy neighborhoods.

During the Trump Administration, the Left heaped scorn on QAnon, a movement sharing pro-Trump information and finding conspiracies where there weren’t any. Now, the Left has its own QAnon group, nicknamed “Blue Anon.” And, as with most things the Left is involved in, it’s divisive. There are some who take Blue Anon as seriously as the footnotes in a Buzzfeed article, and others who take it very seriously as the Leftist hackery in a Buzzfeed article. In either case, it’s worth further mockery…I mean examination.

Blue Anon

What the Left thinks it means – Ummmm…let me circle back with you on that…

What it really means – a sign not everything is rosy in Bidenland

In my lifetime, I’ve watched as the Democrat Party went from a political party to a collective of loosely-connected voting blocs, often working at cross purposes, who vote the way they do because “they’re better than Republicans.” In the past two Presidential election cycles, though, there is a core of activists who don’t necessarily agree the Democrats are better than the Republicans and feel the party needs to move further Left. Apparently because these activists want to lose more elections, thus ensuring they will be “oppressed” with their iPhones and Starbucks lattes.

And it’s in these pockets of resistance where Blue Anon thrives. With Donald Trump out of office, they have to find a different Boogeyman to sustain their narrative that has the cushiest oppression this side of a 4 star day spa. Guess what, Leftists? They’re gunning for you now! Or they would if they didn’t believe guns were a tool of white supremacy or the Patriarchy or some such.

Regardless, Blue Anon isn’t happy with the current crop of Leftists running things, as is evidenced by watching the Socialist Socialite and the Squad take pot-shots at Nancy Pelosi whenever it’s politically expedient to do so, but to walk in line behind her most of the time. Say what you will about the Squad, they’ve picked up the Washington Cha-Cha pretty quickly. But they’re still committed to a more progressive Democrat Party in the near future, and the sooner for them, the better. As a result, there are people who not only buy into the idea Karl Marx had some good ideas, but also believe the current Democrat Party leadership is working against them.

Welcome to the Blue Anon Petrie dish!

To be fair, Blue Anon does have a point. The Leftist leadership wants nothing to do with advancing a more progressive agenda. A progressive agenda, yes, but not nearly as progressive as Blue Anon wants because of one thing: the Leftist leadership wants to stay in leadership. Losing elections because you took a hard stand to protect the Twin-Billed Yellow Sapsucker at the expense of a few thousand jobs isn’t something the leaders relish. Oh, they’ll pay it more lip service than Andrew Cuomo with his subordinates, but for some strange reason, they promptly forget it once they’ve secured enough votes to keep their butts Crazy Glued to their seats for the next millennia. It’s this reality of politics that escapes Blue Anon like most prisoners at Stalag 13, and it’s also the fuel for their conspiracy theories.

The thing to remember about any conspiracy theory is there is usually a nugget of truth in it. You may have to dig for it, but it’s there. With Blue Anon, the nugget of truth is there in the open, mainly because political Leftists aren’t afraid to show their contempt for people they consider inferior (i.e. not them). Where Blue Anon goes off the rails is when they attribute every bad outcome on the same nugget of truth even when there is no connection. To be fair, this is the same problem QAnon has, but it’s a feature of any conspiracy theory worth its salt.

Another feature, which is the fatal flaw, is the fact it can be reasonably explained away with common sense. In order to believe any conspiracy theory, you have to simultaneously believe the powers that be are so clever as to get into positions of power without being noticed while simultaneously being stupid enough to let the “real facts” get leaked to the conspiracy theorists. Now, I’ll admit I’m not an expert on stuff like this, but if the only people who know the truth are people you wouldn’t trust not to injure themselves with a plastic spork, I’m willing to bet they and the truth aren’t on speaking terms.

That is what makes Blue Anon so funny to me. These are people so convinced of their mental superiority while at the same time getting suckered in by an absurd con solely because it feeds into their preconceived ideas. That’s the hook, kids. Blue Anon works for Leftists because it reinforces their beliefs, no matter how silly or unrealistic. And before Leftist leaders can say “Et tu, AOC?” Blue Anon will start asserting their perceived power in an attempt to create political power.

And most of the time they will get crushed in the process. Ask Cindy Sheehan about trying to take on Nancy Pelosi.

On a bigger scale, Blue Anon represents the biggest failure of the Biden Administration to date: the inability to unite the country. There will be more failure to come, I assure you, but the failure to unite the country (which was one of the cornerstones of why Joe got the gig in the first place) will certainly be hard to top. And, yes, I know Leftists are blaming Trump and conservatives for this, which is fair. But you supported Joe Biden on the basis that he wasn’t Donald Trump and could bring the country back together again. Also, don’t give me the “he’s only been in office for X months” because Joe Biden was in office for most of my life, and I’m 51 as of the date of this writing. The fact he’s had decades to come up with a cogent vision isn’t undone because he just moved into the White House. Not to mention, he was Vice President for 8 years under Barack Obama, so it’s not like he’s been hiding in his basement…oh, wait.

Seriously, though, Blue Anon is going to be a thorn in the Left’s side for months to come because they can’t just dismiss them like they dismissed QAnon without political consequences, namely the 2022 midterm elections. Yet, they can’t simply accept Blue Anon at face value because the conspiratorial stink will rub off on them.

Welcome aboard the Kobiashi Maru, kids!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Even though the Presidential election has been over for 4 months, we’re still talking about it. I know elections have consequences, but I didn’t think one of them would be being bored out of my mind while watching people with zero clue about how government works argue over simple concepts. And the normal people trying to educate them can be frustrating, too.

Lately, the conversation has revolved around election security, and, no, I’m not talking about the possibility of having armed guards at polling places. Leftists are doing everything they can to not only say anyone who rejects the notion the 2020 election had issues with voter fraud, but also to say future elections are subject to voter fraud.

Yes, they are that contradictory.

But what to Leftists mean when they speak about election security? It’s not what you think…

election security

What the Left thinks it means – methods to expand the voting base

What it really means – methods to ensure Leftists win more often

When you look at the various proposals Leftists have come up with to promote election security (and I have because I have no life), it’s astounding what they’ve managed to lump together. Here are some of the high/low/no lights

– Abolishing the filibuster in the Senate
– Preventing gerrymandering
– Promoting mail-in voting
– Working against any new laws requiring a photo ID to vote
– Electing more Democrats/Leftists
– Making it easier to register potential voters

Maybe it’s me, but there seems to be a lack of security in the Left’s election security proposals. Between the ridiculous (preventing gerrymandering) to the sublime (blocking Voter ID bills), I have yet to see how any of these would lead to the kind of widespread election security the Left say they want.

Unless…this isn’t actually about election security at all!

And it’s not. The Left has any number of ways to create electoral chaos, from voter registration fraud (hi, former ACORN nuts!) to ballot harvesting to “helping” seniors fill out ballots for Democrat candidates to accepting and counting votes from the posthumous. The Left has a vested interest in keeping the chaotic status quo because these aforementioned election shenanigans would go the way of Andrew Cuomo’s popularity with the elderly in New York.

Keep this in mind the next time Leftists claim Republicans can’t win elections without cheating.

The scary thing to acknowledge is that some of the Left’s election security ideas have merit. I’m okay with eliminating gerrymandering because it turns Congressional districts into an Etch-A-Sketch. Just when you have the lines drawn the way you want, someone else can come along, shake it all up, and force you start over. As current state-level politics lie, Republicans have the Etch-A-Sketch in a majority of the states, so it’s no wonder the Left wants to get rid of it. In doing so, however, they remove the power they would have if/when they win back the states. Not to mention, the Left have used gerrymandering for the express purpose of getting more minorities elected to Congress. As we’ve seen with Congressional geniuses like Hank “Guam Is Tipping Over” Johnson, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Maxine Waters, this is a brilliant idea that can in no way make the Left look bad.

To any Leftists reading this piece, that last sentence was sarcasm.

Although I agree with the elimination of gerrymandering, it shouldn’t be involved in any discussion about election security (nor should it be involved in any discussion of Senate elections, yet it happens). On the other hand, there are potential solutions, like voter ID, that should be involved in any discussion about election security, but get dismissed by Leftists because…they might work.

Take voter ID, for example. Having potential voters show some form of identification before they vote is (or at least should be) the cornerstone of election security. The fact the Left pushes back so hard on this should be a red flag as to their commitment to secure elections. More to the point, though, voter ID laws speak to actual election security because they address a major problem with voting as it stands now: in many cases, we don’t know who is voting and whether they’re eligible to vote. Granted, it’s not foolproof given the number of fools out there willing to test the boundaries, but it’s a step in the right direction. The underlying issues of availability and cost to get the necessary identification are related, but not to the point that they negate the positive impacts.

Since it doesn’t perpetuate the problem and the stereotypes connected to it (namely, that Leftists believe minorities are too poor and/or stupid to get ID cards), the Left will never go for it. Which is why we have to. As with personal security, election security starts and ends with us. That’s going to require a bit of effort on our part, but it’s going to be worth it if for no other reason than to watch Leftists’ heads explode as their strategies face the failure that comes with honest men and women doing the right thing.

In the meantime, be careful of Leftists bearing promises of election security. Unless, of course, you think the election equivalent of Barney Fife might do a good job.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

There are times when I shake my head in disbelief at what the Left takes seriously. This is one of those times.

It starts with New York Times tech reporter Taylor Lorenz taking her role to new depths by attempting to publicly shame a conservative mother online through bullying her daughter. Rightly, Lorenz has been called out for this behavior. Then, she started complaining about online harassment she’s received, which caused many a Leftist to ignore the utter garbage she did to warrant the attention. Thanks to Tucker Carlson naming Lorenz and using a photo of her available on the Times website, the victimhood meter got turned up to 11 through the invocation of a magical phrase the Left has been using for the past few years, “online violence.”

Let’s demystify this term, shall we?

online violence

What the Left thinks it means – mistreatment of minorities and women online, including taunts, insults, and trolling

What it really means – a made-up controversy with real-life inspiration

With the advent of the World Wide Web (thank you, Al Gore…not!), American society changed forever. Even though we were able to chat with people around the world, our worlds shrank inward. Things we wouldn’t say to people in public were said online, often with our real names attached to them. And don’t get me started on Rule 34. If you don’t know what that is, please don’t ask. You really don’t want to know.

Out of that change came troll culture, which then turned into American culture. And as exchanges got more heated, egos got more fragile. People on social media go from bully to victim in a matter of keystrokes. Hell, I’ve been shit-talked by 12 year olds playing Call of Duty.

Does it cross lines of civilized society? Absolutely. Should we be trying to do better than throwing more shade at people than Rosie O’Donnell sunbathing? No doubt. Is it violence? In a word, no. In two words, fuck no.

Words, by definition, cannot be violence because they lack the ability to be physical. When spoken, they are the expulsion of air through the mouth combine with muscular actions. Even a literal tongue lashing doesn’t involve actual lashing of the tongue. Words can inspire violence (i.e. fighting words), but the words themselves don’t commit the violence.

Now, let’s add in the online element. This may come as a shock to many people, but online life isn’t real life. Even if you believe words are violence (which just confirms you’re a dumbass), the fact the words occurred in the cyber-ether renders your opinion more useless than Eric Swalwell’s security clearance.

So, why are so any people convinced online violence is really? One, online life has made people dumber than a bag of hammers. More importantly, though, it’s a clever play on words the Left uses to convince people it’s a serious problem by playing to their emotions through the negative implications of violence. Let’s be honest. There are very few positive aspects to violence, and those that are positive usually cost at least an extra $50…not that I’d know about that, mind you…

Where was I again? Oh yeah, Leftist word play. By invoking the concept of violence, the Left counts on us to fill in the blanks and assume the worst. Adding the word “online” makes it seem widespread and a direct threat to us personally because everybody and their Grandmother is online these days. Although I get a chuckle imagining an octogenarian trolling a 20 year old over his or her taste in anime, the desired effect is to get us afraid of what could happen.

And by creating that fear, the Left can take your voice, equating legitimate criticism with the modern equivalent of an elementary school taunt, only with more vulgarity. As with other times the Left attempts to manipulate us through creative wording, the key to countering it is to recognize it for what it is and call it out. What Taylor Lorenz and her enablers are trying to do is to escape responsibility for being reprehensible to someone with less power than they have. With Tucker Carlson calling her out, the shoe is on the other foot and now Lorenz is getting a taste of karmic justice.

Let’s just say she’s not a fan. Which makes it all the funnier to me. So, win-win!

Meanwhile, don’t fall prey to the emotional manipulation the Left is using here. They want you to avoid using your brain and simply believe, just like one of the Left’s online darlings Anita Sarkeesian says: Listen and Believe. But when what you’re being told to believe is absurd on its face, you have my blessing not to listen.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The Leftist world was shaken to its core within the past 2 weeks due to allegations of sexual harassment against New York Governor and the Left’s example of how a state can handle the COVID-19 crisis (more on that later), Andrew Cuomo. As of this writing, three women have come forward to accuse the Governor of inappropriate sexual advances, up to and including unwanted touching. In light of these allegations, the Left have circled the wagons to try to discredit the accusations as politically motivated due to former President Donald Trump’s impending legal case before the state court.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are scratching our heads trying to figure out the new rules about sexual harassment. Is it okay to do what Cuomo did, or is it excusable because Trump did worse more often? If only we had a weekly piece that would explore the Left’s mindset on issues like this…oh, wait!

sexual harassment

What the Left thinks it means – unwanted sexual advances or comments made by men in power that make the victims uncomfortable or frightened of possible reprisal

What it really means – unwanted sexual advances or comments made by men in power that make the victims uncomfortable or frightened of possible reprisal, unless you’re a Leftist

We’ve come a long way since Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment, but we’re no closer to making progress on the issue. Powerful men and women have used it to get what they want for decades, and if current events are any indication, it’s still happening. That’s why the #MeToo and #BelieveAllWomen movements got started, folks! Well, that, and it’s easier than a Paris Hilton murder mystery novel plot to appear like you care by tweeting and re-tweeting hashtags.

When it comes to actually doing something about the problem…I guess it depends on who the Left considers an ally. I’m old enough to remember when Senator Bob Packwood was run out of office for chasing a secretary around his desk, and rightly so. Then came Bill Clinton, who was accused of sexual harassment and sexual assault. Certainly worse than chasing a secretary, but not to the Left. They said the accusers weren’t credible, accused them of being money-hungry, and tried to paint the Commander in Briefs as a victim of a “right wing smear.”

Guess what? The Left is doing the same with Cuomo. As inconsistent as they are about what constitutes sexual harassment, they are consistent about recycling bad ideas.

In Cuomo’s case, though, the Left has a bigger target: Donald Trump. Ever since Trump mentioned grabbing women by the puddy tat, the Left has painted him as a sexual predator. As a result, every time a Leftist gets caught doing more than talking about such an act, the Left brings up Trump. I seem to recall there being a term for trying to deflect negative facts by bringing up a tangentially-related person, but I can’t seem to come up with it. What about you, dear reader?

Although I can’t completely discount the possibility of Trump acting like, well, Trump, it doesn’t excuse what Cuomo is alleged to have done. It also doesn’t help Cuomo’s cause that there are photos of him doing what he’s accused of doing, and that the photos support the allegations against him.

But it shows a lot more than the Left wants us to see. For one, it shows us how ugly Cuomo is. I mean, money and power may be aphrodisiacs, but there are limits!

More importantly, though, it shows how far the Left will go to protect their own, even at the expense of optics and ideological consistency. I don’t have the hard data on this yet, but I’m willing to guess a good chunk of the #metoo folks are defending Cuomo by any means necessary at the expense of women. Yet, these are some of the same folks who wonder why more women aren’t believed when they come forward with their allegations. Hmmm…well, I can’t figure it out. I’ll leave it to the “smart” Leftists.

Another tack being used by the Cuomo defenders is they want to have an investigation done into the allegations before they will call for him to resign. By the way, Justice Brett Kavanaugh is on Line 1. He wants to have a word with the Cuomo supporters.

Seriously, though, the defenders will try to act like they’ve always wanted investigations into sexual harassment allegations. I know you’re going to be surprised, but the Left is lying about this, too. When it comes to the Right, any and all allegations are believed, no matter how weak they are. Case in point: Christine Blasey Ford and the aforementioned Brett Kavanaugh. For Kavanaugh, the mere allegations were enough to disqualify him from the High Court, even though Blasey Ford was as credible as a Nigerian prince’s email. The more we dug into the allegations, the less believable they were.

That wasn’t a problem for the Left, though. They still invoke Blasey Ford’s name to show they support and believe women. When the roles are reversed, no benefit of a doubt is given. Whether it’s Paula Jones, Juanita Broadrick, or Tara Reade, the women have to be lying or being used by the “Right Wing Smear Machine” (Patent Pending) to bring down an innocent Leftist.

Even if the “innocent Leftist” has photos of him doing what he’s alleged to have done.

The thing to remember about the Left is they politicize sex because they politicize everything. When it comes to sexual harassment, they play jump rope with the tightrope they expect the rest of us to walk. And since the time of Anita Hill, they’ve learned how to play Double Dutch to the country’s detriment. When you are allowed to play fast and loose with the rules you personally set, you can justify anything.

That’s how cults get started. And Amway.

Right now, Cuomo is benefitting from the Leftist double standard, oddly enough in two ways. First, he’s skating on behavior that would get most of us drug through the mud by the people defending him. Second, it takes attention away from a more serious issue, that being his boneheaded approach to dealing with COVID-19 by putting patients with the elderly, one of the groups most susceptible to contracting it…and dying from it. Then again, the media have done a piss poor job of covering this aspect to Cuomo’s incompetence, so they’re focusing on the sexual scandal because sex sells. If the Left can get us to focus on the sex, they’re betting we’ll forget about the killing of Grandma and Grandpa. Then, once the sexual harassment story goes away, so does the nursing home scandal.

Unfortunately for them, that’s not how it works, kids.

Using sexual harassment as a means to cover up a major scandal is low, even for Leftists, because it shows how little they care about women’s issues that don’t rhyme with abortion or the gender pay gap. They can and will use women to achieve political ends, thus making the women affected by sexual harrassment and sexual assault acceptable losses as long as the Left gets what it wants.

In other words, the Left are the sexual predators they keep warning us exist.

The thing we have going for us is consistency. While the Left changes their rules at the drop of a hat, or some other article of clothing for that matter, we rely on facts and evidence gathered through research and logical thinking. No matter who is being accused, we want there to be an investigation where every allegation can be verified or rejected. What’s more, we don’t care whose ox gets gored in the process. As long as we continue to follow that mindset, the Left will ultimately lose.

In the meantime, Andrew Cuomo should be held accountable for what we’ve seen him do. Even though his sexual harassment is being used as a scapegoat, the fact he and his ideological partners are willing to throw women under the campaign bus to protect him should make the Left take a seat.

As in a Colosseum’s worth.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

As we get closer to the first full school year under COVID-19, it’s interesting to see the differences in whether the schools are open, closed, or on a hybrid system. Many schools are open without issues, while others are closed up tighter than Rosie O’Donnell in a size 1 dress. After the Center for Disease Control reported public schools were safe to be open, there was one tiny little problem.

Teachers’ unions.

These unions have taken it upon themselves to build a case against opening schools, citing potential health issues (i.e. contracting COVID-19) as reasons schools should remain closed. And the Left, following the science, has sided with…the teachers’ unions.

Who are these people who can defy science without the self-described Party of Science get upset? Let’s find out!

teachers’ unions

What the Left thinks it means – a union devoted to ensuring top quality teachers are represented and are free to teach to the best of their abilities

What it really means –  a unaccountable union devoted to donating funds to the Left while holding no standards for the union members, no matter how much it hurts students

It’s scary to think about how much power teachers’ unions have as compared to their private sector counterparts. While a labor union can order strikes to get better wages and/or benefits, their impact is still relatively limited to a company or industry. A teachers’ union’s reach can span generations and impact millions of students and families to the point society itself is forced to change. The kindergarteners of today are going to grow up to be the Leftists of tomorrow, thanks to teachers’ unions.

Now, I’m not saying this as someone who doesn’t know the ins and outs of public schools. I am a public school graduate, and many of my family and friends have direct experience with the public school experience, and it’s getting to be where we’re all singing the same song. In my lifetime alone, I’ve watched public schools go from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance every morning to not reciting it to possibly not have any student know what it is in the first place. Sure, they’ll know all about inclusion and how to use condoms before they’re even past the “girls/boys are icky” stage, but not how to do simple math, write complete sentences, and the three branches of government. You know, stuff that’s kinda important to creating the next generation of citizens?

And the sad part is we let it go unnoticed and unchecked until it was too late to do anything about it.

That’s by design, so it’s not all our faults. Teachers’ unions love to work in plain sight while hiding their true intentions and devices. And, as you might expect, it all comes down to money. Thanks to the Department of Education (which is as useless as footnotes in a TMZ article), teachers’ unions are paid heavily to promote Leftist ideals under the guise of education. The only cost is these same unions funnel money back into Leftist coffers to support “pro-education” candidates. Once those candidates get into office, they can appropriate money to the teachers’ unions, who turn around and use those funds to…oh, I don’t know…build and maintain office buildings in Washington, DC. But I’m sure it’s for the kids…

If you believe that, I have swamp land in Arizona I’d love to sell you.

In fact, I’m hard-pressed to find anything teachers’ unions do for students, but they’ll bend over backwards to protect even the worst teachers in their ranks. Including defying the direction of the CDC. Let that roll around in your noggins for a bit. School districts are being kept shut in spite of the science we’re supposed to be following according to the Left because of a bunch of people who probably don’t teach science saying it’s too dangerous to teach because of a virus with a high-90% survival rate.

If that doesn’t tell you how much power teachers’ unions have right now, nothing will.

As much as I’d like to say there’s an easy answer to curtailing this power, I can’t. I mean, I can, but I wouldn’t be accurate in doing so. Instead, all I can suggest is to keep tabs on what is being taught in your local schools. Even if you no longer have children in school, the only way to combat indoctrination via teachers’ unions is to stay involved. Get on the school board. Keep current on what is being taught and try to combat the misinformation. Above all else, expose the bad actors whenever you can. After enough exposure, the teachers’ unions will lose their cover and will be forced to take action. After all, nothing hurts Leftists more than exposing their tactics.

And besides, how can we mock them if they aren’t exposed to be the total dipshits they are?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Remember back in the halcyon days of the Donald Trump Presidency when media types and fact-checkers would be finding every single lie the President said? Every statement was dissected, analyzed, and called out as false, even when the President either didn’t make the statement attributed to him or was actually accurate. But in the interest of real journalism, these brave souls endured the slings and arrows of outrageous White House Press Secretaries to bring you the truth.

At least that’s how they saw themselves. Nowadays, these “real journalists” are dissecting, analyzing, and regurgitating what President Joe Biden says while avoiding using the L-word: lie. Funny how these same brave souls are scared of an Administration whose most threatening gesture to date is to call reporters the wrong name (and, yes, this did happen).

Or maybe the Left’s definition of a lie has changed.

lie

What the Left thinks it means – a dishonest statement usually made by conservatives and Republicans

What it really means – one way the Left gets people to agree with them

Expecting honesty out of any politician is like expecting Bill Clinton to be faithful: it’s theoretically possible, but highly unlikely. Even so, Leftists have made lies their number one method of making progress. To them, the ends always justify the means, but only if their ends are met. Once the lie no longer works, it’s no longer useful to the Left and can be forgotten, even if it was told an hour ago. And if they get caught by an inconvenient truth, they will double down on the lying.

Say, “An Inconvenient Truth” would be a great title for a book, maybe a movie. Too bad I don’t know of anyone who would use it. Oh, well.

Anyway, the Left doesn’t just tell out and out falsehoods as their only means of achieving their goals. They also branch out into lies of omission, as we saw with the highly edited footage and quotes taken out of context used during Impeachment 2: Futility Boogaloo. Everything from Trump’s “very fine people on both sides” to his calls for a peaceful march on the Capitol minutes after rioters started a not-so-peaceful march on the Capitol was put on display by the House Managers as the heart of their case against Trump. Even after being debunked repeatedly.

Remember this when Leftists tell you Trump told over 95,000 lies during his Presidency.

Also, remember the tolerance of lies only goes one way. If a Republican lies (or is made to look like he or she lied), the Left give no quarter. Yet, if a Leftist tells a lie, it’s no big deal. In fact, any lies can be explained away using one of the Left’s favorite misused terms, nuance.

It was waaaaaaaaaay back in late December to early January that current President Joe Biden promised people $2000 checks on day one if the Senate went blue. Two special elections later, that number was reduced to $1400 because they said the previous $600 checks sent to taxpayers was a “down payment” on the $2000. But that’s not what he said. President Biden said “$2000 checks” not “checks totaling $2000.” Well, the Left tried to pretend the President didn’t lie because of, you guessed it, nuance. (Oh, and the fact the same people who think green jobs are profitable said the rest of us didn’t know basic math.) When the same fact checkers and media types did the same thing with President Trump, their interpretations of what he said (or didn’t say) were always negative. Joe Biden may be the first person in American history to get a generous benefit of the doubt while simultaneously getting Medicare benefits.

Take the recent comments made by Vice President Kamala Harris stating the Biden Administration was starting from scratch with the COVID-19 vaccine. Wellll…that was a lie. The Trump plan, which was consistent with a little thing the kids call federalism, put the vaccine distribution in the states’ hands. After Harris’ lie, the line changed from “starting from scratch” to “there was no federal program in place.” Which, by the way, was also a lie. Leftists can argue the effectiveness of the Trump plan, but the point remains they built their objections on a lie.

And remember, kids, these are the same folks who want the President to create a Reality Czar to battle misinformation. Call me skeptical, but I get the feeling such a Czar would be as politically honest as Snopes.

But there’s another reason the Left relies on lies: it’s a good way to create an alternate universe that they control. For as much as the Left called Trump a fascist, it’s hard to make that label stick when Leftists were continually allowed to call him a fascist. Yet, it’s taken as an article of faith, even though it’s a lie. By accepting the lie, the Left has the ability to make it become true if they believe hard enough. That’s how we came up with 258 genders (as of the typing of this sentence), people can be trans-racial, and Elizabeth Warren can both be Native American and whiter than Edgar Winter swimming in a vat of mayonnaise.

But that dishonesty comes with a price: it requires others to entertain the notion in the first place. Outside of the Leftist hive-mind, those numbers get pretty small. That’s the problem with self-delusion. Often, it comes down to the self to keep it going.

The key to overcoming the Left’s lies is to figure out what the truth is and stick with it no matter how many people (i.e. Leftists) tell you it’s not the truth. Whether it’s Media Matters, the Young Turks, or the Biden Administration, their credibility is doomed from the start because they have to lie, but we don’t. But there is one thing I think we should do with Leftists.

Mock them mercilessly!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

This week has been a great one for our favorite Socialist Socialite, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. After accusing Senator Ted Cruz of attempted murder in a tweet where the two agreed on the recent Robinhood controversy, she came out this week and told her story about what happened on January 6th.

To put it mildly, I’ve seen less melodrama in a telenovela than in her story. And, as expected, Leftists ran with it, even if the facts didn’t exactly match up with her version of events. After people attempted to correct the record, fact-checking website Snopes got involved and came out looking like one of AOC’s social media team by ruling the fact checks that undermined her story “misleading.”

I know we’ve covered fact checking before on the Lexicon, but this week I want to delve deeper into Snopes to try to figure out how they operate.

Snopes

What the Left thinks it means – a valuable fact-checking website that does its homework to expose lies

What it really means – a website that went from debunking urban legends to creating political ones

Snopes built its reputation for telling the truth by focusing on those stories we took as gospel, but may or may not have the ring of truth. You know, like the government actually spending within its means? For a while, this was good enough for the owners/creators of the site, but eventually it branched out into politics. Not surprising, given the creators happened to be prominent Democrat donors. Now, that wouldn’t matter to me if they stuck with urban legends, but once you cross the line into politics, those little details matter because they can taint the results of your fact checking.

Let’s just say Snopes has no concerns with it because they don’t care about whether their fact checks resemble factual information.

Take the AOC story, for example. Regardless of how you feel about the events of January 6th, it’s not far-fetched to say she could have felt she was in danger. Yet, the way she initially described it made it sound like she was at the Capitol when everything went sideways. That wasn’t the case, though. She was in a different building within a short walk of the Capitol and was evacuated before the protestors breached the building itself. Additionally, she said her fear was compound by a man yelling “Where is she?” That man happened to be a member of the Capitol Police trying to keep her safe and get her away from the potential danger.

Nowhere in that series of events was AOC in any actual danger, though. She can feel she was in fear for her life (which makes me wonder just how New York she really is), but the facts don’t back it up. And as Ben Shapiro has pointed out on a few occasions, facts don’t care about your feelings.

When presented with tweets explaining the logical inconsistencies, Snopes found the fact checks on AOC misleading because…she never said she was at the Capitol when things happened, which is true, but contradicted by her own story as she told it. It’s a question of literal versus figurative speech, which can also be subject to political biases. Case in point: President Donald Trump’s “very fine people on both sides” comment after Charlottesville. Even though the President clearly and unequivocally denounced the racists, the Left ran with the narrative he thought the racists were “very fine people.” The President literally explained himself, but it wasn’t convenient, so the Left went with what they said he meant to say. (Cue the dog whistles the Left keeps hearing, but few others outside of their circles can…which is an odd thing to consider if you really think about it.)

And how did Snopes rate Trump’s statement? A “mixture” because they felt he didn’t condemn white supremacists. Funny how a clear articulation gets treated as a mixture of truth and lies, but a clear implication AOC was at the Capitol Building gets treated differently. 

That’s why fact checking, especially from Snopes, needs to be scrutinized and mocked mercilessly. I can count on the one hand of the world’s worst shop teacher the number of times Snopes has given Republicans the benefit of the doubt, but they will bend over like Cirque du Soleil when it’s a Democrat. No logic is too pretzel-like for Snopes if the ideology is right.

Even when the Democrat and Republican says the same thing using the same terminology. And, yes, this actually happened.

I have a rule of thumb when it comes to checking facts: if you have to equivocate to make something true, it ain’t true. The fact the preeminent fact checker can’t call balls and strikes should tell you everything you need to know about Snopes and its standards. Yet, Snopes keeps finding a way to limbo under their already low standards, as they have here.

Take their overwhelming focus on Republicans. The Left loves to point at the fact Snopes calls out more Republican lies than Democrat lies as proof the Left is more truthful. Now, consider the Snopes fact checking model. Naturally they’re going to find Republicans lie more because the site actively targets Republicans and giving half-butted explanations as to why while simultaneously giving Democrats a pass on even their most egregious lies. Under those parameters, it’s more likely that David Duke will win an NAACP Image Award than a Republican will get a fair shake, or an NAACP Image Award for that matter.

Even though Snopes has been in the fact checking game for a while, it’s clear they haven’t learned facts have no party affiliation. If a Democrat or a Republican tells a lie, it’s a lie. If somebody from “flyover country” gets it, why can’t Snopes?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

With a new President comes new hopes. The hope that the President will make wise decisions in the face of amazing pressure. The hope the President does what’s best for the American people. And, in this case, the hope the President doesn’t nod off during a state dinner.

But the hopes don’t end with the President. Leftists are now hoping to do away with a tool the Senate has used for centuries, the filibuster. And they’re doing it in the only way they know how: using a hashtag, #EndtheFilibuster. Although Leftists have used the filibuster in the past (see Wendy Davis), they now think it’s outlived its usefulness.

As with most things, the Left hasn’t thought this out, as we’ll soon see.

#EndtheFilibuster

What the Left thinks it means – a movement to get rid of an antiquated process that prevents progress

What it really means – a movement to remove the voice of the minority in the Senate

Now, for a quick history/civics lesson before we get into the meat of the issue. Senate rules allow for members to delay or stop legislation from passing by getting up and speaking until the controversy is resolved. Usually, this is done by members of the minority party in the Senate to block legislation, but it can be used to make a statement. Namely, some politicians love the sound of their own voices. This bit of political theater is known as a filibuster, and it’s a mixed bag as far as effectiveness. These days, the threat of a filibuster is enough to get politicians to back down.

Now that Democrats control the Senate, they want to take that option away from Republicans due to allegations of the GOP abusing it. Whether they actually did is a matter of opinion, but it’s interesting to note the timing of this desire to do away with the filibuster. I mean, this isn’t something the Left has made a focal point last year when they were campaigning to taking back the Senate. As soon as they got the votes and won the two open seats they needed, the filibuster became Leftist Enemy Number 1. (Excluding Donald Trump, of course.)

Maybe it’s me, but I seem to remember the Left wanting to silence conservative voices for, oh, the past decade or so, and it makes me wonder if the removal of the filibuster is in line with that philosophy. But I’m sure no one could be that petty, right?

Sorry. I forgot we were dealing with Leftists here. They hold grudges like Atlas holds up the globe.

Regardless, this current move to eliminate the filibuster is a bad idea that assumes far too much and leaves it open for others to use it against the Left down the line. Say what you will about Mitch McConnell, but he has a working understanding of Senate rules and traditions that is unmatched by his Democrat/Leftist detractors. That makes it easier for him to get what he wants by letting his opponents do all the work for him. Just ask Harry Reid about how the “nuclear option” on judicial nominees worked out for him. (Spoiler Alert: it’s how Donald Trump got his Supreme Court nominees through so quickly.)

This same kind of short-sighted strategy is in play here. The Left loves to think once they get into power they won’t ever be unseated. Politics doesn’t work that way. For every swing in one direction there will be a swing in the other direction eventually. Assuming permanence without evidence and without considering the long-term effects if things go south is like buying a Ferrari assuming you’re going to hit a slot jackpot at Uncle Cheater’s Casino and Pawn Shop. It works great if your plans come to fruition, but it’s a nightmare if it doesn’t. And when it comes to politics, the Left has been playing a lot of slots while avoiding the calls from the Ferrari dealership about when they can expect payment.

On the other side of the coin, the Left can’t call for unity while silencing the Right. I mean, they’ll try, but they will have a hard time convincing the public they’re serious about it. Although most people don’t know about Parler or Gab, they know about fairness. If one party consistently tries to curtail the other’s ability to do business, voters and potential voters may start feeling sympathy towards the injured party, which can swing the pendulum in the opposite direction. With the next election cycle being the midterm elections in 2022 and with the historical tendency for voters to create a divided government, this spells trouble for the Left.

So, naturally, they want to keep pulling the slot machine lever and taking their chances.

Although ending the filibuster is a bad idea, I do think the practice needs to be modified by requiring a personal stake in the outcome. If you threaten a filibuster on a bill, get your comfy shoes on because you will be speaking upright for quite some time. If you threaten a filibuster and don’t follow through, you should be punished financially for it and deserve to be mocked mercilessly. Either way, the parties will either have to learn to work together to come up with bipartisan legislation or they get mocked and have to pay out of pocket for it. That’s a win-win in my book!

Although #EndtheFilibuster has all the sexiness of Ernest Borgnine in a burlap teddy, it’s gaining traction with Leftists who want to exercise absolute power in the Senate because…reasons. Yet, it’s such a monumentally bad idea that shows the Left hasn’t learned their lesson from the previous times in recent history they’ve tried to pull the same kind of power trip only to have it blow up in their faces within an election cycle or two.

At least they’re consistent with their insanity.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Last week, professional lemon tester and former CIA Director John Brennan made the following statement on MSNBC:

We are now looking forward that the members of the Biden team who have been nominated or have been appointed, are now moving in laser like fashion to try to uncover as much as they can about what looks very similar to insurgency movements that we’ve seen overseas, where they germinate in different parts of the country and they gain strength and it brings together an unholy alliance frequently of religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, Nativists, even libertarians

Nothing like a little authoritarian cleansing of the intelligence community, eh Johnny? I mean, it’s not like completely ridding parts of the intelligence community would lead to, oh, 9/11, right?

Although most of Brennan’s sentiments are expected, the part about going after libertarians struck me as a bit odd, if not down right creepy. Who could be threatened by libertarians?

You’ll find out soon enough.

libertarians

What the Left thinks it means – potentially dangerous people who align themselves with the Alt Right in an attempt to undermine the country

What it really means – people who just want to be left alone and will let you do the same

To add some clarification, I’m not talking about the Libertarian Party here. The party has been the best example for why we should consider self-government because it’s been incapable of being effective leaders of anything more complex than a Conga line, and even that’s suspect. The libertarians Brennan is referring to are people who see the bullshit from the “two” major parties and calls it out instead of rooting for the Blue or the Red. It’s that last part that gets people like me off others’ Christmas card lists, but it’s who we are.

But it’s also this attitude that gets Leftists mad at us.

Leftists by nature don’t believe we can take care of ourselves. Instead, they see government as the answer to every problem even if government is the problem. And, of course, since they believe they know better than the rest of us, Leftists feel they need to be in government to guide us towards the utopia they’ve created in San Francisco, Detroit, New York City, and Portland.

For the Leftists reading this, that was sarcasm.

The funny thing to me about this attitude is it contradicts much of what the Left advocates in different situations. Take abortion, for example. The Left’s frequent refrain is “abortion is between the woman and the doctor.” Additionally, they believe teenage girls are mature enough to decide to terminate the pregnancy, even without their parents knowing about it. No matter how you try to explain it away, there is no way to remove this contradiction.

Except, you know, if you value a person’s ability to make a decision himself/herself.

As much as I oppose abortion in most cases, I recognize I don’t have a say in the process unless I’m the baby daddy and even then my opinion has limited sway. That’s pretty much the way libertarians roll. You do your thing, we’ll do ours, and until you start violating the rights of others or harm them, we’re cool.

I know what you’re thinking. How can we let these evil bastards exist in America?

To any Leftists reading this, that was also sarcasm.

The real danger here to the Left is libertarians are free thinkers and tend to be smarter than your average Leftist. Granted, that bar’s lower than a snake’s belt buckle, but the point is libertarians tend to know their rights and how to defend them against the whims of Leftists wanting to bring people to heel. Leftists demand compliance, no matter what. Anyone who stands against that becomes a threat to society, at least to Leftists like Brennan.

That’s where it’s important to remember Brennan’s line of work for years. Intelligence requires at least some level of dishonesty and deceit to obtain information, which also requires a willingness to lie and deceive. You know, like Leftists do? I’m sure the Left considers a bunch of people who want to leave everyone else alone to be dangerous, but the reality is people who want to control every aspect of people’s lives tend to be more dangerous to life, liberty, and property because they will do everything in their power to maintain that control.

Including ratting out their fellow Americans for the crime of wrongthink.

Brennan’s MSNBC appearance to what could only be considered a sympathetic audience should raise a few eyebrows, not the least of which to people who know his past and what he allowed to happen on his watch throughout his career. Since being exposed as a ideologue with a penchant for deception, Brennan hasn’t exactly tried to reform his image or make amends for his multiple blunders. And since he’s on the Leftist payroll, he will be guaranteed spots on Leftist television networks and given all the gravitas he desires.

In the end, though, he is still a paid liar and has endorsed the rooting out of a group of people whose only crime was to think people can take care of themselves better than the government can. And given how Brennan’s approach has actually killed Americans, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say libertarians aren’t the dangerous ones here.

To any Leftists reading this, that wasn’t sarcasm.



Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

There are a lot of things I could say about the recent storming of the Capitol Building, but not a lot of them are flattering. Even so, my criticisms would be a mixture of legitimate concern and more than a little mockery as Donald Trump supporters tried LARPing as Antifa for a few hours. But, I’m not sure I would go as far as the Left has in how they’ve presented the protest-turned-plundering and selfie expedition. Instead, the Left has made the entire affair into a breach of our country’s laws.

Yep, our Leftists friends found a new word in their 365 Reasons To Complain Calendar: insurrection. As you might expect, there are differing opinions on whether what happened at the Capitol rises to that level, but the Left has pretty much decided it did. And if you disagree with them, you’re obviously supporting insurrection against the country and, thus, are just as guilty. If the Left is correct on this, prison overcrowding is going to get a lot worse.

Are they right? Let’s find out!

insurrection

What the Left thinks it means – trying to overthrow a government through violent and destructive means, mainly by Trump supporters

What it really means – anything that the Left sees as threatening to their power base

I did a little digging online to make sure I had a workable definition of the word, and merriam-webster.com came through for me. Their definition of insurrection is as follows:

an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

Keep this in mind for later because it’s going to be relevant. Unlike the rest of my writing.

Insurrection is a violation of federal law, so it’s a pretty serious charge and shouldn’t be thrown around lightly unless you have reason to do it. And, no, merely being a Trump supporter isn’t a good enough reason. Still, this might be considered a semantic argument rather than anything based on the law. It won’t satisfy the Left, but here is the legal definition as found on legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com:

A rising or rebellion of citizens against their government, usually manifested by acts of violence

Oooh. Might be in a little trouble there, folks.

Well, to paraphrase a former President, it all depends on what your definition of rebellion is. At the heart of both of the definitions posted above is the concept of rebelling against the government. And it’s in how the Left views the government where things get stickier than an explosion at a cotton candy convention.

The Left believes government is the be-all and end-all of everything, from paying for pet projects involving the mating habits of the rare Argentinian albino fourteen-toed tree sloth to promoting values that advance the Left’s agenda. If you disagree with that notion, even if it’s because there is no such thing as an Argentinian albino fourteen-toed tree sloth, the Left sees that as a threat to the government as a whole and, by extension, themselves.

Except, of course, unless it’s people on their side of the political spectrum, like Black Lives Matter and Antifa. When they take over a federal building, cause destruction, and advocate overthrowing the entire government, it’s cheeky and fun, not evil and seditious like when the MAGA crowd does it! It’s totes cool! And, unfortunately for them, it’s also the very definition of insurrection, albeit taken to a much larger extreme.

Where Trump supporters might have some wiggle room is the actual purpose of the protests at the Capitol Building. To them, Donald Trump is the government (among other things). Everyone else is either an ally or part of the “Deep State.” In order for the legal definition of insurrection to be met, it would have to be against the government, and since the protests were in support of Donald Trump, they could argue (please check local listings for likelihood this will work) they were protesting the Deep State and their actions are consistent with that. Granted, this is a bit of a stretch, but it can’t be dismissed out of hand.

Along the same lines (and with equal stretching) is the argument the protestors weren’t trying to overthrow the government, but rather a specific function of the government. In this case, it’s the certification of the Electoral College vote. Although there is likely to be at least one pocket of protestors who might be stupid enough to admit they were trying to overthrow the government, most of the people there weren’t.

Wait a minute…I’ve heard that same argument before…something about Antifa/BLM…but I’m sure the people who advanced that argument with them are right there defen…nevermind.

The Left and the Right are guilty of guilt by association here, so their current positions are as valid as a homemade PowerBall ticket. From where I sit, there are very few Trump supporters who can and should be charged with insurrection, but there are also very few BLM and Antifa members who can and should also be charged along with the Trump supporters. The issue is ideological blinders prevent both the Left and the Right from being honest about who should get charged. As you might have guessed by now, I have no problem charging the guilty, even if/when I agree with them. That’s because the law isn’t supposed to be ideologically tinted. Lady Justice has a blindfold on because that’s how justice is meted, or at least should be. If we hold our allies to one standard and our opponents to another, that’s not justice; that’s favoritism.

I’m not going to hold my breath for the Left to catch up on this, but I will continue to hold the only standard that needs to be held in this case: if you do the crime, you do the time.

Oh, and keep your eye on the sparrow.