Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The Resistance is active again. In between calling President Donald Trump a racist because feefees and filling social media with hashtags and talking points, they’re telling us to vote in the midterm elections. And with all the campaign literature clogging up our mailboxes, who knew there was an election coming up?

But this isn’t just any midterm election. This is the one that could mean the difference between saving our country and an existence that would make “The Handmaid’s Tale” look like a Norman Rockwell lithograph. The Resistance even adopted a slogan: Vote like your life depends on it because it does. Let’s see…breathing, food, shelter…nope, don’t see voting as a fundamental need.

What is it about Election 2018 that has the Left hyperventilating more than a claustrophobe trying to get out of a paper bag while breathing into a smaller bag to try to fight off a panic attack? Good thing we have a blogger who can shed some light into this. But since she’s out of town, they’re letting me take a crack at it.

Election 2018

What the Left thinks it means – the most important election in history, but only if Democrats win

What it really means – a repeat of past midterm elections, just with more Leftist freakouts

After not being able to impeach the President or even make him look even the slightest bit like the evil fascist warmonger they’ve tried to make him out to be, the Left has put a lot of focus on the midterm elections. In doing so, they have tried to keep spirits high by predicting a “blue wave” and avoided talking about party mistakes and candidate scandals. And to be fair, it’s not like the Democrats have a member of the Democratic National Committee who is accused of assaulting a woman, right?

Okay, scratch that.

The Left has put most of their electoral eggs in the 2018 midterm basket because they feel they have no other way to stop Trump. They’ve tried yelling at us, calling Trump supporters horrible names, attempting to assault and/or kill Republicans, and generally dismissing voters not like them as dumber than Forrest Gump on a five year binge on old school NyQuil. You know the kind I’m talking about. The NyQuil with enough alcohol in it to drop a rhino while clearing up its sinuses.

Anyway, the Left’s attempts to persuade people not already on their side to join up haven’t worked well. Maybe it’s, oh I don’t know, the fact you treat us like crap? Just thinking outside the ballot box here, kids. So, after over 2 years of taking the same approach to attracting potential voters, the Left has gone into overdrive to try to persuade people to vote for their candidates. And, in a clear sign they’ve learned from past mistakes, they’re doing the same thing they did for the past 2+ years…only louder.

The Left says they need to win the midterm elections to ensure Trump is kept in check and to try to reverse the horrible things he’s done, like…tax cuts that benefitted a vast majority of people? Well, they haven’t really ironed out all the details yet, but by Election Day, I’m sure they’ll have something…

The real reason I think the Left is obsessed with the midterm elections is because they’ve been out of power for a while, and they don’t like it. Remember how Democrats acted in 2007 after they took back the House from Republicans? They acted like they were going to be in power for a long time, and the election of Barack Obama in 2008 only fed into that idea. Well, apparently a long time only lasts 4 years in Leftist time because Republicans took back control of the House in 2011. Shortly after that, the Senate went Republican and left all the rules former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made to come back and haunt the Senate Democrats. What can I say, Mr. Reid? Mitch McConnell warned you.

Now with Donald Trump sitting in the White House and the prospect of conservative Supreme Court Justices looming on the horizon, the Left have a perfect storm of impotence on their hands. They’ve let power slip out of their hands and they’re willing to do anything to get it back, including actions they would have decried if Trump and the GOP had done them.

We’ve spent a lot of time in this blog entry on the Left, but the question remains: how important are the 2018 midterm elections? To political junkies on both sides of the political aisle, they’re pretty important. To average folks like you and me? Not so much. In the end, one group is trying to take jobs from another group because the first group says they can do the jobs better since the other group is a bunch of dunderheads with IQs somewhere in the neighborhood of toe jam. And the other group is trying to prevent the first group from taking power because they are doing the best they can while the first group is slightly smarter than bread mold. How convincing these arguments are depends on who listens to and believes them.

I may follow politics like I do professional football, but I don’t think any politician is going to have that much direct impact on our lives. In groups, yes, but individually, no. I look at it this way. Most of the time, these folks don’t bother to contact me when they’re about to vote on legislation, so I don’t bother to consult them when it’s time for me to vote. If they come around, I’ll listen to them and consider their viewpoints. Otherwise, I’m fine voting for whomever I feel will do the best job.

That’s why I’m voting for my dog, Chico.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Leftists have been complaining about stolen elections since they started losing to candidates they felt had no chance of winning. After all, they had only the best candidates who were smarter and better suited to leadership, right? Who could forget the campaign brilliance of 3 time Presidential loser Al Gore and 2 time Presidential loser Hillary Clinton?

One of the favorite terms tossed about since President Donald Trump took office is Republicans cheat through a process called gerrymandering. I’m not exactly sure how to mander Gerry, but it’s worth taking a look at for no other reason than it gives me something to write about.

gerrymandering

What the Left thinks it means – a form of cheating done by Republicans to ensure they retain political power at the expense of our democracy

What it really means – a form of legalized cheating done by both major parties to ensure they retain political power at the expense of logic

In short, gerrymandering is when political parties in power redraw Congressional districts after they get census results. In recent years, this means Republicans have more of a hand in the district redrawing process than they have in past years. And, as a result, districts seem to be drawn by drunk spiders rather than reasonable methods like…oh, I don’t know…splitting up districts geographically without considering political leanings. Yeah, I know I’m a bit of an oddball when it comes to this, but hey, it’s my lot in life.

This is not to say Democrats don’t do and haven’t done the same in the past when they’ve held power. In fact, they do, and quite often with the same logic applied to letting Mel Gibson give a speech at a bar mitzvah. Take the House members of the Congressional Black Caucus, for example. Back in the 1990s, the Left decided only blacks could represent blacks, so they drew up Congressional districts that would allow just that. And, boy, it worked well. It not only gave us the psychotic brilliance of former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, but it gave us plenty of other dim bulbs who wouldn’t be getting into Office Depot let alone political office.

Of course, the Left doesn’t consider this to be a problem because…reasons. And in a rare display of bipartisanship, the Right agrees.

I, however, see a problem with gerrymandering regardless of who does it. First, it makes zero sense from a logical sense. I know, expecting politics to be logical is like expecting Michael Avanetti to stop chasing ambulances, but it doesn’t negate the point. When your Congressional district changes borders from block to block depending on what side of the sidewalk you live before expanding to include entire neighborhoods, it’s hard to argue the districts make sense.

Second, it shows a lack of political courage. If you have to redraw districts to ensure an outcome, you are rigging the results barring a political upheaval that would make the French Revolution look like a Buddhist picnic. What’s wrong with advancing a better argument in your favor? Why do we need racially-minded redistricting if all people are supposed to be equals under the law? It’s nothing short of cowardice to be afraid to face opposing ideas.

The third, and the most pressing one to me, is the fact gerrymandering is ultimately pointless. As we’ve seen with the Congressional Black Caucus, it’s easy to create districts that fit a specific political and/or social goal. That creates a natural pushback that gives politicians a vested interest in breaking up those districts when they can. If that pushback leads to upheaval, it creates a desire for the other party to return to or even expand their original district borders.

Mutually Assured District Destruction at its finest, kids.

What gets me is how the Left takes the concept of gerrymandering and completely misuses it. Although it can be argued it has had an impact on previous elections, it has nothing to do with Senate and Presidential elections. Yet, whenever Leftists talk about what they see as political shenanigans by Republicans, they throw around gerrymandering like a gangsta rapper throws around the word “ho.”

And remember, kids, Leftists are the smart ones.

Right now, gerrymandering is a problem made worse by both major parties trying to jockey for any power they can muster, but it doesn’t have to be that way. Typically I’m not a fan of adding laws to the books, but in this case I’m willing to make an exception. Call it the Congressional District Sanity Act. Under my law, gerrymandering for political, racial, or other reasons would be outlawed, and Congressional districts would all be redrawn to ensure representation actually resembles the population in the districts. I’m looking at you, Maxine Waters, whose actual home in her district bears little resemblance to the homes in the majority of her district. And I’m willing to bet many of her constituents wouldn’t be welcome at Auntie Maxie’s house. Don’t want to associate with the hoi paloi, after all!

Gerrymandering shouldn’t even be on the table in politics today or the future. The fact both sides see nothing wrong with it as long as they’re doing it speaks volumes about how little they care about representing the people.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

In case you missed it, this past Wednesday was International Pronouns Day. Yes, from the ideology that brought you Kwanzaa, we just had a holiday to celebrate our pronouns. Of course, the US Postal Service didn’t take it off, so I’m not sure we can officially consider it a holiday.

And what exactly are our pronouns? That depends. The Left has created the idea that the masculine and feminine pronouns are just too darn restrictive. After all, if there are 3,568,108,125,156,038 genders (as of this minute, but by the end of this sentence that number may have gone higher than Michael Moore’s blood pressure), there needs to be more pronouns. Now, thanks to those bastions of higher-level thought the ACLU, Dictionary.com, and the Human Rights Campaign, we have a day to try to figure out what in the hell Leftists want to be called.

In celebration of International Pronouns Day, let’s make fun of preferred pronouns and have cake! And I’m all out of cake.

preferred pronouns

What the Left thinks it means –  a way for people to be called what they prefer to be called in the name of diversity and inclusion

What it really means – Leftists mucking up the language with garbage

Leftists will do almost anything to appear diverse, including creating a list of pronouns that look like an alphabet soup factory exploded. And they’re even willing to punish you for not using them! Earlier this year, the University of Minnesota considered making it an offense worthy of expulsion or firing if someone didn’t use a person’s preferred pronouns after he or she made said pronouns known. Think about that for a moment. Not calling someone by preferred pronouns could get you thrown off campus in one fashion or another.

And what’s the likelihood that student or faculty member would wind up on an informal blacklist preventing him or her from future endeavors? I’d say about as likely as Snoop Dogg getting high on a day ending in, well, day.

This reminds me a lot of the political correctness movement of the early 1990s because it too focused on language and control. If you didn’t use the right hyphenated and overwrought term on any given week, you were ostracized and shamed, even if you were more PC than IBM the week before. Now, we’re dealing with people who apply the same draconian logic to pronouns.

At least the Left is committed to recycling, even if it’s bad ideas.

There are a number of problems with the whole preferred pronouns idea. First and foremost, it defies biology. A vast majority of people fall into one of two genders, male or female. No matter how you self-identify, chances are you’re one or the other. In those rare occasions when there is a question as to what gender a person is, then we should extend our courtesy and ask how he or she would like to be referred. (Personally, I prefer using his or her name as a means to circumvent the entire issue, but I’m just a weirdo.)

If you’re a rainbow-hued college coed who thinks she is a lesbian dragonkin who self-identifies as Rob Lowe…not so much.

This brings me to my second problem with preferred pronouns: it’s based on solely one person’s feelings. If a man or woman wants me to use the preferred pronoun zer (which is real, by the way), I think of two things. First, I want to add “and the Kodan Armada” after saying zyr because I happen to love “The Last Starfighter.” And second, what about my wants? What if I don’t want to call you zyr or zee or any other pronouns you could get by overturning a box of Scrabble tiles? To comply with the wishes of those who use preferred pronouns, the submission of other people’s wills becomes a necessity.

Ah, there’s the core of the issue for me: forced or coerced compliance. When the Left cannot persuade society to change by coming up with an actual argument, they resort to force, whether it be physical (I’m looking at you Antifa), metaphorical, peer pressure, or emotional manipulation. It’s these last two that are particularly nasty because of our psychological needs to be part of a group and to be seen as good people. By preying on these needs, the Left has created a no-win game. Either you accept the preferred pronouns, or you get called a racist/bigot/homophobe/misogynist/Trump Support/conservative hatemonger/the “other” name popular this week for people who disagree with a Leftist.

The best way to avoid the no-win game…is not to play. Treat everyone with the respect you would like to receive, and if it doesn’t come back to you, so be it. Look at it this way. There are people convinced they are something they aren’t. Succumbing to their demands makes you an enabler of their delusions and makes it harder for them to find their way back to reality. As with drug abusers, eventually there is a “coming to Jesus” moment when the preferred pronoun crowd needs to decide between the life they’re living and a life without the perceived safety of their current lives. Most may continue their zyring ways because Leftist ideology is a powerful drug, but some may turn away and find the world loves them more than they realize.

That is the central questions the preferred pronoun crowd needs to answer for themselves: do I want to be known by my pronouns or by me? The former may give you a temporary boost, but it will ultimately leave you feeling empty. The latter is the harder road, but it is the more fulfilling journey because you get to find out what you’re made of. Show me a pronoun that can change the world like a strong human being can. You can’t because pronouns are just words made up of letters that mean nothing in the grand scheme of the cosmos. It’s people who give words power, not the other way around.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Back when I was growing up, things were a lot simpler. Men were men, women were men, and everybody was really confused. We understood the difference between truth and lies and learned honesty. Today, thanks to our friends on the Left, we no longer have a sense of truth…and it may even have a gender!

One of the favorite lines Leftists used to defend Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is that she told “her truth.” First off, how do we know the truth is female? And what if the truth self-identifies as male? Beyond the simple absurdity I’ve outlined, there is a more complex absurdity at work, one that will shake the foundation of the concept of truth.

her truth

What the Left thinks it means – when a woman includes her personal experiences and perceptions when recounting facts

What it really means – the Left’s attempt to make the truth subject to personal opinion

Imagine going through life knowing you could shape reality just by believing in a certain set of variables that you alone control and no one can ever question. Wouldn’t that be cool? Thanks to the Left, you can have that ability! All you have to do is…be a Leftist!

Yeah, still too high a price for that power.

The Left isn’t on speaking terms with the truth, as can be seen by reviewing their economic policies. But when it comes to matters like allegations of sexual assault, this disdain for the truth is no joking matter. When you bring in the concept of “her truth” in lieu of the truth, you’re creating an environment where men are guilty until proven guilty. I know Lady Justice is blindfolded, but damn!

But this, like many other Leftist schemes, is by design. By establishing the idea men and women have different concepts of truth, it creates a duality that coincides with…the Left’s belief there are two different types of justice: one for the powerful (in this case men) and one for the weak (in this case women). Which comes in direct conflict with the Left’s idea women are as strong and capable as men, but hey…

Where this duality becomes truly dangerous is in situations where young men are still developing and, thus, vulnerable to pressure. I’m looking at you, high schools and college campuses. While the former is not immune to sexual assault allegations, the latter has become Ground Zero in the gender wars, due in part to President Barack Obama’s interpretation of Title IX. If you thought the Star Chamber was unfair, college inquiries into sexual assault and rape allegations have more kangaroos than Australia. Imagine being 20 years old and having the prospect of your academic and occupational futures stripped from you without a chance to defend yourself, with or without an attorney. Compounding that is an institution that has no interest in what you have to say and believes every word your accuser says, regardless of whether is resembles the truth, and has pretty much convicted you before you can respond. Only the brave or the foolish would fight back.

And that’s what the Left is counting on.

For the Left to win, they need their opponents to put themselves into a no-win situation. With “her truth,” it combines the emotional appeal of wanting to protect women and the insistence not to judge others. If you doubt a woman’s account of a sexual assault, you are automatically assumed to hate women and/or pass judgment, which in turn makes you defensive most likely. So, either you accept “her truth” as the truth or you stay silent, which to the Left is no different than consent.

That’s why it’s important we don’t succumb to the concept of her truth. Last time I checked, women were human, too. And that comes with all of the baggage men have, including the ability and motivation to lie under certain circumstances. In other words, there is always a possibility her truth may be a lie.

That brings us back to the concept of the truth. No matter how we try to justify ourselves and our actions, the truth isn’t subject to our fee-fees. It is always grounded in facts and reality, as painful or uncomfortable as it may be. Pretending reality isn’t so doesn’t change it, and giving it a gender component doesn’t make it any less deceitful.

If it’s all the same, I’ll stick with the truth. Not her truth, not his truth, not his/her truth, not my truth. The truth.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

One of the most intriguing (and admittedly frustrating) elements of the confirmation hearings of Brett “the Hitman” Kavanaugh is the use of names for people who question the testimony of Dr. Christine “Not Cool Enough for a Nickname” Blasey Ford. After all, we’re supposed to believe women, even when their stories are more bogus than a CNN fact check. People who take the “believe all women” stance have a particularly offensive term for those of us doubters: rape apologists.

And it’s a term that keeps getting thrown about whenever a woman comes forward with claims of sexual assault and/or rape. If you don’t believe a woman, you obviously condone rape according to the Left. If you defend a man against sexual assault and/or rape charges, you condone rape. In fact, I’m pretty sure being a man who insists upon breathing in a woman’s presence is grounds for being a rape apologist.

So, let’s put on our hip waders and take a walk on the slimy side.

rape apologist

What the Left thinks it means – a group of people, predominantly male, who will excuse sexual assault and rape under any and all circumstances

What it really means – a term that is used to try to protect women who have questionable allegations in an attempt to legitimize all questionable allegations against men

Even though I’ve been out of the dating pool for a few years, I understand the pressures of being a single man in today’s society. The manbun alone has been a pox on the houses (or at least the condos or apartments) of single men everywhere. But add the possibility of being accused of rape, and it makes the manbun look like…well, a manbun.

Accusations of rape and sexual assault are serious business because they have significant emotional and legal import. Just ask Brock Turner and his dad. That’s why it’s important we treat every allegation seriously and commit to finding out the truth. It’s also important we call out those who make false allegations.

To the Left, that makes me a rape apologist. To everyone else, that makes me a sensible human being. Guess which side I’m taking.

Leftists are quick to point out women really don’t have a reason to lie about rape and sexual assault, and they point to statistics (that they’ve invented) to point out how rampant rape is in our society. This is done to justify the idea of women as being helpless victims subject to the whims of evil men. And this turns into campaign contributions and votes for Leftists, who claim to be the champions of women and front line fighters against the rape culture. And these are the same people who throw out the rape apologist label whenever they think they shame people into bending the knee to their ideology.

Consider my knee unbent. Oh, and you Leftists can get bent.

It’s not that I don’t believe Dr. Ford so much as it is we’ve been down this road before with other accusations that haven’t panned out and have been whitewashed by Leftists. Remember Emma “Mattress Girl” Sulkowicz? She was the darling of the Left when she alleged she was a rape victim. Senator Kirsten “Hillary 2.0” Gillibrand invited her to one of President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Addresses, where she was featured prominently. She was praised for her lame stunt…I mean “art project” and was believed without so much as a thought.

Guess what? She lied. Her “rape” was actually consensual sex. But that’s just one example, right? There can’t be more! Well, you might want to ask Rolling Stone about that.

This is not to say Dr. Ford is a liar. It’s to introduce a concept that isn’t often considered when discussing rape and sexual assault allegations: due process. Betsy DeVos caught a lot of flak for trying to update Title IX to bring college campuses closer to the due process standard, but it was the right thing to do because prior to her intervention, those accused of rape were guilty even after being proven innocent. For that, DeVos was called a rape apologist (among other things).

If you’ve been paying attention, you see a couple of patterns. One, Leftists are really unhinged. Two, the people being called rape apologists are calling for men and women to be on equal footing legally when it comes to rape allegations. And three, not one of the people accused of being rape apologists…have literally apologized or tried to delegitimize rape.

That’s because throwing out the “rape apologist” label isn’t about rape so much as it is about maintaining the status quo where women have the power to ruin men’s lives with none of the consequences that come from false allegations. The problem with this approach, however, is that it runs in direct conflict with their claims of a “rape culture.” If there really is a culture that condones and promotes rape (spoiler alert: it doesn’t exist), why would the Left want to make it harder for actual rape victims to come forward and be believed?

Let’s just say the Left doesn’t have a problem with actual rape when it suits their needs. See Bill Clinton. And as long as they can get enough people to believe they care about women while making it easier for people to disregard actual rape and sexual assault, they will continue to use women, just like…well, Bill Clinton.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

During this past week’s drama…I mean circus…I mean confirmation hearing for Brett “the Hitman” Kavanaugh, Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee made it a point to underscore how brave Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was for appearing before the committee and telling her side of the story. And I literally mean “story.” I haven’t been so unconvinced at what I saw since I watched the actors in “The Blair Witch Project” trying to convince me the movie was scary.

The standard for bravery is different for everyone. For some, it’s the soldier who lays down his or her life for her country. For others, it’s police officers and firefighters running towards danger. For Leftists, it’s…a privileged white female professor who flies across country. Granted, if she flew on United, they might have a point.

And because of this disparity, we have a point to discuss in the Leftist Lexicon.

bravery

What the Left thinks it means – courage in facing adversity, often imposed upon people by conservatives

What it really means – a term the Left has really watered down

One of the hardest parts of defining bravery is in nailing down what constitutes it. Everybody’s going to have a different perspective due to their individual experiences. Having said that, I would like to think there is common ground on the definition.

Then, the Left get involved and any common ground turns into the Dust Belt.

As with public education, school lunch menus under Michelle Obama, and personal ethics, the Left sets the standard for bravery lower than Congress’ approval ratings. That’s not to say they don’t have standards, mind you. It’s just their standards are more ideological than anything else. (Surprise, surprise.) Anyone who could conceivably or actually represent Leftists get the fast track to hero status. That’s why AIDS victims are lionized while police officers are cursed (and cursed at, for that matter). It’s also why soldiers get called baby-killers while women who had or support abortion get positive press.

But it misses the point. You aren’t brave if you stick with the prevailing idea, no matter how many Leftists call you brave. If anything, conformity is the opposite of bravery because all you’re doing is following what the crowd tells you is good and right. And that’s how “Two and a Half Men” got into syndication.

The truly brave people are ones who ignore the majority and seek a better solution on their own. Our country might still be English colonies if the Founding Fathers listened to majority opinion at the time, which clearly sided with continuing to be colonists. Maybe they were afraid to change or maybe they had a thing for guys in white powdered wigs, but the point is the Founding Fathers took on great risk and the possibility of failure to take a chance at something great.

And it’s not just here and in the past, kids. People like Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Harvey Milk, Susan B. Anthony, and countless others (including more than a few idols on the Left, I might add) bucked the existing system and brought about the societal change they wanted to make. I may not agree with them or what they stood for, but I cannot deny they were brave.

At this point, you may be asking yourself, “What does Thomas wear around the house?” Or “What does Thomas consider brave?” You know, whichever.

To answer the latter question, bravery is when you swallow today’s fears so others won’t have to be afraid tomorrow. That means a lot of people the Left call heroes don’t make the cut, including Dr. Ford. She wasn’t courageous for coming forward; she merely did what was expected she’d do and was treated like a Faberge egg in a pillow factory. Had she come forward in the 80s and faced down a hostile legal team who cared nothing about her or her feelings, that would have made her brave. As it stands, Dr. Ford’s bravery was more watered down than Michael Phelps’ Speedo.

As for the former question, I’m saving that answer for another blog post.

Bravery in any form comes with an element of risk. The higher the risk, the greater the reward for success or penalty for failure. And with Leftists wanting to take the risk out of everything so everyone can be equally mediocre, that means being brave gets a lot easier if you subscribe to the Left’s mindset. The problem is if everyone can be called brave, then no one gets to be brave. Bravery becomes the norm.

Let me put it another way. Being an outspoken Leftist at UC Berkeley requires little bravery. Being an outspoken conservative at UC Berkeley requires much more bravery because a) you will always be outnumbered, and b) the outspoken Leftists at UC Berkeley may physically hurt you for being an outspoken conservative.

Former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart used a now-famous test for obscenity: “I know it when I see it.” Bravery works a little bit differently. You’ll know it when you don’t see it.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

It’s been a week and we are still no closer to confirming Brett “the Hitman” Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. This is mainly because Senate Democrats are insisting upon further investigation into accusations of sexual assault raised by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who alleges Kavanaugh did something at some time involving something else at someplace. Leftists state it’s only fair we delve into these accusations so we know whether Kavanaugh is a sexual predator.

Although there are a lot of subjects that can come from this situation, there is one word that the Left constantly uses whenever it wants to bend the will of the people to their causes: fair. Leftists want fair trade, fairness to address the wage gap between men and women, the rich to pay their fair share, to campaign at state fairs, and so on. (Okay, that last one was a reach, but you get the idea.) So, what does the Left consider fair?

Let’s find out!

fair

What the Left thinks it means – equal consideration to all possible points of view

What it really means – a concept the Left loves to use, but only when it favors them

Four little letters causing a lot of confusion, mostly self-induced by the Left. Americans have a strong attachment to fairness in part because our country was build on the idea. When the Pilgrims got a raw deal from the English monarchy, they left and landed on Plymouth Rock where they proceeded to die off due to the failures of socialism. (Read up on the Mayflower Compact if you doubt this.) When the colonists got another raw deal from the English monarchy, they fought back and started a revolution, if you’ll pardon the pun. Granted, we haven’t always been motivated by fairness (just ask Native Americans), but it is still one of the cornerstone ideals we’ve maintained throughout our history.

Which means the Left just has to manipulate it for its own ends.

Leftists play in the world of emotions, and fairness is a concept that invokes a lot of them. We want a level playing field for all and get angry when that doesn’t happen. What better way to whip the public into a lather than to claim something isn’t fair? And what better way to get people to vote for you than to tell them you’re all about fairness? It’s almost too good to be true!

Well, that’s because it is. When the Left brings up fairness, it’s always when they feel they have the most to gain. That’s why Senate Democrats want there to be an investigation. Not only do they look like defenders of sexual assault victims (unless the assaulter is a Leftist, of course), but they do so by claiming the fairness high ground, which can lead to votes, which Democrats desperately need in the midterm elections. To put it mildly, a room full of monkeys with a room full of typewriters could come up with a better campaign strategy than the DNC has so far.

Meanwhile, the Left doesn’t give one tenth of one damn about fairness when they hold the power. Try getting Ben Shapiro booked at UC Berkeley if you doubt me. You’ll find it’s easier to land a 747 on the first floor of a parking garage than getting any conservative speaker on a campus run by Leftists. Then, there’s the flat tax, also called the fair tax, where taxpayers would pay the same percentage. Leftists hate that because their idea of fairness in taxes is the rich paying a higher percentage since they make more.

So, let me get this straight. Instead of paying the same amount, which by definition is fair to everyone, the Left believes the rich should pay more taxes to make things fair. Brilliant!

Bringing everything back to the Kavanaugh hearing, the Left wants us to believe similar logic applies. A fair hearing to them means Kavanaugh testifies first while Dr. Ford gets a chance to present her testimony after the fact. Also, the Left believes a fair investigation requires the FBI to get involved as ordered by President Donald Trump and Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court would have to be delayed until the FBI did its job. Oh, and Dr. Ford would have to travel from California to Washington by car because she doesn’t want to fly, so to be fair we have to allow her time to get there. And even if the Senate Judiciary Committee was to go to her, Dr. Ford might make other demands in the name of fairness.

Meanwhile, the one person who isn’t getting a fair shake in all of this is Brett Kavanaugh. Like him or hate him, the circumstances behind his nomination process have opened his family and him up to death threats, all sorts of vicious rumors about him and his past, aggressive attacks by Senate Democrats looking to grandstand and jockey for position to be the party’s 2020 Presidential candidate, and, worst of all, having to endure questions from people who wouldn’t know habeas corpus from a hole in the ground. And after all of that, he has to deal with Dr. Ford’s allegations, which are thinner than the plot of a mystery novel written by kindergarteners…or Democrat members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for that matter.

And who is it who tells us justice delayed is justice denied? Why, it’s the Left, who feel it’s perfectly fine to delay confirmation of an actual Justice under the guise of a fair hearing.

I’ll take Concepts Too Complex for Leftists for $200, Alex.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

With Hurricane Florence on the minds of people on the southern Atlantic coast, many eyes are focusing on the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA. To say the men and women who staff FEMA are under a lot of pressure is like saying Nikki Minaj is a talentless hack: it’s accurate, albeit understated. And when you have so many people directly and indirectly affected by what you do, you are expected to perform well under that pressure. Even one screw up can mean you turn into a pariah.

I’m looking at you, Michael “Brownie” Brown. These days he’s managing a Fryalator at the Regional Shanty of Flapjacks (their motto: Try our Possum and Pancake Combo Because ‘Murca.)

Leftists seem to have a love/hate relationship with FEMA. On the one hand, they have an incredible amount of power as a result of tragedy and have people relying on them for help. On the other, occasionally FEMA is run by a Republican, which makes their statist wet dreams a bit less enjoyable, but gives the Left an excuse to exploit tragedy to further their own political ends. So, any day ending in “day.”

Let’s take a closer look at FEMA, shall we?

FEMA

What the Left thinks it means – a competent federal agency that works well when a Leftist is running it, but is a failure when a conservative or Republican runs it

What it really means – a government agency that both fulfills a need and infuriates small government types

And, yes, I am one of those small government types. Having said that, there are some problems that can only be handled at the federal level because of the sheer logistics necessary to resolve them. Imagine renovating a large house. Even if you are a Ron Swanson-level handyman, there are going to be some jobs you are going to need to hire out to do. You know, like if your house is lacking a floor…on every floor.

This is what FEMA does, in essence. They are the people who get hired to handle the big jobs we can’t do ourselves. And just like with every job, there are people who will go the extra mile, and there are people whose greatest effort of the day is walking over to the coffee pot. Think Congress with tool belts.

We saw the impact of this recently in Puerto Rico. Although President Donald Trump called FEMA’s reaction to Hurricane Maria “an incredible unsung success,” the visuals make it hard to take the President’s word for it. Many parts of Puerto Rico are still without power, people are sick and dying, and food and water isn’t getting to the people who need it. Even though Trump has a point about the successes of the response getting overlooked in light of the devastation, we can see where there are areas of improvement.

Therein lies one of my problems with FEMA: we keep seeing these areas of improvement without seeing anyone addressing them. Whether it was the FEMA trailers going unused and the misuse of federal funds to subsidize porn (you read that right, kids) after Hurricane Katrina to case after case of bottled water and food going unused because they weren’t distributed, you would think FEMA would be better at the logistics than they appear. Granted, whenever you deal with people, there are inefficiencies built in, but when your job is literally to help get areas affected by natural disasters up and running, the expectation is that you should be good at it.

This issue isn’t made any easier by adding politics into the mix, as the Left is wont to do with, oh, everything. It always amazes me how inept FEMA is when there is a Republican President and how exceptional that same agency is when there is a Democrat President, at least according to the Left, even though we keep seeing the same problems regardless of the party of the President. Pointing fingers may help the party, but it doesn’t matter to someone whose house was destroyed by a hurricane.

What we need is accountability at FEMA. Considering we are still cleaning up after Katrina in spite of the fact it occurred over a decade ago tells me there is room to improve, but that won’t happen in the current environment. America deserves a FEMA that not only delivers on the expectation of addressing issues after a disaster, but does so with an attention to the money being spent and how it’s being spent. And there has to be follow-through. When Puerto Ricans are dying because they don’t have access to bottled water, it shouldn’t take a year to find out about it and address it.

Maybe it’s time for a FEMA for FEMA. Instead of assuming the next disaster will be the one FEMA gets right, let’s prepare for success before it happens. Weather is unpredictable, but the response shouldn’t be. Figure out how non-government entities address disaster responses and replicate that at the federal level. Maybe take a cue or fifty from insurance companies who do at a smaller level what FEMA does on the federal level.

But perhaps the best thing we can do to help FEMA is to be thankful they’re there. Flaws and all, FEMA does a lot right and it shouldn’t be overlooked in the name of political points or personal drama. Let’s make it easier for FEMA to do their jobs without the hoops and bureaucracy that make the simplest tasks an exercise in futility, red tape, and forms in triplicate. The easier we make it for FEMA, the better the responses will become.

And if you’re in Florence’s path, stay safe.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

During the recent confirmation hearings for Brett “the Hitman” Kavanaugh, reporters became fixated on a particular gesture, not by Kavanaugh himself, but by a woman sitting behind him. She was caught on camera making what appeared to be the “OK” sign with her hand. Which means, according to Leftists, she was a white supremacist because the “OK” sign has been co-opted by white supremacists. Therefore, according to Leftists, Kavanaugh cannot be confirmed because…white supremacists.

Is it just me, or does it seem like the Left is seeing white supremacists under every rock, bed, and bedsheet? (Well, in some cases, they can be found under bedsheets, but not that often.) Even though the woman in the video, Zina Bash, is Mexican, Jewish, and had grandparents who were Holocaust survivors, she has to be a white supremacist. I mean, who else would work in the Trump White House, right?

This week’s Leftist Lexicon will delve into white supremacists and see whether the Left may be onto something. Or if they’re just on something.

white supremacists

What the Left thinks it means – racist alt-right conservatives who have been emboldened by Donald Trump’s Presidency to come out and cause trouble

What it really means – a small group with bullhorns convincing people they’re bigger than they actually are

One of the great Leftist narratives against President Donald Trump is that he is a white supremacist because he hired Steven Miller and Steve Bannon, both of whom either identify as or hold views similar to white supremacists. Of course, his years of being lauded as a friend to blacks gets, pun unintended, white-washed with this approach, but when you have a narrative to push, facts just get in the way. Hence, guilt by association.

Funny how that doesn’t go in a different way, say…oh, I don’t know…with a religion that has members who are violent and want to kill people who are different than them. Oh, well, #NotAllMuslims and such.

Depending on who you ask, white supremacists are either popping up in greater numbers or are inspiring other white supremacists to become emboldened and embrace their hatred. The Southern Poverty Law Center has been keeping track of white supremacist activity for decades and they’ve been some of the ones who have lead the charge to let people (read: Leftists) know about the wave of white supremacy across the country. Granted, this is the same Southern Poverty Law Center who labeled the TEA Party a hate group, but had to be shamed into including black, Muslim, and other racist groups in their hate watches, but hey. Credit where credit is due.

While the SPLC tends to have a hair trigger when it comes to white supremacists, it is safe to say there are such people out there in America right now. Whether they’re as prevalent and as pervasive as some on the Left suggest is subject to debate. Personally, I don’t see white supremacists as frequently as Leftists do because, well, I’m just not that bat-crap cray-cray. The Left has taken themselves so seriously that they can’t recognize when they’re being trolled.

And that’s the case with the “OK” hand sign. Contrary to Leftist belief, it didn’t originate with white supremacists nor was it coopted by them. As with many things these days, this idea started with the Internet and a group called 4chan. They created an operation titled “Operation OKKK” where they tried to convince people the hand sign was a symbol for white power. And, buddy, it caught on like wildfire! No matter how many times it’s debunked, the Left (and certain members of the white supremacist movement) treat it as gospel.

Remember, kids, the Left are the smart ones who only want facts and say reality has a liberal bias.

In spite of their relative small portion of the population as a whole, let alone the white portion of it, white supremacists are getting more attention. But it’s not because they’re getting bolder and don’t have to hide anymore in the era of Trump. It’s because Leftists give them the attention in the first place! By looking for white supremacists everywhere under the sun, the Left has given them the opportunity to perform for them (or at least give the appearance of performing). And given how the Left doesn’t let facts get in the way of a good crisis narrative, I wouldn’t be surprised if real white supremacists felt they had to come out and correct the record, if you’ll pardon the expression.

But being more prominent doesn’t mean actual numbers. That’s where I think the Left gets it completely wrong by design. They need white supremacists to be numerous to justify their “Trump is a white supremacist” narrative, and they have the tools (read: the media and political figures) to make it seem real. Frankly, though, I think it goes deeper than that.

Think about it for a moment. What ideology promotes the idea that “The Man” is keeping minorities down while never actually investing in the futures of those minorities? What ideology promises to empower people of color while never really giving them positions of power? What ideology has white people claiming to be “woke” without them giving up anything of value to the people they believe are being oppressed?

Can you say “Leftist”? I knew you could.

Maybe the country’s biggest white supremacy group is the DNC and its Leftist allies.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

We’re entering into the home stretch of the 2018 midterm elections, and it couldn’t come soon enough. I was tired of this year’s midterm elections in, oh, 2016. And with the Left, this could be the most important election in our history because, as they put it, “Trump is a doodyhead.” (Actually, it’s not that reason in so many words, but it boils down to that.)

To help the cause to elect more Democrats, the Left has once again jumped to social media to start a new hashtag, #VoteThemOut, referencing a desire to vote out Republicans. Because, as we all know from the previous Administration, hashtags make people DO something.

Well, in this case, it’s inspiring me to do something: write this week’s Leftist Lexicon!

#VoteThemOut

What the Left thinks it means – an online movement to vote out Republicans and replace them with progressive Democrats

What it really means – a hashtag that will accomplish nothing

Every couple of years, we go through the same tired dance. One party wants to keep power, and the other party wants to strip power away from the other party because the other party is evil incarnate. The only way for the latter party to fix the problems caused by the evil party is to elect more good people. And every couple of years, nothing changes in a significant manner, no matter who wins the election.

Blather. Rinse. Repeat.

Although the Left has a ton of motivation to vote for Democrats and progressives this year, their use of a hashtag to promote it doesn’t exactly scream “Vote for us because we have ideas.” It’s closer to “Vote for us because the other side sucks.” Enter the hashtag #VoteThemOut. It sends the same message as “Vote for us because the other side sucks,” but does it in a way that is short, memorable, and catchy. It’s the social media equivalent of a bumper sticker, but without the need to find space on a vehicle to stick it.

And you might be able to guess what else I feel can stick it.

Hashtags may be what the cool kids do, but it makes for poor political strategy because it doesn’t necessarily create action. Remember #BringBackOurGirls? It was a valid sentiment that hoped to garner positive results, but it worked as well as CNN’s fact checking department. It brought attention to the situation and did…absolutely nothing.

Just like the ribbons worn on the red carpets in Hollywood, hashtags are a great way to show you care about an issue and they seem to absolve the person using them of the responsibility of actually doing something about it. After all, they did the hard part by telling people know about an issue. It’s up to others to do the easy stuff and make things happen!

And, yes, I’m being sarcastic here.

In order for hashtags to become more than just words in the cyber-ether, someone has to act on them. But the problem with the midterm elections is only a limited number of people can act on them since we’re dealing with state-level elections, albeit with national implications. A Leftist in California tweeting #VoteThemOut can have it go global, but the impact it has is limited to the voters or potential voters where Democrats want to take Republican seats. Further diluting the impact is the fact #VoteThemOut will only garner support from people already leaning towards that idea.

Can you say “echo chamber,” kids? I knew you could.

Let’s say for the sake of argument the hashtag catches on and results in the “Blue Wave” the Left keeps saying is going to happen. What then? Given the fact most Leftists see it as a chance to impeach President Donald Trump, not much will get accomplished. Oh, there may be some other progressive ideas that may get proposed and maybe even voted on by the House and Senate, but unless impeachment is on the table, the Left won’t be happy. (Mainly because they think they can remove Trump and everyone else in the line of succession, force the country to hold a new election, add more Justices to the Supreme Court, and other wild conclusions devoid of Constitutional grounding. But, hey, why let a little thing like the Constitution get in the way of getting what the Left wants, right?)

Surely this time will be different, the Left will say. And they will be wrong. When there is a seismic shift in political power, rarely is it followed by a flurry of positive results that benefit the country. Why, it’s almost as if…politicians promise the moon, but only deliver green cheese!

That’s because government isn’t in the problem-solving business. I’ve noted it before, but the short version is current government needs there to be constant problems to retain power, money, and control. If Democrats sweep into power in 2018, all the problems they say are caused by Republicans will either be “forgotten” or found not to be as big of a problem as they claimed they were. And if the “Blue Wave” happens, a “Red Wave” will come after that and then Republicans will be the ones to “forget” problems or go along to get along.

The fact we still have a Department of Education in spite of Ronald Reagan’s promise to eliminate it back in the 1980s is proof of that.

If you want to vote out Democrats and/or Republicans because you feel things will be better without them, go for it. Just try to act surprised when nothing comes of it.