Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

95 Views

Recently, MSNBC host Lawrence O’Donnell presented what he said was proof of President Donald Trump having loans cosigned by, as he put it, “Russian billionaires close to Vladimir Putin.” And how did O’Donnell prove this? A single anonymous source he claimed was close to Deutsche Bank, the bank that approved President Trump’s loans. Since his show aired, NBC came out and said they could not confirm the identity or the veracity of the claims O’Donnell made. And after a legal threat by the President, O’Donnell tweeted he made “an error in judgement.” Whoopsie!

Great journalism there, Larry. You can expect your Pulitzer for Investigative Reporting on Stories Pulled Out of the Reporter’s Ass any day now.

I know CNN is often slapped with the “Fake News” label (and deservedly so given how many stories they get wrong), but another network may take the crown before too much longer, that being MSNBC. What started out as an alternative to the aforementioned CNN has become the place for Leftists to gather, spread information, and watch like-minded talking heads bring up a laundry list of news stories designed to confirm the biases of its viewers.

As a media observer/critic/mocker, I’ve watched MSNBC’s evolution from news channel to a left-wing InfoWars without Alex Jones’ appeal. And, as you might guess, I have a few opinions on it and the various personalities who inhabit its bubble.

MSNBC

What the Left thinks it means –  one of the only true sources of hard facts and investigative reporting out there

What it really is – what would happen if CNN were run by Millennials

I’ll be the first one to admit I trust MSNBC less than I trust Nancy Pelosi’s plastic surgeon referral, but that’s not without reason. Whatever journalistic practices they had at their inception was removed and replaced with self-important Leftist figure-airheads who can best be called willing mouthpieces for the Left. Whether it’s Rachel Maddow (who I think is Chris Hayes in drag), Chris Hayes (who I think is Rachel Maddow in drag), Lawrence O’Donnell (who I think is a drag, period), or any of the other interchangeable anchors, there are two things that unite them. One, they will advance any and all Leftist viewpoints, regardless of how farfetched they may be. And, two, they suck at real news.

This is going to come as a shock to you Leftists, but some of MSNBC’s critics have an idea or two about what journalistic standards are, or were as the case may be. Take the O’Donnell bombshell mentioned above, for example. Going to press with a single source, let alone a single anonymous source, would get you busted down to reporting on zoning meetings under an editor whose goal is to report news, not rumor. Why? Because newspapers and TV stations can get sued if they get a story wrong and damage a person’s reputation. Yes, even if it’s Donald Trump’s reputation, which is damaged worse than a Ford Pinto gently tapping a wall at Chernobyl.

But that’s not what MSNBC’s editors do. Instead, they allow unfounded and poorly-sourced speculation to go to air without checking the facts first, often with hilarious unintended consequences. Remember when Rachel Maddow hyped a story she had a copy of Donald Trump’s taxes? Turns out she had a portion of the tax forms and it showed…Trump paid taxes. That bastard!

What is also showed was MSNBC wasn’t interested in finding the truth, but was interested in finding a way to get people to talk about their reporting. And after Maddow’s bombshell bombed, it was quickly “memory holed” and her credibility was untouched in Leftist circles. The same will happen with O’Donnell, and the same has happened with other MSNBC hosts like Joy Reid, Al Sharpton, and the late Ed Schultz. No matter what insanely stupid things they said or did, Leftists pretended like those were minor mistakes that didn’t reflect badly on their credibility. Of course, they don’t extend the same courtesy to anyone on the Right…

The problem Leftists face without knowing it is by relying on poorly-sourced information without doing a bit of fact checking on their own because it fits what they believe, they are becoming less informed and more vulnerable to “fake news.” And when it pertains to the President, they will jump on any accusation if it sounds plausible. Granted, the Right does this, too, so it’s not just a problem with the Left. Even so, the Right has relatively few outlets for potential misinformation when compared to the Left. It doesn’t make it right, but it does make it harder to find the truth.

Broadcasting 24/7 isn’t a right; it’s a privilege, one that comes with an awesome responsibility to not cause harm to its viewers or listeners. For the second-highest rated cable news network to be so cavalier with the truth as frequently as it does is frightening because it violates the implied contract between the maker and the consumer. We still put our trust (as misguided as that may be) in media outlets from talk radio to cable news to newspapers to give us the facts. Yet, as recent polling data shows, the public’s trust in the media is lower than an earthworm’s belt buckle. That hasn’t come because the media have done their jobs. It’s because they haven’t, and MSNBC is a prime example of what happens when a member of the media get something wrong.

I don’t want MSNBC taken off the air, and the same goes with CNN, Fox News, and other news media. (Although, I do think Hallmark Movie Channel needs to seriously cut back on the Christmas movies. At this rate they could run them every day of the year and never repeat one.) What I want is for the media to get back into the news business. And, yes, that requires a bit more effort than asking a Republican when he stopped beating his wife while asking a known Democrat wife-beater what his favorite color is. It means asking tough questions on both sides, not dismissing one side of an issue because it doesn’t line up with yours, and above all else have a poker face better than the ones on Mount Rushmore. We shouldn’t put up with alleged news anchors rolling their eyes, literally or figuratively, when a guest says something that doesn’t square up with the narrative. As we’ve seen, the narrative can be wrong, and when coupled with ideological fervor that makes the Spanish Inquisition look indecisive create an uninformed populous ready to pick up torches and pitchforks at a moment’s notice because Orange Man Bad.

But you do you, MSNBC.

And A Child Shall Lead. Be Afraid.

128 Views

Every so often, an idea will come to a person and it shapes his or her life forever. This is how great inventions, philosophies, and new types of porn get developed. But sometimes the idea leads to darker discoveries, such as cults, violent revolution, and new types of porn.

I had one of these ideas recently, and it doesn’t bode well for the world. The current political landscape is more tattered than pair of cutoffs in a CAT 5 hurricane near a knife factory. People are sniping at each other online and attacking each other in public over differences of opinion. Any middle ground is most likely found at the bottom of a deep chasm between the two sides of an argument.

I got into an online discussion (and by discussion I mean one-sided shouting match with yours truly being the recipient) about Megan Rapinoe and her letting the American flag fall to the ground. I stated my objection to Ms. Rapinoe on this basis and Leftists on the thread thought I was advocating kicking a puppy for fun and profit. Through use of logical fallacies, projecting what they thought I was saying and what my ideological bent was, and a combination of public shaming, vulgarity, and insults, I eventually gave up trying to use reason because it didn’t work the first few times I tried it while correcting and pointing out their logical and factual errors.

Then, it occurred to me the chasm between the Leftists on the thread and me had nothing to do with Left vs. Right, Democrat vs. Republican, Liberals vs. Conservatives, or even Right vs. Wrong. It’s turned into children vs. adults.

The news is full of stories that bear out this observation. Take the recent controversy over Erica Thomas, a Georgia State representative who got chewed out at a Publix grocery store for taking 15 items into the 10 Items or Less lane. (Yes, grammar fans, I know it should be 10 Items or Fewer, but work with me here.) Afterwards, Thomas went to Twitter (the home of online twits) and accused the man who called her out on her lack of grocery etiquette of being racist. She would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn’t been for those pesky kids…or the guy who Thomas called a racist appearing at a press conference Thomas called to talk about the incident. Since then, Thomas has backtracked, doubled down on her original statements, got the police involved, and watched as her public status took a nosedive faster than a Eric Swalwell’s Presidential hopes.

Now, we can debate the importance of what prompted the verbal altercation until the cows come home, but the larger point is Thomas felt she could get away with it because of who she is. And hopefully soon who she was after she resigns by choice or by demand.

What does this have to do with children vs. adults exactly? Maturity. As immature as it is to verbally accost someone in a supermarket over the number of items in a cart or basket, it’s just as immature to assume you have the authority to do it because you want to do it. Children are some of the most ego-centric people in society (second only to Congresscritters). Everything they do is designed to advance their own self-interest, and when they are denied what they want, their natural instinct is to get emotional and/or make excuses for their behavior.

Remind you of anyone you know, Ms. Thomas?

If this were an isolated incident, we might be okay, but it’s not. If you look around at the stories big and small, I’ll bet you can find more than a few instances of the adults vs. children mindset. Prepubescent drag queens, the Fight for $15 movement, Antifa and its media supporters, Megan Rapinoe and the American flag, Colin Kaepernick and the Betsy Ross Nikes, boycotts of conservative (or seemingly conservative) businesses for not towing the Leftist line, deplatforming speakers, doxing known opponents to Leftist causes, people confronting conservative members of Congress and the Trump Administration, and many, many more, all of which boils down to adults vs. children.

So, how do we fix this? I’m not sure we can anymore. We may have passed the point of no return, thus guaranteeing this is a one-way trip. The best advice I can give is to act like adults, regardless of where you fall on the ideological spectrum, because the appeal of being free from responsibility while maintaining an unwavering belief that our word and feelings are law is very strong. Like the Leftists in the online discussion about Megan Rapinoe, the children need to gang up on you so you relent, but that doesn’t mean you have to, especially when it’s something that is clearly wrong. No matter how often they badger you or tell you that you’re wrong, know that they are trying to appeal to your need to be part of a group, to be accepted. Trust me, being accepted into some groups is worse than being alone.

In the meantime, we have to be careful because we’re not dealing with rational, mature people most of the time. We are dealing with people whose entire worldviews are predicated on the notion that all men and women are created equally inferior to them, and they will get nasty. They need you to take the bait so they can drag you down to their level where they have the home field advantage. But not every battle needs to be waged online, in public, or in private. Just know the children are running the asylum right now, so we need to be careful. There is a reason so many Leftists were shocked at the 2016 Presidential election, and it’s because there were a lot of Trump supporters who silently listened to the rhetoric and decided to pull the lever for Donald Trump. And with the Left acting more and more childish by the day, 2020 is starting to shape up to be another pity party for the Left.

Robert Mueller, Redefined

127 Views

Today, the House Judiciary Committee had former Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller up to Capitol Hill to testify about his investigation into whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice. At least, that’s what it was billed as, but in actuality it was closer to a live action recreation of the Hindenburg, but without the humor.

During the testimony, we saw a different side of Mueller. What was once the beacon of truth, justice, and the American Way was seen as weak, incompetent, and otherwise spent after 2-plus years of investigating the same issue and coming up as close to empty as you can get without delving into Rep. Ted Lieu’s self-awareness territory. Although both sides are doing their best to spin the testimony in a way that exonerates/condemns the President, I saw something else.

I saw someone used by the Left for their own benefit without concern about the implications.

For those of you jumping to the conclusion I’m about to go off on a long diatribe about Mueller’s honor and service to this country as a means to defend him, relax for a minute. My internal jury is still out on whether he’s as honorable as advertised or if he was in on the Trump-Russia delusion from the jump. What I do know is he isn’t the confident man we saw early on in this bad political telenovela. Today, we saw him, human and flawed.

Leftists are notorious for latching onto a personality that can be used for partisan purposes, using said personality, and then dropping him or her when the political benefits have run their course. Remember Cindy Sheehan? She was the David Hogg of the first George W. Bush term. You couldn’t swing a dead cat (and, really, why would you) without hearing about her. Then, as soon as she challenged Nancy Pelosi for her House seat, Sheehan became persona non grata. The same can be said of Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson (husband of the aforementioned CIA Barbie), James and Susan MacDougal, Walter Mondale, and countless others.

And I get the feeling Mueller is the latest addition to that list.

The Left used him in a two-fold manner. First, they relied on his military career and past to try to diffuse any criticisms about his duties as Special Prosecutor. They also pointed out he was a Republican, which means as much to me as what color hair he had as a boy. Through these tactics, the Left set up what they consider to be a perfect shield against criticism. However, it’s not. It’s actually a logical fallacy called Appeal to Authority, which, in short, is when someone tries to refute a point by pointing at someone’s stature, regardless of whether it has any bearing on the subject at hand. (See global climate change for a great example of this.) It’s great that Mueller served in the Marine Corps and spent years serving the country, but neither one disqualifies him from criticism when he did a bad job. Judging from his performance on Capitol Hill today, Mueller should be ready to get an earful.

Through the Appeal to Authority, Leftists elevated Mueller to god level and knew he would find something on which to charge President Trump. When the Mueller Report was about to come out and it didn’t appear as though it was going to net anything juicy, the Left downgraded their expectations to retain their adoration, which lead to today’s disastrous hearing that did more damage to the Left and Mueller than it did to the Trump Administration.

Soon, the Left will use Mueller in a second manner, that of a scapegoat. In a Leftist’s mind, nothing is ever his or her fault. It’s always the work of some devious forces working against him/her. The focus of the seemingly failed Trump impeachment is bound to switch from Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats to Mueller, if for no other reason than because he failed to get Trump impeached. And that’s a failure the Left cannot let stand under any circumstances.

If you’re reading this, Mr. Mueller, know the long knives may be coming out for you very soon from people who held you in high esteem until you couldn’t deliver on their partisan fantasies. It’s nothing personal against you…okay, they’ll make it personal because you hurt their feelings by not finding anything for which to charge their Public Enemy #1. And the sad part is you were either an unwitting dupe or a willing participant, neither of which will help you escape this trap of your own making, at least in part.

And that may be the most puzzling part of all this. If you were an unwitting dupe, how can we trust your judgment and findings in light of this? (And from where I sit, your testimony today did you no favors in trying to dissuade people from seeing you as a dupe.) And if you were a willing participant, you lied or let others lie on your behalf by omission, which taints the results of your investigation and ruins your credibility even worse than your testimony today did. In either case, you might want to lie low as soon as you can and hope someone else ruins his or her credibility with all the grace of a belly flop into a hotel pool at spring break.

But don’t worry. With all the clowns in Washington DC who ran this Impeachment-Palooza dud, I’m sure someone will supplant you in no time!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

105 Views

Sometimes politics make for strange bedfellows, and other times it makes for “no duh” bedfellows. The Left’s Congressional Freshman phenoms fall into the latter group. Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley and their supporters are calling themselves “The Squad.” Although they came from different backgrounds, they are united by their politics, positions, and drive to make the country more progressive.

What makes these four women and their followers so special? I’ve been trying to figure that out since the Left made them their de facto leaders/golden children/rock stars. Are they the next generation of leaders or the political equivalent of Pogs? Let’s find out!

The Squad

What the Left thinks it means – four strong female Congresswomen who represent the future and care about the important issues of the day

What it really means – the personification of identity politics

I have a confession to make. I actually do know why The Squad is being held up as the Great Not-White-At-All Hope, and it has nothing to do with what they do or have done. Their appeal to the Left is literally skin deep. The fact they’re women and progressive only adds to their appeal to many. And the fact they’re all vocal opponents to President Donald Trump makes them the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Which begs the question of how great an invention sliced bread is, but that’s the blog post for another time.

As someone who looks for results rather than hype, I did some digging to see what The Squad has accomplished. In terms of legislative accomplishments, let’s just say I tied them and I wasn’t even trying. Outside of the political realm, they’ve created a great brand that people can identify with, especially on social media. Of course, social media isn’t the real world, so their accomplishments are pretty much the same as mine: being opinionated in cyberspace. The differences, though, are I don’t try to pass stupid legislation while I do it and I’m not wasting taxpayer money to do it. Taxpayer time, yes, but not taxpayer money.

The Squad has also been thorns in the side of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (which makes me laugh because of what her party has done to bring about The Squad and how they repay her with openly suggesting she’s a racist). The same Leftists who propped up Pelosi are now ready to throw her under The Squad bus because…she’s not as progressive as The Squad is! (Quick investment tip: buy a LOT of shares in Orville Redenbacher.) Although this kind of behavior is red meat…sorry, white tofu to the Left, it isn’t working very well with the rest of the population. I can’t account for all of them, but from what I’ve read at least half of The Squad are seeing approval ratings lower than the President’s. Not nationally, mind you. In their own districts.

Granted, The Squad may be in districts safely in Leftist hands, so there may not be reason to worry…except if people decide to challenge them from the Right and the Left. So far, there is at least one known challenger to The Squad’s most vocal leader, the aforementioned Rep. Ocasio-Cortez (a.k.a. the Socialist Socialite), and there is enough time before the 2020 elections for more to join the fray. This has the potential to open a wider rift between The Squad and the Not-Leftist-Enough Democrats, who have watched The Squad go from back-benchers to unintended spokespeople for the Democrats. The impending Leftist civil war is going to be interesting to watch, if only because it underscores the pyrrhic nature of the victory they achieved in 2018 in part because of The Squad.

Congratulations, Leftists. You’ve created the means of your own destruction. But unlike in the original (and vastly funnier) “Ghostbusters,” it’s not a giant marshmallow man coming to destroy you; it’s identity politics which you helped to make mainstream.

Of course, anyone who decides The Squad isn’t all that great will get showered with allegations of racism, sexism, Islamophobia, fascism, white supremacy, patriarchy, Nazism, and other invectives that have become the new slang for the Left (along with copious amounts of vulgarity). The issue is none of the legitimate criticisms raised about The Squad have anything to do with any of that. Sure, there are people out there giving as good as they’re getting, but most of us between the Left and the Right see The Squad not as a powerful force for good, but as a group whose watched their expectations drop lower than a snake’s belt buckle because it’s hip to hate President Trump yet manage to limbo underneath these expectations all while standing upright.

I don’t have an issue with Rep. Ilhan’s faith. I have an issue with her possibly breaking the law repeatedly prior to becoming a Representative.

I don’t have an issue with Rep. Tlaib’s faith, either. I have an issue with her ties to Hamas, a known terrorist organization.

I don’t have an issue with Rep. Pressley’s race. I have an issue with her suggesting there are blacks that should be silent on racial issues because they may not agree with her.

I don’t have an issue with Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s gender. I have an issue with her being intellectually and emotionally unsuited to represent herself, let alone her Congressional district.

And collectively, I don’t have an issue with any boxes the members of The Squad can mark off on a checklist. I have an issue with them criticizing others for doing what they do instead of finding a way to bring people together. As the old Spider-Man comics say, “With great power comes great responsibility.” Maybe The Squad prefers DC to Marvel, but the point is they still haven’t grasped the concept of leadership, all while putting themselves out there as leaders. The longer The Squad goes unchecked in the political and communication arenas, the harder it will be to topple them.

And, no, I do not condone violence or threats against these women. Beat them with better arguments, not with your fists. And given some of the stupefying things The Squad has said since taking office, you won’t even have to work that hard!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

141 Views

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

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

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

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

ethics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

179 Views

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

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

Constitutional crisis

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

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

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

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

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

Spoiler Alert, kids. We’re getting there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

231 Views

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

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

the Mueller Report

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

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

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

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

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

But I’m totally not cynical.

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

Yay for us?

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

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

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

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

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

But, still totally not cynical.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

186 Views

It’s been about a week since Robert Mueller released his report noting there would be no new indictments coming from it and generally giving media pundits plenty of material to work with for the next several weeks. Although President Donald Trump and his supporters are happier than Bill Clinton at a stripper convention a day after Hillary’s wake. But, not everyone is happy, and surprise surprise, it’s Leftists who are trying to be buzzkills.

Since the Mueller report didn’t seem to connect the dots the Left were hoping would be there between Trump and Russia, the Left is demanding Mueller’s full report be released to the public so they can see for themselves (not that it would change their minds at all). They’ve even come up with an imaginative hashtag to use on Twitter, #ReleaseTheReport (or any of the numerous variations on that theme), to do try to get people to demand it.

Of course, you can probably guess I have an opinion or 50 about it, so let’s start by defining the terminology.

#ReleaseTheReport

What the Left thinks it means – a call for the government to release the full unredacted Mueller Report

What it really means – the continuation of an already-too-long fishing expedition

From the beginning of the Mueller investigation, I had a feeling it was an investigation in search of a crime, not as a result of a crime. The accusations of collusion with Russia to affect the 2016 Presidential election were always presented with an air of certitude by Leftists, but they always seemed to lack a certain something…what is it…it’s on the tip of my tongue…oh, yeah, evidence! The best the Left has been able to provide is circumstantial evidence that hints at a connection without actually nailing down any of the concrete specifics that would establish it definitively.

Now that we have a report, we need to figure out the endgame. Leftists say the reason we don’t have a full report yet is because Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refuses to make it public because it would damage Trump. As sinister as this sounds, it may be only part of the story. Right now, we can only speculate as to what the report says, but since it’s been handed off to the Southern District of New York Court as well as to Congress and the Department of Justice, there may be more at work here than just an unwillingness to release the report.

You know, tiny stuff like ongoing investigations and national security concerns.

The former is currently being done by the aforementioned SDNY court, where there are already sealed indictments. Releasing the full report now may jeopardize those indictments and prevent the accused from having a fair trial, thus creating the grounds for a mistrial. If that happened, whatever short-term pleasure could be derived from releasing the full report would backfire on the Left and leave them looking even more foolish than they already do.

Then, there’s the national security risk element. There may be parts of the Mueller Report that aren’t meant for citizens’ eyes, such as top secret intelligence, that need to be redacted before we get to see the report. That takes time and deliberation, neither of which can be rushed in matters of national security. Yet, Leftists want the full report released now with no regard to either the legal process or national security, all to try to own the President? Brilliant!

The motivation behind Leftists’ demands for the full report is pretty simple: since the Russia collusion angle has gone the way of Louis Farrakhan’s chances of getting invited to a bar mitzvah, they need to find something else to justify going after Trump and his family. If they find so much as a jaywalking ticket or an overdue library book, they are going to pounce on it. (Yes, I know, conservatives are the ones who pounce according to the media, but they consider Jim Acosta to be a valued member of their profession when he’s barely qualified to report on anything more complex than the lunch menu at the CNN commissary.) They are going to try to recreate Whitewater, but put Donald Trump in the Bill Clinton role.

And it will wind up like Whitewater did: a lot of money getting spent for very little actual punishment, no matter how deserved the punishment is.

There is another possible and even more delusional reason to consider. There are Leftists who believe if they can prove Trump broke the law that it would invalidate the 2016 election and Hillary Clinton would become President. Ummm…that’s not how this works. Unless you can prove there was voter fraud (which, by the way, wasn’t even the scope of the Mueller investigation), you have no way to claim the 2016 Presidential election was fraudulent. And since we don’t have anything in place currently to address a fraudulent Presidential election, it would take a while to fix. Put another way, by the time you could get a plan in place, it would be too late for the 2020 election, and possibly into 2024. If it gets bogged down, however, we would be running into the Socialist Socialite’s claim we have 12 years to live due to global climate change. And given all the people who died due to Trump’s tax cuts, the lack of Net Neutrality, and the US pulling out of the Paris Accords…

Look, I know Leftists want to impeach and remove Donald Trump, but it’s a fool’s errand because it falls into the same category Whitewater did: stuff that happened before the President was President and, thus, has little to no bearing on his current job title. And remember, kids, the “it was a long time ago” defense was perfected by the Left during the Commander in Briefs’ tenure to deflect attention away from his crimes. Ah, history repeats itself once again, and the Left still can’t catch on. If they weren’t too busy trying to rewrite it to suit their needs, maybe they would.

Here’s the kicker. Even if they get the full Mueller Report, it won’t satisfy the Left. They’ve already turned Robert Mueller from a superhuman to a Russian asset just in the few days since the report was submitted to the DOJ. And no matter what exoneration exists in the report, no matter how well-sourced it is, no matter how many people on both sides of the aisle agree on the content and conclusions, the Left will dismiss it like they dismiss actual science when talking about global climate change.

In the meantime, we should see #ReleaseTheRecord as a last-ditch effort to preserve the Left’s narrative at the expense of what little credibility they have on the subject of Russian collusion. Given the fact they didn’t have, well…any, to start with, it’s going to be a long slog ahead.

So, grab some popcorn and drinks of your choice. It’s gonna be fuuuuuuun!

My State of the Union Address

102 Views

President Donald Trump gave his State of the Union Address last night, after all the ballyhoo and macho posturing. Although I appreciated the topics the President covered, I don’t think he went far enough. The following is the State of the Union Address I wish he had given instead.

My fellow Americans, Representatives, Senators, Supreme Court Justices, Cabinet members, and most welcome guests…

I’m sure you all expect me to talk about how strong our country is, how well we’re doing economically and internationally, and a bunch of other happy talk, but we need to have a serious talk.

Our country is at a crossroads on several fronts. Economically, we have a debate over whether to keep the mostly capitalist society we have now or scrap it in favor of socialism of one form or another. Internationally, we are struggling to have, let alone maintain, a consistent foreign policy that both assists countries who need our help while protecting our national interests. Politically, actors on all sides of the ideological divide are treating each other poorly, even to the point of committing violent crimes against them. Racially, tensions have reached heights we haven’t seen since the 1960s. Morally, we have lost our way and given in to our baser instincts.

Put simply, America as a country, as a union, isn’t as strong as we need it to be. And I, as your President, admit to being part of the problem. I haven’t always acted in the best interests of this country and its founding principles, and for that I am sorry. I have been party to actions and words that have damaged the societal fabric and coarsened the discourse among people. For that, too, I am sorry.

What I am not sorry for is upholding a belief in this country and what greatness it can still achieve, both under my leadership and after I’ve left office. America is broken, but I cling to the idea it can and should be fixed. That is where you come into the picture.

My slogan since 2016 has been “Make America Great Again.” That can’t happen without you. America is great when its citizens rise to the challenges laid before us. In our relatively short time as the United States, we have fought in numerous wars that challenged the mettle of our men and women, been at the forefront of technological and social change, and been the innovators, inventors, and investors that turned 13 British colonies into a beacon of freedom and prosperity seen and dreamed of around the world for centuries.

Now, we are struggling to maintain our position in the world. New threats are replacing old ones. Our economic strength is on shaky ground due to short-sighted decisions by companies and government alike. That’s not your fault, but you are expected to live with the consequences because we keep changing what “normal” looks like. We need to turn our economic focus inward to shore up what we have and build up from there. This goes well beyond unemployment numbers the government puts out. This is a renewed focus on reestablishing America as a nation of doers.

Along those lines, I will ask educators and administrators to meet with me to not only promote trade schools and apprenticeships to rebuild our infrastructure, but to dig into the public and private schools to make sure every student feels he or she can be successful in a skilled trade, a professional capacity, or wherever their dreams may take them. I will also help promote STEM in public and private schools for boys and girls alike because the future requires big and bold thinkers who will constantly ask the question “Why not?”

This one educational step will have a ripple effect that will elevate many areas. With our military being the most advanced on the planet, having our military personnel know about the science and mechanics behind our technology will make them more effective. It will also provide useful vocations for after they leave the service or when there is peace. With more skilled labor, we can rebuild the manufacturing industry we used to have and start making quality products again, products we can be proud to sell each other and to the world. Also, this focus on science and technology will impact energy production by encouraging the next generations to be the outside-the-box thinkers necessary to bring about a greener world that produces power while protecting the planet as much as we can.

There are many other issues to tackle, but I want this commitment to America to be at the top of the list because it will take the longest to implement while having the biggest positive impact on our country and its future. In a little while, you will hear the Democrats’ response to this State of the Union, and I’m sure they will pick my speech apart. As you listen to it, keep in mind what I’ve said and how I want to improve the country for everyone. If the Democrats have better ideas, I’m open to hear them and debate them in a civilized manner.

That’s what makes us united.

Good night, and God Bless America.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

78 Views

When I was growing up, there were very few journalists and reporters who became well-known, and most of the ones I knew tended to be local. With the advent of cable news, the Internet, and social media, that has changed. People may not be able to name the three branches of government, but they might be able to name at least one journalist, and that one would probably be Jim Acosta.

Jim Acosta is CNN’s White House correspondent, and he has made a name for himself by being the proverbial thorn in President Donald Trump’s side. Lately, he has been embroiled in a controversy following a press conference where it appears he touched a female staffer doing possibly the most dangerous job in America: getting a microphone from Jim Acosta. Because of this, Acosta’s press pass was revoked, leading to CNN suing the President and others on the basis the White House violated the First Amendment right to a free press.

Why has so much attention been brought on one man? Glad you asked, or else this week’s Leftist Lexicon was going to be a few words short.

Jim Acosta

What the Left thinks it means – a hard-nosed reporter holding the Trump White House to task and risking life and limb to get us the truth

What it really means – a loudmouth with a Napoleon complex to rival the original Napoleon

When I went to journalism school, one of the first lessons that got pounded into me was a reporter was never to become the story because it distracts people from the actual news. I can’t say if Jim Acosta learned that lesson, but judging from his actions I guess he must have been sick that day…each time it was brought up in a class.

Acosta’s contempt for the Trump Administration has seen itself play out in numerous conflicts, which has made him a Leftist superstar. To hear Leftists talk, Acosta is the only one who asks really tough questions and hounds the Administration for answers. Of course, to hear Leftists talk, socialism hasn’t ever really been tried, so we don’t know whether it will suck out loud. (Spoiler Alert: it will suck out loud.)

As a recovering Leftist and former journalism student (which, these days is pretty much one in the same), I don’t see what Acosta is doing as journalism so much as it is agitprop. Agitprop is language crafted with the intent of enflaming the public to advocate for a certain idea or position, and it can be very effective. Remember the alar scare of the 1980s? That was agitprop in its purest form. And it turned out to be complete bunk after cooler heads did their homework and figured out what alar was.

That brings us back to Mr. Acosta. I know the press is supposed to be like attack dogs when it comes to reporting on the government, but there is still a fine line between being an attack dog and being an overbearing dick. And Acosta flamenco dances on that line consistently. His behavior is, at best, childlike, which oddly enough corresponds to his Lollypop Kid stature.

Sorry, Jim. That was a low blow. (Sorry. Couldn’t resist!)

And that’s part of the problem I have with Acosta. He just doesn’t look like one. He looks like a little brother who wants to hang out with his older brothers to be one of the guys, but he winds up being more annoying than cool. I know this because I am the youngest of three boys and I did exactly what Acosta seems to be doing while pretending to be a journalist. And he’s just as annoying as I was, or still am depending on who you ask.

The larger part of the problem I have with Acosta, though, is his disrespect for his profession and, more specifically, his colleagues. Yes, I know he works for CNN, which gives him as much gravitas as, well, anyone else who works at CNN. But Acosta seems to think it gives him the moral authority to run the White House Press Corps from the floor. That, in turn, gives him the moral authority to hog the spotlight, at least in his mind. The problem is…there are plenty of other reporters in the room when Acosta goes all Journo-Spartacus on the President, and I’m sure they would like to get their questions answered. But for the grace of the man who thinks he’s the God of Journalism go they, unfortunately, and he rarely if ever gives them a chance to go.

As far as CNN’s lawsuit against President Trump and members of his Administration is concerned, for me it’s a non-starter. The First Amendment will not be in jeopardy if Jim Acosta doesn’t get this press pass back because CNN can always find someone else to take his place. Yes, Jimmy, you are expendable.  If you are too much of a headache to deal with (and from accounts I’ve seen from other journalists, he is), you can and will be replaced by someone else. Just ask Keith Olbermann about that. The First Amendment doesn’t protect you from getting the hook because you’re an asshole, nor is it threatened if you are not allowed to be one during press conferences.

Yes, I know Fox News filed an amicus brief defending CNN and Acosta, but they are looking out for their business interests going forward. From 2009 to 2016, they were on the business end of a lot of Presidential harassment, so it makes sense for them to take up for their peer. But, really? Is Jim Acosta’s behavior the hill you want to die on? His presence in the room makes a mockery of the profession I learned and still respect on some level. And, news flash Fox News Kiddies, the next Democrat President will be as much, if not more, of a ballbuster than President Barack Obama was because Leftists don’t believe in the two-way street unless it benefits them directly.

And Jimbo, if you’re reading this, understand your bravado and behavior doesn’t make you the next Edward R. Murrow or Sam Donaldson. Yes, they asked tough questions and were adversarial when needed, but they understood where the line between adversarial and assholishness was. You clearly don’t, and it’s hurting your credibility, CNN’s credibility (or what’s left of it), and the credibility of the other reporters in that room. You are not a diva, but a divot.

To the Leftists out there who worship at the altar of Acosta, you need a better role model for journalists. Start with Murrow and see how a real newsman did it. Jim Acosta falls short every time.

Sorry, Jimbo. Had to throw in one last short joke, buddy.