Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

56 Views

This week’s Leftist Lexicon entry is a first for me. In the past, I’ve covered (and recovered) words and phrases the Left have used in varying contexts and tried to explain what they mean to the rest of us. Today, I’m going to invent a word for the Leftist Lexicon that they haven’t used yet, but most certainly applies to them. Hopefully this doesn’t lead to a mass exodus from the site, but if it does, I hereby blame the Russians because…reasons.

So, here we go!

impeachment word salad

What the Left thinks it means – Ummmm…I dunno?

What it really means – a phrase that explains the Left’s impeachment efforts against Donald Trump

Remember back in 2009 when the Left got their collectivist panties in a wad over Republicans and conservatives trying to undermine President Barack Obama’s agenda? It seems like a decade ago, mainly because it was. However, one thing the Republicans didn’t try to do is impeach President Obama for crimes he committed or were a party to (much to the chagrin of your humble correspondent because there was fertile ground to make a case or, say, 50). When Donald Trump became President, though, Leftists wanted to impeach him from Day One, oddly enough for crimes he allegedly committed before becoming President.

Yes, it’s just that stupid.

Today, though, the Left has been making all sorts of allegations for presumed crimes committed before and during Trump’s Presidency. In the process, they’ve tied a number of terms to their impeachment efforts: collusion, extortion, bribery, election tampering, and so on. And as each new word gets attached, the previous words either lose their meaning or get ignored once they’ve served the Left’s purposes. In turn, this makes the people outside of Leftist Fantasyland either utterly confused due to the shifting narrative or utterly disgusted by the Left’s antics.

Guess which camp I’m in.

The Left loves to use buzzwords they test and test to ensure their impact on the people they consider uninformed or easily-led (i.e. the non-Leftists). Most of the time, it works. Words like homophobia, transphobia, and safe spaces have become part of our lexicon (and part of the Leftist Lexicon, too), but with impeachment, these words aren’t making any sense. Hence, the “word salad” portion of today’s Leftist Lexicon entry. For the uninitiated, a word salad is when people string together words that aren’t connected by any logical and consistent thought and that the people using them may or may not know the definitions of when they use them. Kinda like…well, the current impeachment effort. Fortunately, the Left has adopted the idea that it’s better to be emotionally right than factually right, according to their Matron Saint Alexandria of New York.

The problem is words mean things, as Rush Limbaugh has pointed out several times. And when dealing with legal terms, those definitions have implications above and beyond being used towards a political end. In building their impeachment case, the Left has created a multitude of problems with their impeachment word salad. Take extortion, for example. That is a serious charge, and the Left’s definition of it in this case has removed the notion of the victim knowing he or she is being extorted for it to be a crime. And remember, kids, the alleged victim in this case is a grown man who just happens to be the President of the Ukraine. You know, the guy whose statements about the alleged extortion all but destroy the very reason the Left is trying to impeach President Trump? But we should totally believe the Left is above board on this.

And here’s the best part. The reason the Left has been using so many different terms (by their own admission, I might add) is because they don’t think we understand complex concepts like quid pro quo and need it spelled out in explicit detail for us to get it. They want us to believe them while they hold us in contempt for what they perceive to be our intellectual shortcomings. Of course, there’s no way insulting potential supporters can go wrong, right? After all, that’s the strategy that made Hillary Clinton Presi…oh, sorry. Sort of a sore spot for the Left still. My bad!

Here’s a pro tip for the Left from your buddy Thomas. We get it. You don’t like President Trump and want the 2016 Election overturned because you feel it was Hillary’s turn. But you can’t impeach a President for hurting your fee-fees, no matter how hard you try or wish for it. You’re doing what your pals in the manmade climate change camp have done for decades: start with your desired conclusion and work backwards. It doesn’t work that way, and using loaded terminology with actual legal definitions and punishments won’t make your impeachment word salad any more intelligible or defensible before the US Senate, where your chances of getting Trump impeached are less likely than Pauly Shore winning a Best Actor Oscar. A Razzie, sure, but not an Oscar.

Here’s what I think you need to do. Just admit you have nothing, cut your losses, and try to find a non-insane Presidential candidate to beat President Trump in 2020. By the looks of the current clown car, though, I think you’re already at the point of no return on all those fronts. Better luck next time!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

76 Views

For the past several weeks, Washington and the media have been obsessed with whistleblowers (except for Bill Clinton, who has been obsessed with a different kind of whistleblowing, if you know what I mean). As the Left continues its push to impeach President Donald Trump for…I’m not honestly sure and I’ve been following it as closely as I can…well, anyway, the Left has used the testimony of a whistleblower to make the case in favor of President Trump’s impeachment, while the Right is saying the whistleblower is actually a leaker and, thus, doesn’t qualify as a whistleblower and doesn’t deserve the protections legally afforded one.

As you might expect, the fault lines on this subject are wider than Rosie O’Donnell’s waist size, and no one seems to want to figure out the basics before rendering a decision. In the war between the Orange Man Bad Tribe and the Orange Man Good Tribe, one thing is certain: we’re no closer to figuring out the truth.

So, here’s my contribution to the discussion. I know as much as the bozos in Congress, so I’m at least as underqualified as they are, but I’ll try to make it entertaining without spending taxpayer dollars.

whistleblower

What the Left thinks it means – a brave individual risking life and limb to uphold the rule of law, the Constitution, and other important concepts

What it really means – someone with a lot to lose, and even more to lose if he or she goes to bat for the Left

In our nation’s history, we’ve had examples of people who come forward with vital information and do so at great risk to themselves and their families. Because this role is so important to watching the watchmen, we have codified protections for these individuals to protect them and encourage others with similar information to come out of hiding and tell their stories without fear. For this reason, we have to be very serious about who is protected under whistleblower laws.

Unfortunately, we aren’t a serious country anymore. The very act of being a whistleblower has become politicized to the point of absurdity, especially in an age where a private citizen got doxed by CNN for reposting a pro-Trump GIF slamming CNN. And the same people trying to protect the anonymity of the current whistleblower flavor of the month were okay with CNN’s efforts to expose the evil pro-Trump memer.

Whether the current Trump whistleblower is actually a whistleblower is still a matter of debate. From where I sit, I’m not sure he…or she…is one. A large part of my uncertainty comes from the nature of the circumstances the he or she is in, which has everything to do with a phone call between the President and the President of Ukraine where it’s alleged our President withheld aid unless Ukraine investigated Hunter Biden and his father Joe. Whether this happened is as hotly debated as the whole whistleblower idea. Based upon what I’ve read and heard, the Ukrainian President said there was no quid pro quo. But, of course, we can’t trust him because he’s…a Russian! Dun Dun Dunnnnnnnnnn!

Seriously, the Left doesn’t want to admit what the Ukrainian President said has a ring of truth to it because it ruins the narrative they’ve set up and it undermines the current impeachment effort by providing a plausible alternative to the narrative. Once you give credence to the alternative, the original talking points can’t survive in the self-created vacuum, and the Left loses control of the message.

Also, consider the layers between the whistleblower and the source material. For me, a major key to being a whistleblower involves proximity to the target. An employee of a major corporation poisoning nearby waterways is a first-hand observer of what is happening. If what I’ve read is true, the whistleblower in the current Trump inquiry is, at best, second or third hand. The further away from the target you get, the less danger you are likely to incur.

Ah, but remember, Washington isn’t serious anymore. President Trump hasn’t helped matters any with his calls for the whistleblower to come forward by suggesting people find out who he or she is. Nothing says “I’m not out to expose you” like telling people to expose you. And the Left has run with this idea to build up the whistleblower narrative they hope to get people to believe. There are times when the President is his own worst enemy, and this was certainly one of those times.

The funny thing that no one else seems to be talking about is the Information Age may render whistleblowers protections irrelevant because of the amount of information that’s already out there. All it takes is a group of people with time on their hands and an attention to detail to track down anyone. Just like CNN, but with better ratings and no Jim Acosta. Turns out we might already know the whistleblower’s identity without it ever being released by the press or Congress. Oops.

If someone wants to find you, they can, thanks to our growing obsession with technology and our lessening acknowledgement of personal freedoms. Who cares if the government can turn on our cell phone cameras remotely? We gotta have that new iPhone! Big Brother is a quaint notion compared to the current state of technology and surveillance, but we’re too busy taking selfies to worry about it.

Before we close up shop on this post, let’s remember the Left hasn’t always loved whistleblowers. Julian Assange, Bradley/Chelsea Manning, and Reality Winner are some of the unfortunate victims of the Left’s fair-weather friendship with whistleblowers, even when their actions directly benefitted the Left! The Right isn’t much better, with their opinion on whistleblowers changing between hanging them or putting them before a firing squad. But nothing shows the utter contempt for the entire concept and the people who risk their lives to shine a light into the darkest corners of the halls of power than the Left pretending they give one-millionth of one fuck about them. A whistleblower to them is an acceptable loss in an ideological war they have to win to justify their existence.

Makes you want to keep your mouths shut, doesn’t it?

Katie’s Got Some ‘Splainin’ to Do…

81 Views

It’s official. Rep. Katie Hill resigned from Congress today, but not before she voted in favor of moving forward with an impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump and giving a passionate speech where she blamed a litany of targets for her resignation. Misogyny, men being afraid of strong women in power, double standards, the right wing media, and so on apparently made her violate House ethics rules against having sex with subordinates while in office. News to me.

In the wake of this story (that I fully admit spending too much time thinking about), there are some questions I have, and since Ms. Hill has some time on her hands now, maybe she can see fit to answer some of them, but if not, here are my thoughts on the matters at hand.

Was what happened to you “revenge porn”?

This question is at the heart of the controversy, but too many people have already decided it was. Under both California and District of Columbia law, “revenge porn” is illegal and comes with some pretty stiff penalties, if you’ll pardon the expression.

On the surface, it looks like Rep. Hill was the victim, but in order to verify this we have to dig a bit deeper. The idea being anti-revenge porn laws is to protect victims from the actions of spiteful and vindictive exes. This begs the question of whether Hill’s ex-husband fits that description. So far, I don’t think we’ve heard from him, but we’ve certainly heard from Rep. Hill, who has described him thusly. It’s entirely possible he’s a scumbag, but without further information we can’t rule out he’s innocent, or at least not as guilty as some would have us believe.

There is also information out there that suggests her ex-husband posted the photos in question when they were together for the purposes of having a threesome or getting into a throuple (which is a couple with a +1 with benefits). If the photos were posted with her permission, there is no revenge porn, just incredibly bad judgment in the Internet Age. If the photos were posted without her permission, that’s an issue, but it doesn’t necessarily mean he’s guilty of revenge porn. The timeline doesn’t match up. And speaking of timelines…

Why would these photos be published now?

As with any scandal like this, putting together a timeline is essential to understanding the ins and outs of the scandal itself. One question that comes to mind is why now. Rep. Hill already won her seat, and her District doesn’t appear to be that much of a Republican hotbed. A vindictive husband? Possible, but without more info, we can’t be sure. To derail President Trump’s impeachment? Unlikely, given Democrats control the House of Representatives and losing one vote wouldn’t impact the outcome to any extent. Right wing smearmongers out to destroy her? Don’t take this the wrong way, but we wouldn’t have known about you if the pictures hadn’t come out. Powerful men afraid of women in power? It was 11 years ago that these same powerful men voted to put Sarah Palin in the #2 spot of the Presidential hierarchy, and more recently have voted in women like Mia Love, Liz Cheney, and Joni Ernst.

The more we unpeel this political onion, the fewer answers remain that make sense. We either need more hard evidence or a reasonable explanation, and I doubt we’ll get either anytime soon.

Why did you take the actions you did at the time and are taking the actions you are now?

The former has been answered somewhat. Rep. Hill has admitted she made errors in judgment (ya think?), but it doesn’t quite explain everything, given what she’s said and done since the photos came out. There has to be something else there because it might explain the current situation better. Would Rep. Hill have constructed a narrative if it were as simple as “revenge porn”? I wouldn’t think so. The first logical step would have been to contact the police and file a report, not to pretend it didn’t happen only the change your mind once more photos went public. And contacting a lawyer to pursue legal actions doesn’t act as a substitute for getting the police involved.

This sounds a lot like other people’s victim narratives that aren’t borne out with any actions in response to the alleged crimes perpetrated against them. That leads to people not trusting alleged victims when they come forward, which is a common thread in feminist arguments about why women don’t report rapes. And it opens up scrutiny of the accusers.

I know the sexual side of this is personal, but in order to come to a conclusion, we may need to understand more of the past. Saying “oops, I screwed up” (again, if you’ll pardon the pun) doesn’t cut it.

Are the Daily Caller and Daily Mail guilty of distributing the photos, thus participating in the revenge porn?

This one is a bit tricky. Of the two, I would say the Daily Caller’s use of a limited number of photos was done not out of malice, but to bolster the story they found. Even if the photos found online were posted without her permission, we have to ask whether they had a prurient interest in posting them for the purpose of sexual or political gratification. Given what they used, I don’t think a good argument can be made that they posted it with malicious intent. Thus, I don’t think you’d prevail.

The Daily Mail, on the other hand, might have more of a legal headache coming their way. They posted several more photos of Rep. Hill, well beyond the ones the Daily Caller used, and didn’t really add to the story itself beyond more photos. By going to an extreme like they did, a case can be made their decision to run the additional photos would constitute a prurient interest and, thus, open themselves up to legal consequences. The problem then becomes whether England has similar “revenge porn” laws on their books or if the legal principles on our books would transcend a lack of similar laws.

Is there a double standard between men and women in power?

The short answer to this is no. The longer answer is still no, but it’s longer. (I gotta stop using these double entendres!)

Seriously, there isn’t a double standard between men and women in power, even though men are usually the ones getting caught being horndogs more than women. However, there is a double standard between Democrats and Republicans. Bill Clinton had a number of women accuse him of sexual harassment and assault, but he’s believed and still beloved in Leftist circles. Donald Trump is in a similar boat, but he’s hated by the same people who give Clinton a pass. I’m not saying Trump should skate, but I do see the standards shift whenever there is a Democrat in trouble versus a Republican in trouble. What you’re experiencing is what men like Al Franken, Mark Sanford, and plenty of others have dealt with before you thanks to the rules your ideological allies have set up. Congrats!

Who benefits?

This is a key question to understanding motive. Who would gain the most by having you resign? Republicans, a jealous ex-husband, Nancy Pelosi, possibly even members of your own party come immediately to mind. In politics, you make a lot of enemies, and some of the people who consider friends may be looking to stab you in the back at the first opportunity. In the current environment where Leftists are trying to hold President Trump to a certain standard, your actions certainly undercut that effort or at least make it look more like a political hitjob than a consistent standard. But one thing is clear: as a freshman Representative, you are expendable. Think about that, won’t you?

Why should we believe you?

And now we come to the Big Kahuna of questions. And let me tell you, Rep. Hill, this is not going to be easy to answer. With what I’ve seen and heard so far, your story has more holes in it than a wheel of Swiss cheese in the middle of a gang shootout. The actions you’ve taken (or not taken, as the case may be) and the statements you’ve made (and not made, as the case may be) do not inspire a lot of confidence in your truthfulness. You may have Leftists believing you, but these same folks believed Christine Blasey Ford in spite of a lack of specifics and an abundance of questionable arguments. If you want to be believed, give us something to believe in that makes sense.

And take responsibility for the mistakes you’ve made. Blaming a double standard or misogyny for your ethical lapses doesn’t fly with most of us. Man…err…Woman up.

The Hills Are Alive With the Sound of Outrage

70 Views

No matter how bad a week you think you’ve had, it pales in comparison to former Representative Katie Hill of California. Last week the Daily Caller revealed Ms. Hill was intimately involved with both male and female staffers, complete with nude photographs and salacious text messages, all of which Rep. Hill tried to deny. Eventually, though, she resigned her seat and released a statement accusing her ex-husband of “revenge porn,” which is when a former partner releases provocative photos of a subject with whom the partner was intimate out of spite. That’s a part of the story that the Left is running with, but it’s not the whole story.

To me, there are two parts to the Katie Hill situation: the sexual relationships themselves, and the ethical and national security concerns these relationships raise. In both cases, there are people trying to convince you of the importance of one over the other when both are important and have long-reaching impact on this country unless we take a serious approach.

Unfortunately, that blogger is on vacation, so you’re stuck with me on this one.

Let’s talk about the sexual relationships first. As scandalous and fun as it is to talk about Rep. Hill being a switch hitter, so to speak, it’s not that big of a deal in and of itself. Moralists will wag their fingers, but at the end of the day, it was at least 3 adults engaged in an activity that last time I checked was still legal. And that’s why the Left is pushing so hard to underscore the sexual elements of this matter. Well, that, and they’re freaks.

Leftists have an unnatural attachment to sexual matters and tend to take the extreme libertarian/classical liberal stance on them. But being big government types, they can’t completely do away with government’s hand on the scale. As long as the government can take a buck out of an activity, they’re all in for letting your freak flag fly. The minute government doesn’t have control over a transaction, as in prostitution, that freak flag gets lowered faster than Bill Clinton’s pants at the Moonlight Bunny Ranch.

Personally, I could care less with who Rep. Hill slept or sleeps with because it’s none of my business. And to their credit, many on the Right agree. Where the line gets a little murky is when it comes to the ethical and national security implications, and that’s where the Right tends to be hammering the hardest. These are not small concerns, I grant you, but they may be exaggerated a bit for partisan reasons.

The intelligence community has a number of ways to obtain information, including seduction. If a foreign agent wanted to get sensitive information, all he or she would need to do is find a weak spot and exploit it. With Rep. Hill, that weak spot is doubled because she is an open bisexual. Whether it’s something as mundane as the combination to Nancy Pelosi’s liquor cabinet or something as damaging as intelligence briefings, we cannot brush off what Rep. Hill did as “none of our business.”

Having said all of that, I think we need to be very careful about labeling Rep. Hill as a national security threat at this time because we don’t know all the particulars yet. Did she sleep with a foreign agent? We don’t know. Has she given away secrets to a hostile power? We don’t know. It’s red meat for the Right, but it’s based on a lot of unknowns, and that opens up a whole new series of questions and questionable actions that would further pry into a private matter beyond our need to know.

That leaves the ethical part of the equation, and we have the Left to thank for that. For decades, the Left have been pushing the idea of what constitutes sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior between superiors and subordinates. In short, there can never be sexual consent between a superior and a subordinate due to the former having power over the latter. For the most part, Republicans have been the ones getting caught, but this time it’s a Democrat who’s having to live by the rules the Left set. And the Left is completely overlooking this because Rep. Hill is a Democrat.

However, that doesn’t remove the ethical implications. With all of the talk of a quid pro quo with President Donald Trump and the Ukraine, you would think the Left would be able to put 2 and 2 together as it pertains to Rep. Hill, but then again maybe they already have, which is why they’re focusing on the sexual portion of the situation instead of the ethical part. In either case, from what we’ve seen so far, Rep. Hill rewarded her sexual partners with paying jobs, which really seems to your humble reporter as a quid pro quo or at the very least a shady transaction of convenience. And when your party is obsessed with holding the President to a standard, it’s kind of hard to turn a blind eye to one of your own violating the same standard.

Thus, Katie Hill is screwed, literally and figuratively. Since she resigned, she’s been beating the drum of being a victim (surprise surprise) of revenge porn, but that’s not why she’s being targeted. She made some really dumb decisions with implications far beyond the bedroom, and those decisions call into question her fitness for office. The sexual angle isn’t even on my radar, and the national security angle is possible, but not as developed as the ethical concerns her actions have raised. Although it’s a little sad to see how Rep. Hill’s Congressional career ended (at least for now), it ended because of self-inflicted wounds, not because of a bitter ex-husband or a bunch of right wingers or even the Daily Caller.

But I guess claiming revenge porn is sexier than acknowledging a mistake.

1000 Days

133 Views

It’s been a 1,000 days since Donald Trump took office as the President of the United States. Duly elected, yet hounded constantly by the Left who have never accepted his election. Many of the promises he made on the campaign trail have been kept. Others have not, but most of these need the support of Congress to succeed.

Unfortunately the President is still fighting a battle in the houses of Congress. Not only against the Leftist Democratic Party that opposes and obstructs every action of this President but also against members of his own party as well.

Congress is ran by seasoned and professional politicians who want power and wealth for themselves. And this President isnt playing the game. He is working actively to drain the swap, and they don’t like it one bit.

The Washington DC swamp is large and extremely deep. It will take more than 2 terms to drain it. But even in 1000 days President Trump has taken a noticable amount from the cesspool. Thus he is constantly attacked and obstructed at every turn and every decision.

Keep the Faith Mr President. The people are behind you. We support you and your tireless work. And we will see you through a 2nd term.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

96 Views

As the impeachment kinda-sorta-but-not-really inquiry against President Donald Trump staggers along like Ted Kennedy after a weekend at the Kennedy Compound, we’re starting to get a clearer idea of what exactly the President is accused of doing this time: obstruction of justice as it pertains to an investigation into a telephone call between the United States and Ukraine. To put it simply, the Trump White House has stated no one from the Administration should participate in the House inquiry due to how the investigation is being conducted.

This is one of those cases where both the Left and the Right have the wrong idea. So, in order to try to straighten out everyone involved, I’m devoting this week’s Lexicon to delving into obstruction of justice. Get your pens and notebooks ready, kids…

obstruction of justice

What the Left thinks it means – preventing Congress from investigating the President

What the Right thinks it means – a crime the President didn’t commit because there wasn’t a crime

What it really means – preventing law enforcement from investigating a crime

Our criminal justice system is based on the idea the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately, impeachment is more of a political animal than criminal justice is, so the rules get fuzzier than Nick Offerman in a lumberjack camp. In the political arena, you are guilty even if you are proven innocent in spite of a preponderance of the evidence. And impeachment is no different.

At the heart of the latest impeachment talk is obstruction of justice. This has legal implications, which in the political arena make it easier to make a case for impeachment but requires evidence. That’s where the Left and Right get it wrong. The Left says Trump preventing Administration officials hinders their investigation and, thus, preventing them from getting to the truth of the Ukraine phone call situation. (Which is to say, getting to anything that can be made into a major scandal.) The Right says there can be no obstruction of justice because there was no crime committed.

And people wonder why I take ibuprofen like Tic Tacs these days.

Here’s the deal: you can obstruct justice in absence of a crime, but there really isn’t a crime here, and the impeachment inquiry in its current form isn’t the place to make that determination.

Let’s take the first portion of that statement, well, first. If there is an investigation into an alleged crime, anything you do to obstruct that investigation is illegal. Even in jest. And, yes, even when there turns out to be no crime committed. The fact you hindered a law enforcement investigation is what will get you in trouble. Don’t wind up like Jussie Smollet, kids.

Now, for the inquiry not being the right venue to address allegations of obstruction of justice. First off, there are six House committees involved in the inquiry, five of which aren’t the Judiciary Committee. That means there are five more committees than necessary to investigate the alleged crime. That may be a Leslie Knope wet dream, but it’s wasteful and unnecessary, especially considering the amount of airtime Adam Schiff has gotten off this. And Schiff isn’t even on the House Judiciary Committee! Ironically, he’s the head of the House Intelligence Committee, but then again no one may be better qualified to reflect the intelligence of House Democrats than Schiff.

The other aspect of this that should trouble anybody with a lick of common sense is the fact this inquiry isn’t so much an inquiry as it is an inquisition. Since Democrats run the House, they write the rules, so they can set the parameters of any investigation or hearing. However, since we’re dealing with a specific illegal act, the rule of law should be followed. As it stands, it isn’t. When partisan politics gets involved, the only law that’s followed is the law of the jungle. That may make Leftists swoon in this case, but it comes with two major problems. First, it undermines the legal arguments being made in favor of President Trump’s impeachment. It’s hard to hang your hat on the rule of law when you’re not following it. And second, it sets a precedent. Remember when former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid went to a majority vote when it came to federal judge confirmations in the Senate? The Left cheered when he did it, but when current Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell did it, they lost their shit. I guarantee if the House goes Republican under a Democrat President, there will be investigations galore, and it will have zero to do with the rule of law, and you won’t have a leg to stand on because you literally started it.

In the meantime, the question remains of whether President Trump obstructed justice. Based on what we’ve seen so far, it’s hard to say he did based on the Left’s reactions when he complies with their requests/demands. It’s never good enough for the Left. If Trump released his tax returns, they would ask for some obscure IRS document that ultimately wouldn’t impact his returns, but would make it appear as though Trump was hiding something. Trump released a partial translation of his call with the Ukrainian leader which ultimately showed there was no illegal activity going on (unless you consider investigating Hunter Biden’s apparently shady dealings with the Ukraine while his dad was Vice President illegal). And who backed up Trump’s assessment of the call? The Ukraine.

At this point, it’s easier to pick out the number of “impeachable offenses” Trump hasn’t been accused of than it is to count the number of ones he has been accused of. The Left is using impeachment much like it used the IRS under President Barack Obama: a political tool to bludgeon their opponents while running interference on their own shady dealings. But as far as obstruction of justice is concerned, I honestly don’t see it, and I’m saying this as someone who isn’t a Trump supporter. It sounds ominous and gives red meat (or tofu for vegetarians and vegans) to a group of people already predisposed to hate President Trump to hate him even more and call for his impeachment, removal, imprisonment, and so on.

That’s really what this whole impeachment inquiry fiasco is about. After 2016, Leftists are scared Trump could win again, and given the clown car of candidates they have this time, they are right to be afraid. That’s no excuse for running roughshod over the rule of law, especially when it comes to the impact of impeachment. To put it simply, Leftists want Donald Trump impeached for corruption because he asked an ally to assist in the investigation of corruption that may have had an impact on the 2016 Presidential Election, which is legal to do in the first place given the fact we have an agreement with that ally to do just that. That’s not obstruction of justice; that’s preservation of justice, the same justice Leftists have been demanding since 2016 when they were concerned with foreign countries interfering with our elections. But apparently it’s only a problem when that interference is against the Left’s candidates.

Leftists need to get off this obstruction of justice kick and realize they’re barking up the wrong tree. And the Right need to stop with the stupid “it’s not obstruction if there’s no crime” bullshit because it’s legally and logically wrong.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I need some ibuprofen.



Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

105 Views

If you ever need a clear-cut example of how President Donald Trump lives rent-free in some Leftists’ heads, a recent phenomenon on Twitter will serve nicely. It started with a Tweet (surprise, surprise) from the President (surprise, surprise) quoting an evangelical pastor which read:

If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in the Nation from which our Country will never heal.

Perhaps a bit overdramatic, but not an unreasonable or unlikely scenario. After this tweet, the Left started going ape-shit crazy, claiming the President was inciting violence (he wasn’t) and wanted another Civil War. This started a wave of Twitter hashtags like #SecondCivilWar or #2ndCivilWar appearing on the accounts of keyboard warriors and Antifa goons.

So, saddle up the ponies and let’s ride down into the valley of Leftist Gulch.

Second Civil War

What the Left thinks it means – A war Donald Trump wants in order to scare people into opposing his impeachment

What it really means – A direct misrepresentation to imply President Trump wants a war

Read the President’s Tweet again. It literally (and, yes, I do mean literally as in, well, literally) reads “a Civil War like fracture in the Nation.” In order to get “Trump wants another Civil War” out of that requires mental gymnastics that would make Nadia Comaneci look like I do on the dance floor after I’ve had a few adult beverages. Regardless, the point is the Left is grossly misconstruing the actual message to create a narrative.

Which is by design.

Leftists love to play games with the language to create small battles they can win in the marketplace of ideas. Take “common sense gun law” for example. They try to soften what they really want (gun control laws more restrictive than a 15 sizes too small corset on Rosie O’Donnell) by throwing in a modifying phrase to lessen the blow and try to convince you what they want isn’t all that bad. In this case, though, the Left is trying to prop up the image of Donald Trump as a violent dictator by omitting key words in the Tweet. Hence, “Civil War like fracture” turns into “Civil War.”

Through this bit of linguistic trickery and intellectual dishonesty, the Left creates what is known in rhetorical circles as a “strawman argument,” designed to create a false argument that they can knock down easily in lieu of addressing the actual argument. This may fire up the base a bit, but it shows a level of weakness in how the Left addresses the issue. By skirting it, they ignore the real possibility of what Trump tweeted coming true.

In my opinion, we’re very close to another Civil War as it is, mainly because of the heated rhetoric and the equally as heated actions inspired by it. There are folks on both sides of the aisle who are taking what the President partially said to heart and are preparing for war. All because they can’t comprehend a fucking tweet.

It’s stuff like this that prevents advanced alien societies from making contact.

To be honest, I think a second Civil War may be a foregone conclusion. With political positions getting so personal, we’re one horrific event away from having the whole checkerboard overturned. And with the Left’s misrepresentation of the President’s tweet, it will lead to bloodshed…that they’ll immediately blame on Trump. And for all the times the Left claims the President incites violence, isn’t what they’re doing right now the very thing they accuse him of doing?

Yes, yes it is. But Leftists will a) never admit it, and b) never accept responsibility for it.

Meanwhile, what can we do about it? I’m not sure we can do anything to slow or stop what’s coming, but I might have a few ideas on how to make it more entertaining. Get the extremes from both sides into as large of a warehouse as will fit both sides and let them duke it out. No holds barred. Once one side defeats the other, they’re declared the winner…and then immediately deported. Repeat until both extremes are either tired of fighting/being deported or straighten up their acts.

Naturally I want the pay-per-view rights. And maybe a portion of the souvenir and concession take. You know, whatever makes the most money…I mean helps the situation.

Keep yourselves safe, kids. Oh, and call out the Left for lying about what President Trump said.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

175 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.

154 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

158 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!