That’s It?

50 Views

Today, House Democrats announced they would introduce two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump. After weeks of testimony, months of investigation, and years of blathering about both on the news, they finally decided on…abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

The audible thud you heard was the Left’s expectations crashing like the Hindenburg, but with a lot less fire.

Maybe it’s me, but these articles of impeachment seem to be missing something, like…say…actual illegal activity. After all, the standard for impeachment is “high crimes and misdemeanors,” which heavily suggests there has to be some illegal activity for impeachment to be warranted. And, yes, I know impeachment is a political process and not a legal one, but you would need to either be inept or a spin doctor extraordinaire to arrive at abuse of power and obstruction of Congress as crimes.

Then again, these are House Democrats we’re dealing with here, so it’s possible both are in play.

With the last impeachment on record, that of Bill “Commander in Briefs” Clinton, House Republicans put forth a total of four counts of impeachment, all them tied to actual law. The two the House decided upon were perjury and obstruction of justice. Compare that to the two counts House Democrats cobbled together. The only one that comes close to legal precedent is obstruction of Congress, which is only close because it’s one word off from the actual crime.

With that, let’s take a closer look at the two counts of impeachment against President Trump.

First, there’s abuse of power. That is such a nebulous charge it could apply to anyone and anything. If the President got a meter maid to let him or her stay in a parking spot 5 minutes after the meter ran out? ABUSE OF POWER! The President borrowed a book from the library and hasn’t returned it in 2 years? ABUSE OF POWER!

Now, here’s the tricky part: abuse of power may not be a crime nor a misdemeanor. To my knowledge (which I admit may not be as thorough as some of the legal scholars out there), abuse of power isn’t against the law. It’s certainly not ethical, but it may not be criminal. And there is a vast difference between legal and ethical, one that House Democrats don’t appear to see in front of them. If this one doesn’t get laughed out of the House in a bipartisan effort, I’ll be disappointed, but not surprised for a reason I’ll get into later.

The second charge of obstruction of Congress has a bit more precedent behind it. Contempt of Congress has both criminal and civil punishments to it, which would fall under the actual high crimes and misdemeanors section of the Constitution. Where it falls apart is with what has happened so far with the Impeach-A-Palooza campaign. President Trump barred some members of his office from testifying, but Trump himself hasn’t been called to testify before Congress. He’s been invited, although perhaps more tongue-in-cheek than serious, but he hasn’t been called by any of the House Democrats running the multitude of committees involved in the process. Another technicality, I know, but one that changes the dynamic of the charge itself. If one is not called to testify before Congress and isn’t called to produce documents, one cannot be charged with contempt of Congress under the letter of the law.

And the self-professed “defenders of the Constitution” have failed to see the simple logical trap they fell into.

Reaction to the two impeachment articles ranged from “why aren’t there more” on the Left to “you got nothing” on the Right. For the purposes of this impeachment fiasco, I’m siding with the Right. Although both sides of this situation can rightly be accused of having partisan blinders on, the fact remains none of this would have happened if House Democrats hadn’t decided to go all in on impeaching President Trump for reasons that can best be described as petty. If you doubt me, look at Leftist Twitter right now. They are inventing high crimes and misdemeanors to justify their belief President Trump should be impeached, and few of them have any actual legal foundation. To put it mildly, they are losing their hivemind over this. The Left is out for blood and they will stop at nothing, including inventing new laws out of Orange Man Bad, to sate their bloodlust.

Having said that, I think the obstruction of Congress charge has enough legs to get through the House, and the Senate will not punish President Trump on it, mainly on party lines. What impact will that have on the President? None. He’s pretty much written off the impeachment as so much of a joke Amy Schumer is going to steal it for her next comedy special, “Who Are You and Why Should We Care?” The people who support him will continue to do so, those who don’t will continue to berate him, and people trying to play both sides of the fence will continue to pretend to be Nadia Comaneci while holding in their opinions so they can appear above it all.

What the Left isn’t taking into consideration is the fact impeachment isn’t a winning issue to a lot of people, including Democrats. Based on early speculation on how the votes are going to go, there are a handful of Democrats willing to break ranks with the party leadership and vote against impeachment. Given the fact impeachment is polling worse than toejam right now, this isn’t a dumb move on their part. So far, there’s only one former Republican, Justin Amash, willing to vote for impeachment. Now, I’m no math whiz, but if even 2 Democrats vote against impeachment, that’s already a net loss for the Left.

In the grand scheme of things, though, it may not matter. All it takes for a majority in the House is 218 votes, and Democrats have 233 votes currently. If things go by a party line or mostly party line vote, the House will be able to impeach President Trump. Yet, of the two articles so far, only one has any kind of legal foundation. This is enough under the Constitution, but it may not be enough for the voting public. In today’s political climate, even the perfectly justifiable will fall to the whims of the people.

House Democrats have taken a risk with Impeach-A-Palooza, and outside of their allies in the media and their sycophantic ideological bubble-mates, few people have come around to their way of thinking. And with there being less than a year before the 2020 elections, they don’t have the time to spare splitting their time among impeachment, going on cable news shows and talking about impeachment, trying to get something done legislatively that doesn’t suck like a Hoover at the center of a black hole, energizing the base to keep voting and donating, trying to help candidates, watching their pennies as donations to the DNC get drier than a sand martini in Vegas, deciding which member of the Democrat Clown Car to support so they might get a spot in his or her Cabinet should the President be defeated, and pretending they don’t care what the President tweets while acting like Pavlov’s dogs in a room full of alarm clocks all set to go off at the same time.

Whew! I haven’t seen anyone juggle that many balls since the last gay orgy I attended, but that’s another story for another time. In the meantime, I’ll be over here watching Nancy Pelosi play the fiddle while Congress burns.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

69 Views

As another week of the Left’s Impeach-A-Palooza goes on, the House Judiciary Committee asked for input from four scholars about whether President Donald Trump committed impeachable offenses. Of the four, three were clearly on the pro-impeach side (as evidenced by some of their social media posts before the House Judiciary Committee hearing was a thing), and one was on the anti-impeach side.

Guess who got the bulk of the attention.

As many colleges and universities across the country are letting out for winter break, I think it’s time we take a closer look at what a scholar is and see if the title fits the people granted it.

scholar

What the Left thinks it means – a learned expert on a field of study whose work cannot be questioned

What it really means – a Leftist with a title and tenure

The Left loves to use scholars to justify their ideas. Manmade Climate Change? Here’s a list of scholars who believe in it (some of whom actually have a background in climate science!). Need someone to whitewash abortion? Here’s a list of scholars who think abortion is no big deal! Want to show how the patriarchy is alive and well at women’s colleges? Here’s a list of scholars who can prove it! If you have a pet cause, the Left has a scholar ready and willing to parrot whatever line you want him or her to say.

This, of course, is a logical fallacy called Appeal to Authority. Basically, it’s when someone tries to turn back any argument critical of his or her argument by saying, “But I have [insert name or profession of someone allegedly smarter than us] to back me up, so you’re wrong.” The key to this type of argumentation is to make it seem like one side has the intellectual high ground based solely on who agrees with you and without that pesky little thing the kids today like to call facts.

Let’s take the Left’s new favorite climate poster child, Greta Thunberg. On the basis of one impassioned (and, quite frankly, so hammy it goes against both the Hebrew and Muslim faiths) speech, Ms. Thunberg was elevated to untouchable status, even to the point she is considered to be a leader in the climate change movement. In other words, the Left has made her into a saint…I mean scholar on climate change. Yet, she doesn’t have the intellectual pedigree to back up that elevation. She’s gotten famous all because she said, “How dare you?” at the United Nations while her ideas are unfounded in anything resembling science.

Hmmm…wasn’t there a former Vice President who experienced the same elevation on climate change without a scintilla of scientific evidence, someone who continues to warn us about rising sea levels as he buys up more beachfront property? I swear there was, but I’ll be damned if I can remember his name. Oh well. Guess we’ll never know. I won’t Al Bore you with further speculation…

The funny thing about the Left’s use of scholarship is it only goes one way. When they use it to support their ideas, you can’t argue against it because you’re “anti-science.” When it gets used against them, the scholar isn’t credible due to a supposed lack of peer reviewed work. As someone familiar with the quality of peer review, or lack thereof, getting a peer reviewed paper if you’re a Leftist is easier than getting a lap dance from Stormy Daniels right now. But if you express anything to the right of Leo Trotsky, no peer will touch it, except to dismiss it as drivel (even if they don’t read it). Just ask John Lott Jr. about his papers on gun ownership reducing crime.

Without going too much further down this rabbit hole, keep in mind these same scholars are teaching college students and filling their heads full of Leftist dogma, thus creating a wonderful world of self-justifying ideas once these students get out into the real world and start voting or taking up causes. Just remember scholars can be absolutely wrong or waaaaaaay off in left field with their ideas. Your Women’s Studies professor may be a nice person, but that doesn’t make his or her ideas sacrosanct. The point of education is not to regurgitate what the instructor tells you, especially with Common Core math because that stuff is nuts. Education comes when you challenge your own ideas and the ideas of others in the intellectual squared circle. The minute an instructor/scholar tells you it’s his/her way or the highway is the minute you learn you have nothing else to learn from them.

As impressive as it might be to have legal scholars testifying about high crimes and misdemeanors in front of the House Judiciary Committee, the question remains the same: do they add value to the arguments being made? Based on what I’ve read so far of their testimony, only the anti-impeachment scholar did. The others were repeating tired talking points, which is exactly what the House Democrats wanted to divert attention away from the fact their first attempt yielded testimony from people who have no proof of what the President is alleged to have done that warranted impeachment in the first place. Bringing in scholars may add context, but it doesn’t add content. Unless they have relevant information to the alleged crimes and not just their opinions on such, it’s more hot air and more of our money being spent on a quest even Don Quixote would pass at.

Oh, I remember that former Vice President now! It was Spiro Agnew!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

92 Views

As we enter into the hardcore holiday season, we get to see some of the signs. Santa Claus appearing in Coke ads. The litany of Christmas favorites on TV. And the latest holiday craze, people getting offended by stupid shit.

Whether it’s “A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving” being called racist or “Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer” not being culturally sensitive to…I’m guessing reindeer without red noses, people are finding more and more ways to get offended by stuff we’ve never considered before because, well, we’re well-adjusted. And, as people get offended, they insist these things get banned or, if they’re on currently, cancelled. This is now known as cancel culture, and it’s well worth taking a look at before someone else gets upset.

cancel culture

What the Left thinks it means – a necessary evil to protect the weakest among us in society

What it really means – wanting to create an a la carte life free from anything that might hurt our fee-fees

Cancel culture has been around in one form or another for a few decades. Once, people who were outraged about an issue not being addressed to their satisfaction would boycott the corporate or public entity not addressing said issue. Sometimes it worked, but more often than not it just annoyed people. Now, the annoying people are the ones doing the protesting, but with a greater degree of success because public and private entities either surrender like a French version of Shaggy from “Scooby Doo” to avoid the PR headaches (or to avoid being driven mad by all the whining) or agree with the protesters. Yes, there are those rare times when the whiners…I mean protesters get turned back by a person or entity with a backbone stiffer than Jello before you put it in the fridge to harden, but these are getting harder to find than a point to the House Democrats’ impeachment inquiries.

As a result of the success mentioned above, free speech and free expression have been taking hits. Traveling comedians now have to be careful with what jokes they tell out of fear of watching their source of income dry up faster than a donation to the Cory Booker Presidential campaign. Actors now have to apologize for casting decisions they did or didn’t have a say in. (On a side note, I’m still waiting for an apology for having to sit through “Twilight: New Moon” because it was a really bad movie.)

But here’s the funny thing. Cancel culture only goes one way. If a Leftist complains about something offensive, the presumed offender bends over backwards like a gay contortionist to make things right (which they can never truly do because Leftists are perpetually offended). If anyone outside of the Leftist bubble complains about something offensive, it’s usually dismissed at being silly or being on “the wrong side of history.” So, if you’re a conservative who sees a gay couple in the Sears catalog, your chances of getting anyone on the Left to take up your causes are as slim as Stacey Abrams’ chances of making sense.

Cancel culture also has a negative impact on freedom of speech and freedom of expression. This is where a lot of people get tripped up by what cancel culture does. Take Twitter, for example. Twitter has a reputation of being hamfisted when it comes to conservative speech, even speech that wouldn’t be seen as offensive, while letting vile and harassing behavior go when it comes from a Leftist. Twitter is a private company and has its own set of rules when it comes to online behavior, so freedom of speech and expression laws don’t apply. However, it does send a message to potential users to either say what the Twitter overlords deem appropriate (which can change on a moment’s notice without any warning) or you will not be allowed a platform.

And when you consider how some platforms are intertwined (I’m looking at you, Google/YouTube), one offense can ripple over several platforms, which means fewer platforms for alternative voices with the global reach of YouTube, effectively silencing these voices. This is where the free speech/free expression issue comes to a head. You aren’t guaranteed a forum under the First Amendment, but when everyone else doesn’t even consider allowing you to use theirs unless you dance to their tune, there really isn’t much free speech or free expression going on.

Of course, this isn’t of any concern to the cancel culture because they want to eliminate anything they don’t agree with by any means necessary. And they know they will most likely get away with it.

But there is a way to defang the cancel culture: act like adults. You can be offended or disagree with a business decision or a celebrity opinion, but it doesn’t give you the authority to delete them from existence. What you can do is acknowledge the way you feel and recognize these folks have the same ability to express themselves that you do. It’s in that give-and-take where the cancel culture can’t hang. They need their binary thinking to flourish, but when presented with an option that doesn’t fall into that binary approach, they don’t know what to do, aside from complaining that is.

If we limit ourselves to only those positions we agree with, we miss out on a lot of great experiences. Personally, I disagree with much of what Samuel L. Jackson believes, but I recognize his talents as an actor and as someone who is an artist when it comes to using the word “motherfucker.” To remove him from my life because of an ideological difference would make me poorer for the experience and no better than cancel culture. I would rather take the chance of being offended to expand my horizons than to protect my feelings and never know what life is like on the other side.

And that’s really what cancel culture is in a nutshell: people who want to steal knowledge from you so they don’t have to engage in anything that might challenge them. And, let’s be honest, they’re challenged enough as it is, if you know what I mean.

Right Idea, Wrong Reasons

102 Views

Recently, Democrat Presidential candidate Tom Steyer released TV ads in Iowa declaring he was the only one talking about term limits for members of Congress. His rationale: because there’s not enough diversity in Congress, and that’s what’s preventing progressive change in America. Never mind the fact progressive ideas have turned the West Coast into a shithole, literally in San Francisco’s case, or that Americans might not want a more progressive country because…well, San Francisco.

However, I do say I have to agree with Steyer on term limits. I used to be against them because I felt the only term limits should be placed on Congress members by the voters. Then, I went to work in the service industry. Within a few years, I came to the realization the people who I saw doing incredibly stupid stuff might actually vote. And given some of the people getting elected, the elected might only be marginally smarter than the voters.

Term limits are a way for the people to take back at least some control of the government because it has the potential to be a deterrent to lobbyists from all sides. One of the ways special interest groups sustain their power base is by helping elect candidates who will uphold these groups’ ideals and goals. Steyer’s plan is to allow only 12 years in Congress, which isn’t completely unreasonable to me. If you only have a limited amount of time to work with, special interest groups won’t have as much sway over a candidate near the end of his or her term. If written narrowly enough, I could get behind Steyer’s term limits push.

Now, here’s where I part company. Steyer may be the only Presidential candidate talking about term limits because…he doesn’t realize he doesn’t have the power to unilaterally make it happen. Thanks to a little thing the kids like to call separation of powers, the President can’t make Congress abide by term limits unless they agree with the idea. With thinking like this, I have to wonder how he made his billions because it’s not because he’s a critical thinker.

And that brings us to the other reason Steyer’s term limits idea wouldn’t work: Congress doesn’t want them. Out of the 18 candidates running from the Democratic side, 7 of them would be directly impacted right now, with an additional 3 that were in positions that would have been impacted by it. And let’s not overlook the fact both major parties would lose astonishing numbers of Representatives and Senators without replacements to continue their sloth…I mean work. If you want Democrats and Republicans to come together, forcing term limits on them would be a good way to make that happen.

Plus, there’s no guarantee more people of color, women, or women of color will get elected with term limits. It just means spots will open up faster for them to run. Sure, you might be able to catch lightning in a bottle by electing The Squad, but you might also elect solid candidates like Mia Love or incompetent candidates like Katie Hill. Term limits have nothing to do with who gets elected.

Nor do they have anything to do with the ideology of those elected. Not every woman, person of color, or woman of color is a progressive, like the aforementioned Mia Love. In fact, there are quite a few people of all colors and both genders who align more with Donald Trump than with Tom Steyer, and those numbers are growing. Assuming someone of a different color and/or gender think the way you do because of said color and/or gender is a mistake not worth making in a Presidential campaign.

Fortunately, Mr. 1% is polling close to what percentage he is in the socioeconomic stratosphere, so it’s unlikely he’ll see the White House anywhere but as part of a guided tour. Even so, I have to give him credit for talking about term limits. In fact, I fully support Tom Steyer being bound by term limits beyond the 8 years the Constitution states.

I’m thinking…zero terms.

Impeach-MEH-nt

103 Views

After the past week of Impeach-a-Palooza on Capitol Hill, we finally get a break from all the futility, pundits are starting to analyze the outcome. Unfortunately for Leftists, it’s looking like fashion tips from Jerold Nadler: not good and at times scary. Leftists aren’t making their case for impeachment and keep repeating the same lines about the persuasiveness of the evidence (which consisted of long opening statements undercut by the witnesses admitting they have no evidence of the crimes President Donald Trump is being accused of). Even polling data shows support for impeachment has dropped, especially where Independents like me are concerned.

So, what went wrong? You’d better get an extra large bag of popcorn and an extra large fountain drink because we have a lot to go over.

The proceedings haven’t been completely above board. One thing that has troubled people about the current impeachment process against President Trump is how unfair it appears. Even those of us who know impeachment is a political process rather than a legal process are stunned at the way Adam Schiff and company have run their inquiry hearings with an iron ham fist. If there was more of an attempt to balance the hearings and give them the gravity they deserve rather than the clown show it’s been to date, people might not be so turned off by them.

The testimony doesn’t support the conclusions. Ignore the partisan spin from the House Democrats and their media allies. When push comes to shove, the testimony hasn’t supported the conclusions the Left want us to reach. You can give a 20 minute opening statement under oath hitting on everything from America to Main Street, but if you honestly answer you have zero proof of what is being said you are testifying on, you’ve wasted your breath and our time.

There’s too much partisanship going on. This goes back to the first point a little, but it’s still important to discuss separately. Politics today makes the Hatfields and McCoys look like a polite family disagreement over who had the best day. Having said that, both sides have been using impeachment or rejection of impeachment as a cudgel to beat each other over the heads. This gives the rightful impression that no one is taking impeachment seriously enough. It may throw red meat to the respective political bases, but it doesn’t support either side’s argument.

Appeals to emotion don’t make a solid case. Let’s be frank for a moment. The heart of the Left’s hard-on for impeaching President Trump is driven by emotion and not by facts. You can tell this by watching the pro-impeachment forces using emotional appeals suggesting impeachment is simultaneously the last thing they want to do and the proudest thing they’ve ever done to protect the country. Once the emotional appeals fail, what else do you have? More hysteria? More appeals to Mom, baseball, apple pie, Chevrolet, and America? And when those fail? Time to admit you have nothing and have had nothing from the jump instead of trying to make us feel like we’re traitorous scum if we don’t march in lockstep behind you. Okay, you can go back to being yourselves again.




The “crimes” don’t fit the punishment. This is an area the Left has utterly failed on. They haven’t made a case that impeachment is the only remedy for what the President is accused of doing. And based on what information we’ve received so far, we’re hard pressed to see what crimes were committed in the first place. Trying to get Ukraine to investigate election tampering in 2016 and determine whether former Vice President Joe Biden was involved isn’t a crime, especially given how the same Leftists wanting Trump’s head on a platter were so concerned about election tampering when they thought it favored them are suddenly anti-transparency and pro-corruption when there’s even a hint their ox…or in this case donkey…gets gored. The fact people outside of the Left’s hivemind see this isn’t a good look because not everyone has a short memory. And here’s the kicker: some House Democrats are offering censure as an alternative. Even if they’re in the minority, the fact they’re speaking out right now in the midst of Impeach-a-Palooza means there might be more willing to forego the conventional wisdom and stand against their own party.

There is a constantly moving target. Since 2016, there have been multiple reasons the Left has wanted President Trump impeached, including alleged crimes committed before he was President and, thus, still a private citizen. As each reason has fallen by the wayside, there is another to replace it, with some of them being so absurd they could only come from the mouths of Leftists more clueless than Alicia Silverstone’s character in the movie of the same name. When you can’t even decide on an impeachable offense without a focus group, you know you’ve oversaturated the marketplace of ideas.

The public is fickle. To put it mildly, people like what they like for as long as they like it and then dump it for the next hot new thing. If you want to keep their attention, you have to give them a reason to invest in it. If you don’t, you’ll see people “Oh Shiny!” you into obsolescence. Guess where you are right now.

You didn’t read the room. Before you embark on a risky venture, like…oh I don’t know…impeaching a President, you kinda need to make sure you are prepared to suffer the consequences if your venture goes south. Outside of your hivemind, there isn’t much support for impeachment. And relying on Republicans to vote for your half-baked idea, let alone to remove President Trump in the Senate, is riskier than letting Bernie Madoff handle your retirement. And trying to shame them into complying isn’t going to work, and not for the reason you think. It’s not because Republicans are all Trump-Bots; it’s because you’re fucking annoying! Whinging about Trump, lame hashtags, and moralizing from people who think drag queens are the perfect people to read to little kids aren’t getting the job done.

We’re tired of impeachment already! Although this relates to the fickleness point I raised earlier, it is too important a point to leave unstated. Plus, I needed to pad this out a bit. With all of the attention on impeachment, there are a number of issues that aren’t getting the attention they deserve. Voting security in 2020 (remember that, kids?), the situation in Hong Kong, international terrorism, immigration, and a host of other issues that mean much more to the American people than impeaching a President, especially when you consider the crap you’ve put forth so far hasn’t moved the needle in the way you want.

Impeachment has been a dud and continues to be one in spite of the Left’s insistance on it being a winner. But, hey, who am I to tell you what you should do? You do you!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

161 Views

One of the most striking elements to Leftist ideology is how strident you have to be to follow it. Any deviation from the hivemind turns you into an evil right-winger. Just ask Kanye West. On second thought, don’t. That would require talking and listening to him, and I believe that may be against the Geneva Convention or, at the very least, any concept of sanity.

The latest victim of this stridency is Tim Alberta, a man who is not only named after a Canadian province I’ve visited, but also was tapped to be a moderator for an upcoming Democratic Presidential debate. At least, until it was found out Alberta worked for National Review, a…conservative magazine! DUN DUN DUNNNNNNN! The reason the DNC gave for their objection is they didn’t feel Alberta had the right “ideological credentials” to moderate the debate.

Yep, that’s a new one on me, but at least it gives me a topic for this week’s Lexicon!

ideological credentials

What the Left thinks it means – certification of one’s beliefs and whether they correspond with the right beliefs

What it really means – non-ironic discrimination to protect Leftist fee-fees

If anyone wants to debate the media don’t lean Left, ask them to explain this bullshit. The fact the DNC could even make this complaint in the first place tells us they’re waaaaaay too comfy with the media. But that’s a blog for another time.

The entire concept of ideological credentials is absurd because it sets a requirement that shouldn’t even be in question…because it shouldn’t be there. Journalists and reporters used to be taught to hide any biases they have on a subject in an attempt to achieve a balanced accounting of what happened. That went out the window decades ago when the journalism profession started being DNC stenographers and the higher-ups allowed it.

Being a debate moderator is different than being a reporter, though. There are additional responsibilities, like…asking questions concerning issues? Totes different!

Seriously, a biased debate moderator can be detrimental to a candidate. That reminds me, where is Candy Crowley these days? I haven’t seen her since she…conducted an erroneous fact check against Mitt Romney…during a Presidential debate in 2012. But I’m sure it was okay because ideological credentials.

The problem with this line of thinking is Alberta was tapped to be a moderator at a debate for Democrat candidates only. These are men and women who want to be the President of the United States, so they might have to deal with opinions and positions other than their own. And, now hear me out, they might have to make tough decisions as President. If you’re afraid of a question from someone outside your ideological bubble, you really aren’t ready for being the leader of the free world.

But the ideological credentials argument isn’t about fitness for office; it’s about protecting the ideology from being exposed on issues that matter to Americans. On the surface, the Left’s positions seem reasonable, but a little critical thought makes those positions seem as reasonable as making Charlie Sheen our Drug Czar. That’s why the Left has to hide their policy endgames. Once people do a little bit of digging, their perfect plans to fix everything from healthcare to the common cold wind up getting ruined.

And here’s the greatest irony of all. By invoking ideological credentials against Alberta, the Left has created a political precedent that will come back to bite them. First, the Democrat candidates by and large are trying to show voters how they’re different from President Donald Trump. And what is a common knock against Trump? He’s too thin-skinned and can’t take being challenged. So, what does that say about the candidates who go along with the DNC’s ideological credentials argument? It tells your humble correspondent they’re not that different from Trump after all.

Second, it gives the President and the RNC the perfect excuse to exclude the Left’s media foot soldiers when it comes to Presidential debates. After all, by excluding a moderator with one notable conservative credential in his past, the DNC has made it okay to raise Hell about any of the potential debate moderators for their ideological biases. Well, there goes, say, 99% of the available talking heads out there. Then again, would that necessarily be a loss?

The biggest knock on the ideological credentials idea is it presumes one cannot change his or her political leanings over time. That is short-sighted and wrong. Over time, people can and do change their minds about issues and even entire ways of thinking. (I’m one of them. As is Leftist favorite David Brock.) To be fair, I haven’t read much of Alberta’s work, so I can’t tell where he is on the ideological teeter-totter. Having said that, contributing to National Review shouldn’t be a determining factor of how good or fair of a moderator he will be, let alone the sole determining factor.

So, let’s not pretend the DNC’s complaint about ideological credentials has any weight. Let’s just call it for what it is: an excuse to avoid having potential Presidential candidates answer questions tougher than “What’s your favorite ice cream flavor?”




Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

114 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

126 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?

The Right to Remain Equal…ly Miserable

104 Views

In case you missed it, scientists have finally figured out what will stop global climate change, and it was right in front of us the whole time. Brace yourselves, because this is a major scientific breakthrough that will help generations to come. To fight global climate change, we need…equality.

Are you as shocked as I am? Of course, by “shocked” I mean “absolutely gobsmacked at the insanity.”

If you’ve read my previous posts on this subject, you know I’m a skeptical about the whole global climate change thing because the real science doesn’t back up the ohmygoddesswearegonnadie rhetoric. To be fair, though, the people who have pushed the latter narrative have only been wrong for the past, oh, 50 years, so maybe we need to give them a chance.

Then, they came out with this equality-as-a-climate-change-solution idea. At this point, they’ve burnt their last chance with me. Anyone who still blindly follows these nozzleheads will get mocked into the Stone Age.

Which is exactly where the eco-Left wants to take us. These folks tell us just about everything from eating meat to wearing clothes contributes to our carbon footprint, so it stands to reason they want us to devolve. Not them, of course. Just us. You see, the eco-Left is soooooo smart that they don’t need to follow the dictates they demand others follow. They’re the “Party of Science,” after all!

So, what does science have to do with equality? About as much as the eco-Left does with either.

Equality isn’t a term that appears in the hard sciences, but occurs more frequently in the social sciences because it’s more of a social concept. Also complicating matters is the fact equality is subjective. Let’s not forget people in this country believe white men have more privilege than anyone else, all while ignoring the advantages given to minorities (and majorities, in the case of women) over white men because of the assumption of privilege. Okay, I’m going to have to sit down for a bit after writing that last sentence. It was a real mind-bender to write.

Okay, I’m back. The point I’m trying to make here is the Left is now using social science to solve what they’ve maintained to date is a hard science problem. Although this may sound plausible on the surface because they’re both scientific disciplines, it’s hard to see how it would work in practice. If I drive a diesel fuel guzzling semi truck 6 days a week, but pay my wife the same amount of money for taking care of the books that I make driving, my carbon footprint doesn’t change, the rate and intensity of climate change isn’t impacted, and the problem equality was supposed to fix remains. No matter how many times this is repeated, the result is the same: nothing concrete gets accomplished. You may feel better about it, but the status quo will be maintained.

What’s the next step? Make things more equal? Give more to those perceived as having less?

Actually, that last one is the ultimate goal of the eco-Left. Hidden within any of their solutions to climate change is an economic component where the rich are expected to take on the lion’s share of the efforts to fix climate problems, whether it be through higher tax rates or out and out wealth confiscation. Why else do you think the eco-Left thinks America should be the one to change its economic system to combat a problem we’re already leading the world in addressing while other countries with less vibrant economies are allow to continue polluting without so much as a sideways glance from the eco-Left? They would rather make everyone equally miserable in the name of trying to control nature than to let anyone try to better themselves and succeed.

At the core of the “equality as climate change solution” notion is an emotional argument using “science” as a strengthening agent. By clinging to an idea Americans in particular hold dear (equality) and connecting it to an idea they’ve been trying to get off the ground for generations (manmade climate change), the eco-Left are hoping you overlook the inherent flaws in the argument and just submit. It’s the same play they’ve been running since the 90s, and they always seem to find new suckers to join their ranks using it.

The thing is scientists can be wrong and/or dishonest. Case in point: most of the scientists and non-scientists peddling the manmade climate change canard. Think about it for a moment. Out of all the dire predictions the eco-Left made, none have happened. And they know it. That’s one reason why they cook their own books, so to speak, to make it seem like they’ve been right all along. Just look at the lengths manmade global climate change guru Dr. Michael Mann have taken to avoid letting others scrutinize his work, even when ordered by a court to allow it. This begs the question of why. If climate change is real, dangerous, and occurring as we speak, the facts should back it up.

Spoiler Alert: They don’t.

And the eco-Left is scared people will find out.

Spoiler Alert: We know, which is why we doubt you.

And now with the new “solution” of equality, we have even more reason to doubt you. Oh, and laugh at you derisively.

 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

117 Views

I may be understating this just a bit, but we are living in weird times. Young people needing “safe spaces” so they don’t feel harmed by words or ideas. Politicians and the media trying to get people to believe someone who put up topless and nude photos of herself on a swingers website is a victim of “revenge porn.” A blogger who puts things in quotation marks more frequently than Nancy Pelosi takes Yaeger shots during the work week.

Then, there’s the story of 7 year old James Younger, a boy in the middle of a legal and social struggle involving transgender rights. James’ mother wanted to give him drugs that would delay his biological maturity as a means to have him transition into being female. His father, on the other hand, objected to it for various reasons. Due to a recent court decision, James will not have to take the drugs his mother wants him to take.

There is a lot of discussion around the subject of transitioning, so who better to discuss it than your humble correspondent? Seriously, I’d like to know. Nobody? Okay, I’ll give it a shot.

transitioning

What the Left thinks it means – the process of changing one’s gender identity through medical and social means

What it really means – a major life decision that may not be taken as seriously as it should be

This is a subject that hits close to home for me because I have family members and friends who are either transitioning, have transitioned, or have people in their lives who are. The process itself can be painful, physically, mentally, and emotionally, and once you go down that road, there aren’t many offramps if you change your mind. It takes a strong resolve to complete the transition from male to female and vice versa, which means such an endeavor must be carefully considered at each step to make sure the person who will be living with the outcome is comfortable and determined to see it through.

That’s one reason the James Younger situation is so disturbing to me. Both parents have a say in this decision, and both have particular axes to grind with the other. The mother says James has gender dysphoria, a condition where a person believes he or she was born with the incorrect gender. The father says the mother is forcing James to dress and act like a girl to get affection from her. At this point, we can’t trust either side completely because we don’t know what is factual and what isn’t.

That leaves James, who regardless of whether you believe the mother or the father, is still 7 years old. Knowing what we know from science, girls mature faster than boys, and if I remember the studies correctly, neither one of them are fully mature in the single digits. That makes the decision to transition a lot harder to justify in my eyes because the person most affected by the transition isn’t mature enough to make that decision.

And before any Leftists jump down my throat accusing me of transphobia, let me point out there is precedent on my side in the form of age of consent laws. These laws were put in place because of the very immaturity of children I just mentioned. Although what is happening to James right now isn’t the same thing as an adult wanting to play Hide the Salami with an underage boy or girl, the principle is the same. And let’s not overlook the science here, “Party of Science.” Science isn’t a Chinese restaurant menu where you can pick a principle from Column A and another from Column B. You either accept what science says even if it goes against your political aims or you don’t.

Now for the coup de grace: there are a lot of trans people out there who think 7 is a tad young to be transitioning. Yes, I know this is an appeal to popularity, but it’s still something to consider. When people who may feel inclined to lean Left tell you it’s messed up, it’s probably more messed up than a Gary Busey/Charlie Sheen coke bender. And as someone outside of the Leftist bubble, let me confirm it looks messed up to most of the rest of the people out there.

Even though I have strong opinions on the subject of transitioning and when it should be considered, my opinions don’t mean much. I am just an outsider, so you can take my comments with a grain of salt, or even a pillar of salt if you prefer. But I will say this. If you believe James Younger is mature enough to make such an important decision to transition, then he is mature enough to make an informed decision, not just the decision you may want him to make.

And therein lies the problem. Many young people who attempt to transition or completely transition regret their decision later in life, some to the point of committing suicide. No matter how much the Left and the media try to make children transitioning or being transgender into a positive, the negative is too important to ignore. It’s neither fun, nor brave, and not every child who transitions will be lavished with praise and attention. After the novelty wears off, the children will be ignored while their lives are left in chaos.

But hey, what’s a little child abuse among trans fans? Amirite?

This may seem like a bit of a stretch, but it was the only thing that comes to mind when thinking about the James Younger case, and I’m talking to both sides here. There don’t seem to be any white hats here, just various shades of gray. You can chalk it up to life not being black and white, but I chalk it up to not wanting to be called a bigot in today’s society by opposing an idea that makes no sense whatsoever. James is a child. As a result, he is in no position to make a life-changing, and in many cases a life-ending, decision, and his parents aren’t helping the matter any by putting pressure on him one way or the other. If he wants to transition in, say, 10 years from now, then let him. Until then, let him be the child he is, not the tiny adult you think he is.

To the young adults and adults who are considering transitioning, I have one request: look at the decision carefully and with as much information and self-reflection necessary for you to make a definitive stance. If you have any qualms, don’t do it until they’re addressed to your satisfaction. And if/when you transition, know that I will treat you like a person, not as a label.

Unless you’re an asshole. Then all bets are off.