Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


In the aftermath of the Orlando shooting, Leftists got on their soapboxes (or whatever boxes they could find since they don’t typically use soap) and talked about the need for more gun laws to prevent shootings…that couldn’t have been stopped with any of their previous proposals to stop the shootings. But this time they’ll be successful!

At least until the next shooting.

In the meantime, we can discuss their “solution” as the Leftist Lexicon Word(s) of the Week.

gun control
What the Left believes it means: measures to protect people by restricting gun ownership, bullets, or other means

What it really means: The Left wants your guns

Right now, Leftists’ heads are exploding with rage at my statement. See, to them, they’re not really going after guns. They just want to make gun ownership as impossible as Michael Moore refusing a second trip to the all-you-can-eat buffet. That’s totally not the same thing!

Except, it is.

The Left does want to take people’s guns, and they make no bones about it. After all, only redneck white trash Republican Trump supporter types think they need guns for protection. When a Leftist needs a gun, it’s an actual need because, well, reasons.

See, that’s the dirty little secret of the Left. They want to take other people’s guns, but keep their own so they can be the only ones who can shoot people. Yeah, that won’t end badly for anyone. Oh, by the way, there’s a call from a Mr. Crispus Attucks for you Leftists. Something about spinning in his grave so much the estate of the inventor of the centrifuge is suing his estate for copyright infringement. On the plus side, you might be able to figure out a way to use his spinning to generate clean electrical energy.

And speaking of spinning, the Left always tries to spin events to create support for gun control measures. If you followed the Senate Democrats’ filibuster to shame Senate Republicans into acting on demands for tougher gun laws, you got to see it in action. That, and I’m sorry you sat through several hours of Leftists showing how little they know about guns.

The Left knows it can’t come out and say “we want to take your guns” and they can’t admit they know nothing about firearms, so it relies on human emotion to make up for it. As powerful as it is, it fails in the face of an informed citizenry. Once you really look at the proposals the Left devise, they fall faster than a house of cards on the San Andreas Fault. (And while we’re here, why is it always the San Andreas’ fault? Seems to be a bit of racial profiling to me…)

Let me make something very clear. Most of the recent mass shootings have been done by people who have beaten the existing system. You know, the one the Left said was needed to prevent mass shootings? Yeah, that’s worked well. And the Left wants to keep adding onto the number of hoops gun owners jump through in order to purchase guns. Meanwhile, those with a predisposition to disobey the law will laugh as they circumvent the laws.

Before you Leftists start asking, “So you’re saying we should have no gun laws?”, let me save you the trouble. Some gun laws are needed, but the current system is broken and should be fixed before we add to the laws in place. If you really care about reducing gun violence, you can’t be satisfied with the current system.

Ah, but that assumes the Left cares about reducing gun violence. They don’t, actually. They need bloodbaths (or the illusion of bloodbaths) to maintain the viability of their attempts to reduce gun ownership. Let’s not forget, the operative word in what they believe is control. If the Left can control guns, they can control far more than guns.

Which is why they’re retooling what they say they want. Now, they say they want “gun safety.” Yet, how many gun safety courses do they sponsor?

Zero. None. Nada. The Big Goose Egg.

And who does sponsor gun safety courses? The eeeeeevilllllll National Rifle Association.

That should tell you everything you need to know about how serious the Left is about gun safety.

Good Idea or Bad Idea?


In the wake of the Orlando shooting, Democrats decided to recycle an idea they introduced last year: banning people on the FBI’s terrorist watch list from getting guns. (At least they believe in recycling something!) On the surface, it makes sense. We don’t want terrorists getting guns, right? Absolutely.

So, why aren’t more people on the Right on board with this idea? A little thing the kids like to call “due process.” It might be just a fad, though, if some people get their way.

Put simply (so Leftists can understand it), due process requires people not be denied their fundamental rights without there being some sort of legal action. Although the FBI is an arm of law enforcement, it is not equal to a trial where little things like evidence and sworn testimony can be used to determine guilt.

Still unclear about this concept, Leftists? Let’s try something closer to your political hearts. Due process prevents cops from throwing members of Black Lives Matter into solitary confinement before the BLM clowns get their case heard in court. After they’re found guilty, then the BLM clowns get thrown into solitary. There are no short-cuts in the process, kids.

Even if you’re not down with due process, there’s another huge (or YUGE if you’re a Trump supporter) problem with the FBI’s watch list. The way you get on the list in the first place is completely arbitrary. You don’t even need to be an actual terrorist to land on it! In fact, you could be an actual terrorist and not land on it. (See the Boston Marathon bombers for a prime example.) And if you’re a mother of three from Minneapolis with the oh-so-Muslim-sounding name of Lena Olson, you could wind up on it by mistake.

Yeah, that’s not exactly a “whoops.”

And it’s not exactly something we can gloss over, either. Since 9/11, we as a society have been willing on some level to let some rights go by the wayside. Democrats and Republicans alike have used the fear of terrorism, both foreign and domestic, to weaken the concept of due process for their own political ends. This continues today, as does the inefficiency and ineptitude of those who keep and maintain the watch list.

That, in and of itself, is not a valid enough reason to apply the watch list to whether someone should be allowed to get a gun. But I do have an idea, and I’m hoping the Left (and some people on the Right) have the intellectual courage to act on it.

If you support the Democrats’ proposal, volunteer to go on the watch list. Even if your name is Lena Olson. Report yourself to the FBI as a suspected terrorist, just to be on the safe side. If it saves just one life…

The M Word


Unless you’ve been living under a rock or have been blissfully unaware of what has been going on in Washington, DC, recently, you’ve heard about the shooting at a gay nightclub in Orlando committed by a gay Muslim who swore allegiance to ISIS/ISIL before the shooting. And if you’ve been following the media coverage of the shooting, you’ve probably heard the following people, organizations, and ideas blamed for the shooting.

– The NRA
– Donald Trump
– Christians
– House Republicans
– The gun lobby
– Gun manufacturers
– Homophobia
– North Carolina’s bathroom law

Notice the one person who isn’t being blamed for the shooting? The actual shooter himself. You know, the presumed gay, but most definitely Muslim extremist who committed the crime? Yeah, that guy.

The silence regarding the obvious criminal’s actual motivations behind the Orlando shooting is breathtakingly deafening. It’s almost as if people are scared to mention the shooter’s religious affiliation, even though it’s the most likely explanation for his actions.

Now, let me be clear here. I am not saying all Muslims are terrorists. In fact, I believe most Muslims are peaceful and want to be left alone to worship in peace. No, Muslims are not all sleeper cells awaiting for a secret code in a package of Eggo waffles.

But I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t concerned at the number of Muslims who either vocally or silently support their extremist brethren.

While the media and the Left try to find their scapegoat du jour, I did a little digging on various killings committed by Muslims, and boy did I find a bunch! According to TheReligionofPeace.com, there have been 74 instances of Muslims taking American lives since 1972. That’s close to 2 a year. Granted, when compared to the alleged number of mass shootings in America, it’s not as impressive.

Ah, but this is where things get interesting. After a bit more digging, I found of those 74 instances, 3 directly involved Muslims killing homosexuals. Now, 3 in 44 years isn’t bad.

One tiny problem. Those 3 have occurred…since 2014.

And they’re not just happening in right-leaning cities. One of these killings happened in Seattle, Washington, home of the Seahawks, Starbucks, and the sucky $15 per hour minimum wage. Even in the Leftist version of Utopia, Islamic extremism has taken lives.

But tell us again how strengthening gun control laws will help.

The Left, as usual, is looking in the wrong direction when it comes to the Orlando shooting. They’re looking for excuses when they need to be looking at a clear trend that has started to spike in recent years. Until America gets over its fears of being called Islamophobic, we are going to see more attacks on its citizens, gay or straight.

And if you’re gay, bi, lesbian, trans, etc., you should be at the forefront of this matter. Nearly 50 people lost their lives as a direct result of a Muslim extremist. I see groups about gays against Islamophobia cropping up, but not nearly enough wanting to take on Muslim extremism with the same vigor you take on Christians. And before you tell me Christians and Muslims aren’t that different with regards to homosexuality, let me point out something.

Christians may disagree with your lifestyle, but most aren’t going to try to kill you over it. With Muslims, it’s a little less certain. Put another way, some Christians will try to “pray the gay away,” while some Muslims will try to stone the gay to death. There is a big, big difference between the two.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


This past weekend many cities across the country hosted Pride parades. Putting a damper on the festivities was a mass shooting at a gay bar in Orlando. Yet, one subject can be found at the center of the discussion of both events: homophobia.

It’s a term that gets thrown about more than a deflated football in Tom Brady’s hands. And it just so happens to be this week’s entry in the Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week.


What the Left believes it means: Any negative response to homosexuality

What it really means: Not agreeing with the radical gay agenda

You can support a cause while calling out some of the people ruining the cause. Unless, of course, you’re calling out members of the LGQBTABCDEFGRESPECTFINDOUTWHATITMEANSTOME movement. Then, the Left will say you hate gays, even if you’re carrying a rainbow flag and marching to “Macho Man” by The Village People while you do it.

How do I know this? I’ve actually had it happen to me and seen it happen to others. Even a slight disagreement over practice can tar you as a homophobe in some circles. In other circles, you could be called a homophone, which makes no sense. That’s why I try not to travel in those circles very much.

Seriously, though, allegations of homophobia are becoming more common as the gay rights movement makes strides in being treated like everyone else…just with more rights and considerations than if you’re a straight white heterosexual. Yes, you read that right. The gay rights movement wants to have its cake baked by Christian bakers under fear of legal and fiscal backlash and eat it, too, and you can’t say anything about it.

But here’s the thing. You can disagree with the gay rights movement without hating gays. The two are mutually exclusive, but the Left wants to make it an all-or-nothing affair. (Which, oddly enough, is the same approach some talk show hosts on the Right use. I’m looking right at you, Sean Hannity!) This has made it hard to have a serious discussion on the merits of and the areas of opportunity for the gay rights movement. After all, who wants to try to discuss a subject when the person on the other side of the table does nothing but throws hateful rhetoric at you? It’s almost like being married. (Just kidding, dear! Love ya!)

Then again, as we’ve seen with other subjects they champion, the Left may not want a serious discussion. That might lead to…a civil exchange! One that could…result in actual solutions and…understanding! The Left can’t have that! How else would they bilk…I mean help gays?

Maybe I’ve said too much…

This is not to say there aren’t people out there who legitimately hate gays and, thus, are actual homophobes. The Orlando shooter certainly fits that description better than a suit designed by Tim Gunn. But there are more people who get called homophobes who don’t. If you want to stomp out homophobia, first you have to make sure of who the homophobes are. Here’s a handy dandy checklist for my gay friends out there.

1) Do you agree with the Westboro Baptist Church? If your answer is yes, you are a homophobe. And a backwards asshat. If your answer is no, you aren’t a homophobe, but you may still be a backwards asshat.

2) Do you support ISIS/ISIL? If your answer is yes, the Westboro Baptist Church may want to talk to you. You know, exchange recipes, maybe get together for a few laughs, blow up a Pride parade or two. (Note to ISIS/ISIL and the Westboro Baptist Church: This is not an actual suggestion.)

3) Do you hate the sin, but love the sinner? If your answer is yes, you aren’t a homophobe. If your answer is no, you have bigger problems than what gays are doing right now.

End of the list, kids. I hope this helps.

My Favorite Leftist


For those of you who read my contributions on a regular basis, you might think I hate all Leftists. Nothing could be further from the truth. I don’t hate anyone, no matter how horribly they treat me. I may mock the Left…a lot…I mean, a lot lot…okay, I do mock the Left whenever I can, but that’s not the same thing as hating them.

Especially when they provide such great entertainment in the form of Senator Elizabeth Warren.

Out of all the Leftists I’ve observed, Senator Warren is my favorite, but it’s not because I agree with her or admire her rise from obscure Harvard professor and potential Native American to US Senator. I love her because she is so convinced she’s right that she doesn’t bother to see if she’s actually right.

Take the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, for example. That regulatory agency was the brainchild of Senator Warren’s. The CFPB was established to regulate the largest banks, a task that was already being done by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, but not to the liking of people like Senator Warren. You see, the OCC was found to have not done its jobs very well (or at least not well enough to punish the big banks for making money). So, instead of trying to fix the OCC’s problems, the big brains in Washington decided to double down.

Without getting too far into the weeds about the mortgage industry, let me just say it worked as well as giving Bill Clinton a key to the Playboy Mansion as a means to help his marital fidelity.

But this week, Senator Warren turned the cluelessness to 11.

It started with Hillary Clinton appearing to sew up the Democrat nomination for President. As one might expect, people who sat on the sidelines started coming out of the woodwork to endorse her. One of those sideliners was…Senator Elizabeth Warren. On the surface, this makes sense (or at least however much sense a Leftist supporting another Leftist can have).

And now, as the late Paul Harvey would say, the rest of the story.

Senator Warren has been an outspoken critic of presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump. This is consistent with her self-appointed image as a staunch warrior against Wall Street greed, and Trump is the perfect foil. This war of words has exploded on Twitter, where Senator Warren is known to write several posts about Trump, decrying his connections to Wall Street. In fact, Senator Warren Tweeted the following on June 9th:

Government should be accountable to the people, not Wall Street lobbyists, deep-pocketed donors, and secretive Super PACs.

Of course, it should be pointed out to Senator Warren that Hillary Clinton has pretty close ties to…Wall Street, namely Goldman Sachs. You remember Goldman Sachs, right? The company where the current Administration took a lot of people and ideas from on the economy? Yeah, and that worked so well, didn’t it?

But wait! There’s more! The very next day after her Tweet, a news story broke based on emails from the State Department showing a major donor to The Clinton Foundation received a spot on a government intelligence board…without having any field experience in intelligence. And who sought to keep that information under wraps?

Hillary Clinton.

The same Hillary Clinton who just secured Elizabeth Warren’s endorsement.

The same Elizabeth Warren who blasted “Wall Street lobbyists, deep-pocketed donors, and secretive Super PACs”.

The same Elizabeth Warren who accepted funds from Leftist billionaire and economic terrorist George Soros.

The same George Soros who gave $6 million to a pro-Hillary Super PAC.

The same George Soros who funds MoveOn.org, a website that just sent out an email about Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland…using Elizabeth Warren’s name and signature.

So, I guess Senator Warren forgot about her Tweet…from yesterday. In her defense, she was working so hard to defend the little guy that it must have slipped her mind!

And if you believe that, I have a bridge I’d love to sell you.

And now you know why Elizabeth Warren is my favorite Leftist. She can always be counted on for a great belly laugh as she tries to be serious about subjects she knows nothing about.

The End of the First Amendment?


If you felt a great disturbance in the Force as if millions of voices cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced, that was my fault. I had burritos for lunch.

If you felt a great disturbance in the First Amendment as if millions of voices cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced, you must have been following Twitter feeds regarding Gawker filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. For those of you unfamiliar with Gawker, count your blessings. Put simply, if the Internet had a birdcage, the bird would refuse to crap on Gawker.

The Leftist media are lamenting the fact a billionaire, Peter Thiel, was able to back a lawsuit against Gawker for defying a court order and publishing a sex tape involving former professional wrestler Hulk Hogan. They even tried to justify their actions on Gawker. And this position lead to…losing the lawsuit to a guy allowed to wear a bandana in court to the tune of $140 million. And I thought there were a lot of zeroes working for Gawker…

After the courts laid the judiciary smackdown on Gawker, they had financial difficulties leading to today’s announcement. Now, every so-called journalist seems to be lining up to fret about freedom of the press. After all, if Gawker could be taken down by a billionaire, what’s to stop others from doing the same?

Well, they could start by…oh, I don’t know…not breaking the law?

The Left’s concern about freedom of the press is admirable, but misplaced in this situation. It’s not like a billionaire has targeted the New York Times and bankrupted it. (Well, unless you count Carlos Slim, that is.) But aside from the obvious lack of comparability, journalism is not taking a hit by Gawker filing bankruptcy. If anything, it should be a wake-up call for journalists to act carefully when it comes to matters of personal privacy and the law. And if you find yourself on the wrong side of the law, you need to find your way back to the right side as quickly as you can. Don’t double down on stupid like Gawker did!

When it comes down to it, the First Amendment is healthier than the Left believes or wants it to be, Gawker or no Gawker. And if I had my wish, it would definitely be without Gawker.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


The recent sentencing of former Stanford swimmer and all around scumbag Brock Turner has outraged many, confused others, and generally made people shake their heads. (For more information on the case, feel free to check out my previous blog post on the subject. We now return you to your regularly scheduled blog already in progress.)

On the Left, Turner’s sentence, which was lighter than an albino at a Salon management meeting, was proof of “rape culture.” What is rape culture? I’m glad you asked!

rape culture

What the Left believes it means: a society that tolerates or encourages men to rape women

What it really means: a catch-all excuse where men are sexual deviants and women are divine, perfect creatures

If you are a woman, you are in extreme danger. You are living in a culture where 1 out of 5 college age women are raped…no, make it 1 out of 4…no, make it 1 out of 3…wait, what week is it?

Listening to the Left talking about rape culture is like listening to Joe Biden after a few NyQuil margaritas: you don’t know what is going to be said, but you know it’s bound to be entertaining, yet completely dumb. The concept of rape culture revolves around the idea women, who are powerful and able to make decisions for themselves, are completely inept when it comes to preventing rape. No, it’s up to men to stop rapes!

This is one reason I don’t turn on my Irony Meter when writing these pieces. Those things are pretty expensive to replace.

Maybe the Left didn’t get the memo, or maybe they’re just overlooking reality to create a narrative. Of the two, I’m betting on the latter. I know. I’m just as shocked as you are thinking the Left would willingly ignore reality just to advance a lie, but it’s true.

And in other news, water is wet, fire is hot, and Justin Bieber is annoying.

Seriously, though, it’s easy to be convinced of a rape culture when the people who claim it’s there bring up statistics like the 1 in 5 I referenced earlier. But once you dig into the numbers themselves, you find the statistics are based on different definitions of what rape is. Some even include sexual intercourse when one or more of the partners are drunk.

In other words, if you had sex with Ted Kennedy, some researchers think you’ve been raped.

Putting aside the statistics, there is another really great way to figure out whether we have a rape culture. It’s called “Opening Your Eyes.” Unless I’m missing something, rape is still seen as a bad thing in America, and it’s a pretty widespread notion. Sure, there are plenty of exceptions to the rule, but by comparison, the good guy to bad guy ratio is still pretty heavily weighted in favor of the good guys.

Of course, we’re not focusing on men acting civilized because it’s to be expected. Wait a second…if men acting civilized is the norm, how is that a  rape culture? Wouldn’t a rape culture be, you know, more rapey?

Why, yes. Yes it would.

The fact our society still doesn’t condone rape by and large is proof of a lack of rape culture, not proof of the existence of one. So, technically, we have a non-rape culture. Or a rape-is-bad culture. Or a Leftists-couldn’t-find-culture-in-a-full-yogurt-container culture.

Regardless of what you call the rape-deficient rape culture, the point is the idea is sexist on its face. Not only do you have to believe the worst about men, but you have to believe ideas that would be considered misogynistic and wrong if a man said them. But since it’s the Left, and feminists in particular, expressing them…they’re still misogynistic and wrong.

Why So Serious?


If you’re a frequent reader of my pieces, thank you, first of all. It’s always good to know your ramblings have a following. Also, could I borrow $10? You know, just until I get paid?

You might have also noticed I’ve been pretty serious recently. Part of that is because the issues I’ve found recently have been more serious, and as a result, I held back on the wisecracks for the most part. (I can’t stop being a smartass. It’s like breathing to me.) So, I went looking for something a little lighter, and boy did I find it!

The University of Canterbury in New Zealand released a study…about LEGOs. If I knew I could do academic research on children’s toys, I would have gone for my Doctorate! Anyway, the study showed LEGO sets are getting more violent because there are more weapons in more recent sets and there are more angry faces showing up in said sets.

Oh, crap! I should have given you a trigger warning before you beat your heads against the wall. Oh, no! I said “trigger”! That proves how dangerous LEGO sets have become! AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Wait a minute…maybe the reason LEGO sets have more weapons and angry faces is because…the company is putting out sets based on popular movies…with weapons and angry people in them! Granted, they haven’t released the LEGO Natural Born Killers set (yet), but they have released sets based on Star Wars, The Lord of the Rings, and superhero movies. Why? Because that’s what kids want! And a university decided to spend grant money on a study that I was able to improve upon in a blog post? Because I would totally be okay if some university would pay me to do that sort of thing. Just sayin’.

This is getting ridiculous, folks. People are spending time and money to bring serious meaning to things that aren’t serious. But enough about the Bernie Sanders campaign. What’s next? Is there some university working on a study about the dangers of Nerf weaponry? What about the hidden messages hidden within the entire Barbie line? And why doesn’t Ken have a working block and tackle? These are the questions that got me kicked out of many a Starbucks. Well, it was either that or my “Can I get coffee with my overpriced steamed milk?” t-shirt.

In either case, adults are finding new ways to take the fun out of childhood. It’s almost like some people are trying to turn kids into adults washed in hot water and dried on high for, oh, 14 months straight. But that’s not what kids are supposed to be doing. There is plenty of time to learn how to be adults and it’s called…adulthood. (It used to be called college, but that was before every student needed more safe spaces than a softball tournament.) Until then, let children play with LEGOs, Barbies, Nerf weapons, or whatever they want to play with because they only have a limited time when they will be young.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a Batman action figure calling my name.

A Tale of Two Cases


Recently, a former Stanford swimmer named Brock Turner was sentenced to six months in jail after he was found guilty of raping an unconscious female student in 2015. When you consider Turner could have gotten up to 10 years in prison, he got off with a light reprimand.

And people are furious!

Now, I’m not going to defend Turner in any way, shape, or form. What he did was not only legally and morally wrong, but will ruin his life (and deservedly so). Rape is a serious matter and should not be taken lightly.

Across our northern border, another man was acquitted of similar charges earlier this year. His name is Jian Ghomeshi, and he was a former star of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) until he was accused of sexually assaulting a former girlfriend. Prior to the charges being verified, Ghomeshi lost his job and was found guilty in the court of public opinion. Upon further scrutiny of the legal case, however, the prosecution’s case fell apart after it was determined the three people bringing suit weren’t credible due in large part to inconsistencies in their testimony and outright deception on their parts.

And people were…not paying attention. There must have been a game on or something.

People are already coming out of the woodwork saying the Turner verdict is proof of “rape culture.” The problem is the verdict is the exception and not the rule. For there to be a rape culture, Turner should not have been punished in the first place. You may not like the fact his sentence was lighter than deserved, but he is being punished both in the short term and for the rest of his life because he will now have to register as a sex offender. (Still not enough for me, but I can live with it.)

In Ghomeshi’s case, however, he was punished before the case even went to trial, solely because of the nature of the charges. Again, if there is a rape culture, there wouldn’t have been a case filed against Ghomeshi, he wouldn’t have lost his job, and he might have even been held up as a hero. Instead, he has had his reputation sullied, and there will always be people who will overlook his acquittal and believe he’s a sex offender.

There is room for righteous anger in both cases, the former because of the light sentence, the latter because the punishment does not fit the lack of a crime. The problem is only the Turner case will get days and column inches of coverage.

Rape is serious business, and we owe it to the victims of sexual assault to treat it as such. However, that does not require us to treat every accusation as true and the alleged perpetrator as guilty. Instead, it requires a thorough vetting of the facts and mature consideration of them. A false rape allegation can be just as damaging as a proven allegation. We cannot afford to shoot first and ask questions later in these cases for that very reason.

Your Scientific Papers, Please


Sometimes, it takes me a while to find news stories to share with you faithful readers. Other times, the blogs and jokes write themselves.

From our good friends in the California Senate comes Senate Bill 1161, known as the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016. What would this bill do exactly? Considering it’s from the land of fruits, nuts, and flakes, nothing good.

But let me let the California State Senate Rules Committee provide further details.

This bill explicitly authorizes district attorneys and the Attorney General to pursue UCL (Unfair Competition Law) claims alleging that a business or organization has directly or indirectly engaged in unfair competition with respect to scientific evidence regarding the existence, extent, or current or future impacts of anthropogenic induced climate change.
To put it in non-Legalese, the bill gives attorneys the ability to go after companies and organizations they believe attempt to muddy the waters of the “settled science” of man-made global climate change.

Let that sink in for a moment. This bill would essentially make it illegal to dissent with the Left’s version of science.

The good news is the bill has been withdrawn after groups from both sides of the political spectrum attacked it as being too extreme. The bad news is the bill can be reintroduced later (like, say, when the Left gets rid of these  nutjobs who believe in this wacky idea they call “freedom of speech”). For now, though, climate change realists can continue to tell the truth about how little impact humans have on global temperatures.

And that’s why the Left feels they need to silence those of us who think they’re full of crap because, well, we understand science. The Left wants to use science as a sword when they think it proves their points. Let’s not forget the Left has been saying man-made global warming has been “settled science” for years and anyone who disagrees with the science is like Holocaust deniers.

Except when the science proves them wrong. Then, they ignore the actual science in favor of their “settled science” or try to discredit it in any way they can. With the California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016, the Left attempted to give their “science” a legal cudgel to beat their opponents into submission.

All because they can’t debate the topic honestly.