A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Bloodshed

76 Views

Today, Second Amendment advocates gathered in Richmond, Virginia, to protest Governor Ralph “Hood or Blackface” Northam’s anti-gun policies. To hear the media talk, we were in for violence, racism, xenophobia, and all sorts of other horrible things inspired by “gun nuts” (and probably President Donald Trump once they get around to it). It was going to be Charlottesville all over again!

Then something funny happened. As in, nothing the Left said was going to happen happened.

As of this writing, there has been no violence, rumors of white supremacists (or as David “I Got Into Harvard by Being a Gun Control White Knight and All I Got Was This Stupid Twitter Account” Hogg put it “Nazi’s” which is how he actually incorrectly spelled it) without substantiation, and…people actually getting along. You know, for a seething caldron of hate, this was tamer than a Mormon version of 50 Shades of Gray.

What the Left continues to miss when it comes to marches organized by the Right is the participants aren’t like Leftists. When Leftists protest, you can count on a few things. One, it will be a mishmash of ideological issues that often conflict with what the Left believes. (Linda Sarsour being a featured speaker at the Women’s March, anyone?) But somehow few people recognize the various contradictions, often because the folks who are impacted the most by those contradictions are excluded from the protest marches and subsequently ignored by not only the protest organizers but the media. The Left protects the narrative more than Gollum wants to protect the One Ring.

Two, Leftist protests have a potential for violence. Look at Antifa. For all their alleged opposition to fascism, they seem to sing from the same hymnal when it comes to violence. Whether it’s threats and vulgarity, throwing milkshakes at people, or…oh I don’t know…trying to hit people with bike locks, Leftists aren’t afraid to start shit. Of course, when their opposition tries to finish it, these same Leftist badasses make the French look like John Wayne as they run for cover in a cloud of dust, BO, and patchouli oil. And they count on numbers and the police looking the other way to get away with it. Since 2016, the Left has shown itself to be destructive when it comes to showing their opposition to whatever they hate, and they always feel it’s justified.

Finally, Leftist protests are always messy. I’m not just talking about figurative trash here, either. If you have a Leftist protest in your community, first I’m sorry, but also try to get before and after photos. Time after time, you will find Leftist protests leave a lot of garbage in their wake, leaving it for others to clean it because…I’m not even sure why and I’m a recovering Leftist. I guess fighting for a living wage means never having to earn a living.

The difference between Leftist and Rightist protests comes down to a simple non-ideological perspective. People on the Right tend to be more inclined to take responsibility for the little things, like cleaning up after themselves and not causing more trouble than they’re worth. Leftists are more concerned with moving the needle, meaning they want to make an impact that sways public opinion in their favor. Another way to look at it is to compare a Boy Scout to a brat throwing a tantrum. One thinks of others while the other thinks of himself or herself. Hmmmm…who might fit in those categories and why? I guess we’ll never know.

In the meantime, let’s take a moment to appreciate the differences between the Left and the Right when they protest. After all, you won’t get half of my jokes if you don’t!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

92 Views

The Iowa State Fair occurs in August, but we’ve entered a new fair season thanks to Leftists. Democrat candidates for President talk incessantly about fair wages. House Democrats are demanding the Senate hold a fair trial. And Leftists are demanding the rich pay their fair share.

All this fair talk and not a single corn dog to be found.

On the plus side, we can revisit a Leftist chestnut in the current context! Not as good as a corn dog, but hey.

fair

What the Left thinks it means – making things equal for the less fortunate, often involving taking from the plenty to give to the less fortunate

What it really means – an arbitrary word that can’t be achieved, even with an overbearing bureaucracy

We all want things to be fair because we’re not assholes for the most part. When something bad happens to us, we demand something happen to balance the scales (usually involving lawyers, some of which appear in TV commercials during “Maury”…not that I know about that, mind you). It’s even written in our founding documents in a fashion when referencing “all men are created equal.” America is a country where fairness is cherished and appreciated.

And that’s why the Left tries to inject it into every policy they advocate.

Take the “paying your fair share” concept. The Left continues to push the idea the rich aren’t carrying their share of the fiscal burden in America. And they’re right; they’re paying more than their fair share. When the top 10% of earners pays in the neighborhood of 90% of the tax burden, that’s not a fair system by any stretch of the imagination. But to the Left, it’s still fair because…the rich make more money, so they can afford to pay more!

In other words, the Left thinks a minority of the people paying the clear bulk of the tax burden isn’t fair, and the only way to make it fair is to have this minority pay more. Seems as legit as a Nigerian prince offering to share his fortune with you via email.

The same concept of fairness permeates the other Leftist ideas I mentioned. Essentially, the Left feels fairness only goes in the direction they want it to go, and it’s usually someone else who has to do the heavy lifting to make it happen. House Democrats put up laughable articles of impeachment, but it’s the Senate who has to call witnesses to ensure a “fair trial”. Workers aren’t getting paid enough, so companies have to bump up pay in order to have a “fair wage.” And anyone who disagrees with these just isn’t on board with fairness and that makes them meanie-heads!

Actually, it means we don’t share the same definition of fairness.

I’m going to rope in a bit of economic theory here, so if you’re not into that, skip ahead a couple of paragraphs. I promise it will be more entertaining than Al Gore giving play-by-play at a curling match.

Leftists believe in a “zero sum game.” If someone succeeds, it’s always at the cost of those less fortunate.  This, of course, is bunk. Wealth and poverty aren’t linked in that way. Bill Gates didn’t get ahead because he stole from Joe Sixpack. Instead, he got ahead by selling Joe Sixpack computers with buggy operating systems. You know, just like Grandpa did it!

The problem with a zero sum game mindset is it ignores the fact there is an infinite number of ways to make a buck, which means there is an infinite number of bucks to be made in our economy. As long as there is a need for a product or service, there will be a way for someone to make a profit. You could have a job that requires no discernable talent (like being a YouTube celebrity or a Congresscritter), but that doesn’t mean someone like me who is, thankfully, neither can’t make a buck or two in the same, similar, or different fields altogether. Our economic system is funny in that way. Just because someone gets ahead doesn’t mean we can’t get ahead, too.

There is another term to describe the Left’s concept of fairness, and that word is vengeance. The Left doesn’t want things to be fair because it cuts into their schtick, which is to convince people of how unfair everything is and then con them out of money to try to make things fair. And once they have your attention, it gets easier for them to manipulate you into agreeing with Leftist policies. They might even convince you that you’re a victim of unfair treatment and you need to make things right by sticking it to The Man.

See why I think vengeance is a better descriptor of what the Left means when they talk about fairness?

The part that escapes the Left more than their unintentionally ironic definition of fairness is it can never be totally achieved, even under the Leftist utopia being promised in all the brochures. That’s because we’re all different with different skills and abilities, educational backgrounds, socioeconomic circumstances, and so on. As much as I love to play basketball, I know I can’t turn it into a job with the NBA (not on a winning team, at least). Instead of trying to make the NBA put me on a team while talking about how unfair it is that I’m not already a starter, I’ve accepted my limitations, namely my entire basketball-related skill set. I don’t begrudge anyone using their talents to make money.

And that’s what the Left can’t do. Without a potential victim, the Left has no way to convince people how unfair things are in America. Maybe that’s because there are comparatively few actual victims of unfairness in America. We have a ways to go with the justice system and certainly with taxation, but by and large we are a fair country and always strive to do better. Some things can’t be fixed with more taxes on the wealthy, a $15 per hour minimum wage, or calling witnesses at a Senate impeachment trial, but a lot of things can be fixed by recognizing the Left only wants fairness for themselves, not for everyone. Even when they call for fairness, they feel they have to be on top.

And believe me, that would be the least fair result ever.

San Francisco 2020 – A Musical Parody

96 Views

With apologies to Scott McKenzie

To the tune of “San Francisco” by Scott McKenzie


If you’re going to San Francisco
Be sure to wear some work boots on your feet.
If you’re going to San Francisco
Watch out for needles and poop in the street.

For those who come to San Francisco
Be sure to grab a poop map
For the streets of San Francisco
Are literally filled to the curbs with crap.

All across the nation
Folks cry in frustration
“Where is Pelosi?”

It’s a bad situation
In need of sanitation
Where is Pelosi?
Where is Pelosi?

For those who come to San Francisco
You’ll find a lot of homeless people there
If you come to San Francisco
The horrid stench’s everywhere

If you come to San Francisco
You’ll want to get out of there.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

135 Views

House Democrats, after not learning their lesson about how impeachment backfired on them worse than Wile E. Coyote in a Road Runner cartoon, took another step towards trying to rein in President Donald Trump’s powers in the aftermath of the Iran attack. After not being briefed before the President launched the attack that took out Iran’s number 2 military leader (now he’s numbers 2 through 1 billion), the House passed a non-binding resolution that would forbid the President from blowing up more Iranian terrorists without Congressional approval. This was done under the auspices of the War Powers Resolution of 1973, also called the War Powers Act.

Although the War Powers Act (I’ll call it that for the rest of the piece because it’s shorter and I like it) has been used in a handful of situations since its inception, people, and most notably our elected officials, still don’t quite understand it in full. Even your humble correspondent had to do a bit of research on it to make sure I understood it, and if I can do it, people who get paid to write laws can do it (hopefully).

And with that being said, let’s get right into it.

the War Powers Act

What the Left thinks it means – a Congressional check on the President to avoid getting us into wars Congress doesn’t approve

What it really means – a bad idea made worse by partisan bickering

In short, the War Powers Act gives the President the authority to enter a military conflict for a limited amount of time before Congress needs to declare war and, in exchange, the President has to brief Congress within 48 hours of any military action. In the recent Iran situation, only one of the conditions was met, that being the military action. As far as the briefing, one could argue they were informally briefed by the media covering the action, but a formal briefing wasn’t offered. That angered House Democrats because…well, I’m not completely sure. Given how some Democrats were upset that President Trump didn’t act sooner, you would think they would be happy we finally did something.

And they were…kinda. But that’s a blog for another time.

The point here is President Trump is now under the microscope again for attacking Iran after they attacked our embassy and may have planned further actions against Americans in the region. We can argue the ethics of what happened all we want, but there is one thing that is crystal clear: President Trump was authorized to take action under the War Powers Act without getting Congress to sign off on it.

I can understand why the President may not have wanted to let Congress about his Iran attack ahead of time. Between the leakers, the Muslim sympathizers, and the general dullards, I wouldn’t trust them with my junior high locker combination, let alone something like information about a missile strike. Even after they were briefed, Congressional Democrats weren’t satisfied with the information and said there wasn’t enough persuasive information that Iran was going to attack again. Of course, the 40 years of Iran yelling “Death tp America” might have been a hint, but hey.

Although I believe the President was legally authorized under the War Powers Act to take action against Iran, I have to say it’s bad law because of how it circumvents the Constitution and cheapens the act of war. The President is the Commander in Chief, meaning he controls the military. Congress, on the other hand, has the authority to declare war. By allowing the President to engage in war-like activities, even if it’s done in the name of protecting us, Congress’ role in the process of war is negated. What good is getting Congressional approval to engage an enemy if the President can order an engagement prior to even talking to Congress? It’s like giving your credit card to a shopaholic for a week before setting limits to his or her spending. You know, like Congress does with our tax dollars.

What’s more, the War Powers Act ignores the human toll of war (or pre-war if you will). For every death or injury, every father or mother deployed under it, every family that is disrupted even temporarily, the War Powers Act doesn’t justify it. If we are going to strike at an enemy, it has to be done under the auspices of an actual declaration of war, not a 60-90 day window that can be extended with a Congressional vote. Not only is that far too late in the process for my tastes, it’s disrespectful to the men and women of our military and their families. We owe it to them to have the courage to put forth a united front against an acknowledged enemy.

And that’s impossible in the current political climate. Between the two poles, there is a lot of moral posturing and hatred that prevents the sober analysis of the facts necessary to declare war. Just look at the number of Leftists who blamed Trump for Iran taking down a commercial airliner because they claim it wouldn’t have happened if President Trump hadn’t acted. There’s an entire ideological side determined to blame the President for every ill and the facts be damned. And there’s an entire ideological side determined to defend the President, also with a facts be damned attitude. Meanwhile, those of us in the middle are getting exhausted trying to reason with both sides to try to get us all on the same page. As it stands, we’re not even reading the same book in the same language, which makes the likelihood of getting people to rally behind a common enemy like Iran pointless and impossible.

Which makes the War Powers Act one of the most dangerous laws on the books right now.

Drawing Fire and Conclusions

137 Views

What do the wildfires in Australia have to do with gun control? At first glance, nothing, but it’s simpler than you think.

As the Left and the media (redundant, I know) have told us, the Australia wildfires are horrible and have caused much death and destruction. This isn’t debatable and I agree with this basic idea. Where I part company with the aforementioned propagandists…I mean groups is the cause. The Left and the media (again, redundant) have placed the blame on climate change. After all, Australia has endured a hot summer and dry conditions, which has escalated the probability of wildfires occurring. And for a while, this idea worked.

That is, until there were nearly 200 people arrested for arson in connection with the Australian wildfires. Dry conditions and heat may have added fuel to the fire so to speak, but it wasn’t caused by climate change. It was caused by people, motivated by one thing or another to set fires. Of course, this new information is being overwhelmed by the climate change crowd’s rampant jumping to conclusions that would have made Evel Knievel beg off.

Now, let’s go back to the question I asked at the outset. What do the wildfires in Australia have to do with gun control? If you haven’t figured it out yet, it’s the human factor. People can and will do horrible things motivated by any number of factors: love, hate, watching too many reruns of “Two and a Half Men”, and so on. There may be additional factors that contribute to the act, but in the end it’s still the person who pulls the trigger, sets the fire, and so on.

Remember the California wildfires a couple of months back? Those were also blamed on climate change, but further investigation uncovered the fires were caused by utility workers. Although I doubt a lineman for the company set out to start a fire, the human factor is still the same.

And that’s where the Left and media get it wrong. Climate change didn’t cause the wildfires in California and Australia, and access to guns doesn’t cause mass shootings. Someone still has to take action, be it accidentally or on purpose. The funny thing is the Left will bend itself into pretzels to blame humans for climate change but never once consider the shooter to be to blame for a mass shooting. Instead, every shooting is the fault of the NRA, Republicans, Donald Trump, and however many other boogeymen they want to bring into the equation, which takes the responsibility away from the shooter and puts it onto people that didn’t even pull the trigger.

So, the shooter isn’t to blame for killing people, but humanity is to blame for killing people in another way?

Yes, folks, the Left is just that illogical.

The upside to this is it gives us plenty of material with which to mock the Left. Which is nice.

Doomsday Proggers

142 Views

We’re heading to war with Iran! Innocent soldiers will lose their lives because President Donald Trump is trying to distract people from impeachment/a dictator/an immature adult/a toddler with access to the nuclear codes/whatever the anti-Trump line is today!

Not to mention, the world is on fire! Australian forests are ablaze because we didn’t take climate change seriously! Now, there are millions of people and animals dead, injured, or without a home! If only we had listened to Saint Greta Thunberg and done something!

And going back to President Trump, he’s impeached and is an existential threat to the world because he’s unstable! He’s destroying our democracy with his criminal activity and rampant racism/sexism/xenophobia/homophobia/transphobia! He needs to be brought to justice before the world explodes!

Over the past few years, we’ve heard more doom and gloom from the Left than a heavy drinking pessimistic Nostradamus after reading Sylvia Plath. Whether it’s climate change or the potential for war with any number of countries in the world or just America in general, the Left never seems to give us the benefit of the doubt. If anything, they think we’re the scum of the Earth, an inept bunch of bunglers who can’t seem to do anything right (and should try to do everything Left). To the Leftists reading this, let me give you a piece of advice.

Shut up. We’re not doomed today any more than we were yesterday, and if you’re paying attention, we made it to today just fine without being destroyed by whatever you think was going to destroy us yesterday.

Let’s face it, the Left went from “Hope and Change” to “Hope We Don’t Die.” This is because the Left isn’t hopeful or optimistic at all. They see everything as a failure that only they (i.e. big government) can fix, so they have to be in a constant state of despair to give the impression things are worse off than they actually are.

That’s one of the reasons I became a recovering Leftist. I try to see the good in the world, but being a Leftist made that impossible because if you believe everything is on the verge of collapse, anarchy, and destruction, you kinda lose the joy of life. Being that down about everything is tiring, as is trying to keep up with the Oppressed Person/Culture of the Day and the squawking points that accompany that. But it’s not serious. I mean, if it were, Hallmark would be the first ones out of the gates with “Sorry the Planet Is on Fire” or “Sympathies for Being a Victim of the Wage Gap” cards. (By the way, if anyone from Hallmark is reading this, let’s collaborate on this idea. I’m good for a lot more ideas like those!)

The reason why the Left is a bunch of Negative Nellies is simple: control. Through manipulating how people feel about what they believe are vital issues, they can control how the people react, usually by voting for Leftist candidates and devoting time, energy, and above all else money to Leftist causes. Yet, while doomsday is being whipped into a lather, the Left has yet to deliver. Climate change? Only left-leaning pseudo-scientists and their spokesbots still believe “the Earth has a fever.” Gun violence? For all the attention mass shootings have gotten, the stats don’t bear out the crisis the Left says is happening. War with Iran? It’s still early, but so far signs point to the same result as the wars that were supposed to happen if we provoked North Korea and China, which was…no war at all. It’s almost as if…now hear me out…the Left sucks at predicting the future. Remember when Paul Krugman predicted the Stock Market would tank if President Trump was elected? Didn’t happen! People dying due to repealing Net Neutrality? We’re still waiting on the body count, but from what we’ve seen so far, it’s been a big goose egg. What about the people who would be dying in the streets if we pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord? Ooooh, sor-ray. Not a one.

Sooooo…I gotta be honest here. I’m not seeing a reason to get worked up this time. Just like Al Gore buying up beachfront property with money he made talking about how sea levels would be rising, the actions (and doomsday predictions) don’t match reality. Which, ironically enough, is completely predictable.

The funny thing about the Left’s predictions about war with Iran is they echo the same predictions that Ronald Reagan would be getting us into WWIII by provoking the (now defunct) Soviet Union. At least they recycle their bad ideas, but it should bear repeating they were wrong then and they’re wrong now. Of course, if we get into a war with Iran, the same Leftists who are so concerned about our troops dying will be among the first to demand we get out of a war their ineptitude got us into in the first place. And it shows how little they actually feel about our troops. If we get into a war with Iran, we have the upper hand because, well, we have all the cool toys and the manpower to accomplish the three basic objectives in war.

1) Kill the bad guys.
2) Break their stuff.
3) Repeat steps 1 and 2 until the bad guys surrender.

To simultaneously elevate and undercut our fighting men and women is a true skill only the Left could accomplish. But fear not, my Leftist friends, we got this. All you need to do is hold your anti-war rallies, pretend to care about Iran, and stay out of the way to let the military do its thing.

Oh, and cool it on all the doomsday talk, okay? Have a Pop Tart and watch YouTube.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

185 Views

The new year started off with a bang, literally in the case of the late Major General Qassim Suleimani. Seems the good Major General got blown up in a strike in Baghdad, due to his involvement in a little act of violence against the American embassy in Baghdad. Oh, and his role in killing 600 Americans.

And now the Left is defending Iran indirectly by saying “He was a bad guy, but….”

Although there is a lot of attention being paid to Iran (after a lot of money was paid to them by a previous Administration who came up with a dumbass plan Iran wasn’t complying with), not much is known about the country itself and the Islamic theocracy in charge there. I’ll do my best to alleviate that here, and maybe throw in a few jokes.

Iran

What the Left thinks it means – a country that has suffered from American intervention, but was complying with the Iran Deal

What it really means – a country that has benefited from Leftist foreign policy failures

It’s time for a story. There was once a time in our history when Iran wasn’t the douchecanoe of a country it is today. It was the late 1970s, when polyester was the fabric of choice, KISS made a disco song, and Iran was lead by a man named Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, otherwise known as the Shah of Iran. Although he had a great deal of support in America for his more progressive (good progressive, not the Leftist version) approaches, the religious leaders and many of his countrymen disliked him and eventually overthrew him, replacing him with Ruhollah Khomeini (otherwise known as Skippy). The Ayatollah Khomeini went the opposite direction, turning Iran from a place where women could drive in public to one where shouting “Death to America” was their national pastime.

Since then, Iran has been a rigid theocracy, the kind the Left keeps telling us is right around the corner if we let those evil Christians take over! Being a Christian myself, I can see where the Left is coming from because there are some real loons out there (I’m looking at you, Westboro Baptist Church). However, I doubt the Left’s fears of a Christian theocracy are as well-founded as we think. Speaking as a Lutheran, we can’t even decide on what flavor of Jello goes best for a potluck. What makes you think we’ve got a master plan to take over the country? This ain’t The Handmaid’s Tale, kids, and we’re nowhere near it. But you know where it’s a reality?

Iran.

But, now the Left gets to pretend like they care about war with Iran because of President Donald Trump turning Qasem Soleimani extra crispy. The fact is Iran wants us dead (as evidenced by their “Death to America” chants) and will stop at nothing to make that happen. For the past 40+ years, America and Iran have been going around and around. More accurately, Iran has been getting wound up and yelling at us while America has pretty much been ignoring it. Although this approach may work with a child’s tantrum, it doesn’t work in geopolitics. All this has done is allowed Iran time to plan and develop technology that can be used to attack us.

Enter the Iran Deal. While Leftists defend this diplomatic effort from the Obama Administration to exchange lifting economic sanctions against Iran for Iran promising not to further develop nuclear technology for weapons while allowing it to continue to develop that technology to generate energy. Now, the funny thing is Iran is sitting one of the world’s biggest oil deposits, which makes it odd for them to start developing nuclear energy. Add to that the fact the Left likes nuclear energy as much as they like Ronald Reagan. Yet, the Iran Deal was heralded as a huge step forward towards reducing tensions in the area.

Oh, and the matter of a few billion dollars sent to Iran by the Obama Administration.

And what did it do? Nothing. Well, except make Iran richer and better able to develop its nuclear program.

I have been of the opinion that Iran has been developing nuclear weapons for a while now because, well, it suits their needs. Being radical Muslims, Iran has no problem lying to non-believers, as their reading of the Koran goes. And since we’re the Great Satan, they feel they’re justified in whatever they need to do to bring us down. Lying is no big deal if it leads to the end they desire.

You know, just like Leftists.

From a military standpoint, Iran has a vested interest in keeping the world in the dark about just how far along they are and in what direction their nuclear program is taking. It’s classic misdirection, and America has been taken in by promises that don’t pass the smell test. How do I know this? Because even with President Trump pulling out of the Iran Deal, Iran continued to violate terms of the agreement, as established by the foreign leaders who didn’t want us to pull out in the first place. The sensible question we should be asking is why Iran wouldn’t stick with the deal even if one of the principal partners backed out.

Because they had already achieved their goal: to bring America to heel. I maintain even if we stayed in the Iran Deal they had no intent of ever keeping up their end of the bargain because they saw what Saddam Hussein did in Iraq after Operation Desert Storm. For those of you who don’t remember, Saddam kept the UN weapons inspectors busy and distracted while they continued their chemical and biological weapons development, but the UN and Iraq both maintained the inspections and sanctions were being followed.

At least until they weren’t.

While I don’t necessarily want war with Iran, it’s insane to think President Trump’s actions in taking out Suleimani are going to make our relationship with Iran worse and lead to World War III. At worst, Iran still won’t send us a Ramadan card. But the Left need us to think this way because they have already invested a lot of time and energy trying to paint the President as a foreign policy idiot savant, minus the savant. As brutish and wrong-headed as the President is on a lot of subjects foreign and domestic, taking out a terrorist, which Suleimani was, is not a bad thing. Iran isn’t a country who will respond well to a sternly worded memo. They will, however, understand a show of force that can turn Tehran into Detroit with better water in a matter of minutes.

The Left needs Iran to be a victim of America and for the Iran Deal to be successful. With one military strike, Donald Trump has blown that right out of the water.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

186 Views

With Impeach-A-Palooza taking a winter break while House Democrats continue to claim President Donald Trump is a national security threat and simultaneously holding the articles of impeachment at arm’s length from the Senate, I decided to take a break from impeachment talk and focus on another topic for a change.

You may not know it, but I am a sports fan. I try to follow trends as closely as I can as a means to avoid thinking about politics 24/7, but lately the two get tangled up in each other, whether it’s ESPN putting on its white knight armor to stump for Leftist causes or athletes like Colin “I’m Still Benched” Kapernick kneeling for the Star Spangled Banner. But none of these situations defy logic and science like transgendered athletes.

To figure out the Venn diagram intersection between Leftist ideology and sports, let’s take a deep dive into the phenomenon.

transgendered athletes

What the Left thinks it means – brave athletes who want to be accepted for their gender identity and their athletic achievements

What it really means – people who prey upon the Left’s good intentions to cheat the system

Annnnnd the calls of “Thomas is a transphobe” will start coming in shortly. Before they do, however, I must point out my opposition to transgendered athletes has nothing to do with them being transgendered. It has everything to do with creating a fair playing field for all.

When you look at the transgendered athletes making the news lately, you should notice two important details. First, these athletes are often breaking records formerly held by genetic women. And, second, the athletes breaking these records tend to be male-to-female transgender. There aren’t a lot of female-to-male transgender athletes getting attention, but when you have a Biff-to-Biffany shattering a record, it’s covered more than a Muslim woman in a burka working in a coal mine.

Why is that, exactly? Well, the short answer is it has everything to do with the Left’s position on gender and gender identity. If you identify as trans, any achievement the Left agrees with becomes a victory for all trans people, regardless of whether it actually is one. The Left has already made it possible to blur the lines of biological gender by inventing more genders than there are people who actually identify as said genders and by advancing the idea gender is fluid. Meaning, it’s whatever you want it to be. It’s the same thinking that gave us the “living Constitution” jazz, only it’s dealing with more than ideas and concepts.

And this is where it gets troublesome for the Left. They are big fans of the transgender movement, but they are also big fans of the feminist movement. Usually, there isn’t much of a quarrel between these two groups, but in this case, there should be. Remember what I said earlier about women’s records being shattered by male-to-female transgendered athletes? When you take a moment to think about it, what is happening is genetic males are using the Left’s permissiveness to undercut the achievements of biological females, and the Left doesn’t see that as a problem. And the Left wants to “smash the Patriarchy”? Well, if they are, they’re outsourcing it to biological men…

And women are starting to realize the downside to the Left’s push for gender identification equality: there are biological differences between men and women that make the transgender athlete issue harder to support. That flies in the face of the Left’s “party of science” designation, as well as their entire argument on gender identity. One of the Left’s favorite lines about gender is that it’s a social construct, not a biological one. Basically, their argument is the doctor assigns you a gender at birth based on perception (like whether the baby has a twig and two berries, if you know what I mean) and his or her parents base how they raise the child from the doctor’s perspective. Pink for girls and blue for boys. Although there might be an iota of a point there, it flies in the face of human physiology. Only in rare cases will you find a biological girl with male plumbing, a biological male without it, or a person with both sets. That means the whole “perception and society create gender” is bogus and should be treated as such.

Especially when it comes to biological men competing against biological women and beating them.

This isn’t to say women will always lose to men. There are times when a woman beats a man at his/her own game by simply being better. The issue, however, is men and women are different and biological gender is real. I could find some nice white robes, a miter hat, and a vehicle with a bulletproof glass dome, but that doesn’t make me the Pope. (Although, to be fair, I think I could a lot better than the current Pope, but that’s neither here nor there.) The point is there are certain characteristics that prevent me from being what I claim to be. And, yes, this applies to transgendered athletes. No matter how much you try to look like a woman or a man, you are still biologically who you are, and male-to-female trans athletes using the attributes they receive by being biological males is nothing short of cheating.

And that’s not transphobic at all. If anything, it’s more feminist than transphobic. Try wrapping your hivemind around that, Leftists.

Ultimately, women will come to terms with the Left’s decisions and arguments sooner or later. Preferably sooner because the Left sees women not as individuals with different identities and strengths, but as donors and voters that can be easily manipulated by saying the “right” things. In other words, ladies, the Left thinks you’re dumb. Kinda puts their whole “we support women” narrative into perspective, doesn’t it?

There’s a saying, “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.” When it comes transgendered athletes, there will be a lot of fury coming the Left’s way, whether it be from the women getting cheated by male-to-female trans athletes or from the female-to-male trans athletes getting ignored.

‘Twas the Week After Impeachmas

148 Views

‘Twas the week after Impeachmas and all through the House
The Dems were still cheering at impeaching Trump, that louse!
The Articles were hung near the Senate with care
In the hopes that Cocaine Mitch would run a trial that’s fair.

The Squad were nestled all snug in their beliefs
That impeaching Trump would soon bring them relief.
And Speaker Pelosi in her Prada, after finishing a night cap,
Had just settled in for a long wine-fueled nap.

When out near the Mall there arose such a clamor
But Pelosi didn’t stir because, well, she was hammered.
Rashida Tlaib took charge, running out like a heifer,
And started screaming, “Let’s impeach that MFer!”

The moon on the snow made the light seem to dance
And made poor little Adam take a Schiff in his pants.
When what to his big bugged out eyes did appear
But a big monster truck with Trump/Pence on its rear.

With an orange-hued driver, so lively and plump
They knew in a moment it was President Trump
More rapid than Creepy Joe Biden feels shame
He called to his minions and called them by name.

“On Nunes! On Limbaugh! On Pence and Rudy!
On Laura! On Pirro! On Rush and Hannity!
To heck with Impeachmas and what the Left wants
Let’s fill up their Twitter accounts with our taunts!”

As dry heaves wracked the Speaker before she blew chow
The Left cried, “We impeached him, but how?
How is he still more popular than we think?”
When Ms. Pelosi replied, “I’ll have another drink.”

And then in a twinkling (or was it a thunk),
AG Barr then appeared and said, “Listen, you punks.
Your articles were bogus, not a crime to be had,
And John Durham knows if you’ve been good or been bad.”

Trump dressed in a suit, dark blue, almost black
And his fingers flew quickly as he Tweeted another attack
“Impeachment is a hoax! Dems hunt for a witch!
And Schiff is a low down dumb son of a snitch!”

His eyes, how they sparkled, each time he hit Send
And then he would insult them again and again
He questioned Dems’ ethics and the extent of their crimes
He mocked Elizabeth Warren, for the sake of old times.

He blew up their Twitters, he lambasted the news
He made them even angrier by supporting the Jews
He mocked them as weak and without many brains
And said, “Take a look at those Stock Market gains!”

AOC was astounded! Adam Schiff was aghast!
(Speaker Pelosi, of course, was still drunk off her ass.)
Bernie Sanders was furious! Liz Warren’s face looked quite grim.
Tom Steyer kept trying to get people to pay attention to him.

Mayor Pete was in shock, for Trump’s tactics he did resent!
Tulsi Gabbard showed up just to vote “Present.”
The blood from all the Left’s faces did drain
When their rhetoric made Marianne Williamson sound sane.

Trump’s minions arrived on the White House West Lawn
And made note the Left’s hopes of removing Trump were gone.
The Left made the bed in which they would now lie
And all they could do was yell, curse, and cry.

There would be no removal, the impeachment was for naught
And soon the full fury of John Durham would be wrought
Their crimes would be exposed, their hopes would be dashed
(But not before their checks from George Soros could be cashed).

Impeachmas was pyrrhic in spite of their bliss
‘Cause they forgot “If you come for the king, you better not miss.”
Even Speaker Pelosi, still tipsy from the booze
Knew in the upcoming election, they’d be lucky to lose.

With one final Tweet, the President did turn
And let the Left’s hopes for 2020 smolder and burn
As the truck sped off like a giant metal manta
AOC looked puzzled and asked, “Was that Santa?”