Outrage

320 Views

The Left is outraged over the death of an Islamic terrorist leader who was killed by a US strike in Syria over the weekend. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has paid the price for his multiple crimes against humanity. And now his life has ended. This is another nail in the coffin of the Islamic State.

Yet instead of celebrating the end of his madman, the US media and Democratic Left are outraged over the event. None of them have the interests of the United States in their cold hearts. The event goes against their narrative that President Trump is bad and should be impeached because he won the 2016 election.

But this event goes to show that President Trump’s policies in the Middle East are the correct ones and they are working. The US had full cooperation from other nations and parties in this strike. The Syrian Kurdish forces, Turkey and even Russia allowed the US to make this strike.

Even though the Washington Post went so far to put an obituary to al-Baghdadi for the world to see and called him an “austere religious scholar” instead of the terrorist rapist that he truly was. This is outrageous alright. Al-Baghdadi was no honored international leader that the Washington Post and other outlets make him out to be, no he was a terrorist and died the death he deserved.

Our Democratic Party has been showing its true colors. They are no longer the party of the common man. They are the party of the Left. They support totalitarian Islamic terrorists and they denounce the duly elected President of the United States. Former Democratic President Obama had al-Baghdadi captured and held prisoner at Gitmo but released him in 2014. None of the Gitmo terrorists should ever see the light of freedom again. To do so would be a crime against the United States.

The Hills Are Alive With the Sound of Outrage

151 Views

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Party for an Old Man

120 Views

As the 2020 Presidential election crawls towards the Iowa Caucuses, I’ve been watching various candidates on both sides of the aisle looking for one I could support without reservation and…I’m coming up empty. Don’t get me wrong. There are candidates I’m paying attention to, but too few of them actually have enough of what I’m looking for to earn my vote.

Since 2008, I’ve made it a point to vote for a person instead of a party because the latter leads to the kind of political gang warfare that make the Crips and the Bloods look like a Mennonite church picnic. I’m to a point where I don’t particularly care for Democrats or Republicans because they’re both out to screw us, just with different means and different colored ties. These days picking a candidate from both major parties is like determining what kind of shit sandwich you want.

Having said that, I have been paying attention to Andrew Yang, Tulsi Gabbard, Pete Buttigieg, and Marianne Williamson for the same reason: they are running mostly positive campaigns. They may call out the other candidates’ positions from time to time (Kamala Harris still has marks from when Ms. Gabbard pimp-slapped her at a debate a few months ago) and call out President Donald Trump’s positions, but they’re running mostly on a positive message. The other candidates in the Democrat Clown Car are too busy repeating the same lines, using the same tired campaign tricks, and comparing themselves to Trump to bother with articulating what their positive vision of the country under their presumed leadership would be. And, no, Senator Elizabeth Warren, saying “I have a plan for that” doesn’t count as actually having a vision.

On the Republican side, there’s President Trump and…a couple of other guys who are running unintentional stealth campaigns. At this point, I’m wondering whether the Republicans challenging Trump are in the federal Witness Relocation Program living under assumed names. Also, there are other potential candidates speaking in hushed tones about challenging the President because…they think he’s an embarrassment to the country and the GOP. In other words, they’re Republicans running on the same platform as the majority of Democrat Presidential candidates.

And that’s where I get off this roller coaster. Running for President because you don’t like the guy currently in the position isn’t enough for me anymore. Yes, I know if we elect a Democrat bad things are going to happen in the judiciary system, but given some of the court rulings I’ve seen recently, I’m not sure electing a Democrat will improve the situation any. Ditto with keeping a Republican in the White House. At this point, I’m looking for a candidate who can articulate a vision for America post-Trump and come up with some actual ideas that I can support. And, if you really want to wow me, be civil about it. I get called a Never Trumper by Trump fans because I don’t think everything he does is amazing, and I get called all sorts of other names from the other side of the aisle because I’m an aging white man who doesn’t think the Left has any answers that don’t involve stupid ideas that haven’t ever worked or marching on Washington, DC, wearing a Halloween costume that would get you kicked out of most bars.

So, where do I go from here? Who can I trust to protect my interests? I’ve narrowed it down to two: God, and myself. And, trust me, I am waaaaaaay down the list from God. I’m at an age where I pretty much want to be left alone, and neither the Left nor the Right are willing to do that right now. Granted, the Right is less likely to be as invasive than a gynecologist moonlighting as a TSA agent, but they’re still okay with some personal intrusions when it suits their aims. And today’s Leftist is only one step removed from being Gladys Kravitz from “Bewitched” (and still six degrees away from Kevin Bacon).

Remember the shit sandwich I referenced earlier?

So, for the time being, I will remain unaffiliated because neither major party wants to build up this country. They would prefer to tear down the other side so they appear better by comparison. I will continue to look for good people who want to do good in the world, and if one doesn’t appear, I will vote my conscience…and vote for my dog.



Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

99 Views

In case you missed it (or, like me, you were glad to), we recently had another socially conscious holiday/occasion, this one called National Period Day. Already? And I still have up my National Pronoun Day decorations!

The cause behind National Period Day is to underscore how feminine products cost more than their male counterparts, an idea that’s been nicknamed the “pink tax.” Although this raises a lot of questions, like what happens if the products identify as male, it also shows how the Left can take a legitimate issue and turn it into a freak show Tod Browning would be proud of.

pink tax

What the Left thinks it means – additional costs passed on to female consumers solely because of their gender

What it really means – additional costs passed onto all consumers due to multiple economic factors completely unrelated to anyone’s gender

When it comes to economics, Leftists are masters at oversimplifying concepts and completely missing important details that would ultimately affect their positions. For example, the Left’s favorite trope is women make $0.78 for every dollar a male peer makes. As troubling and unfair as that sounds, it’s not completely accurate because the figure omits a lot of details, like paid time off and career/life choices. Once those factors are taken into consideration, in most cases the “wage gap” disappears or tips in favor of the people allegedly impacted by it.

The pink tax has the same basic problem. Yes, female products cost more and often have the same ingredients as male products, but there’s a big red…err pink flag. And this is going to come as a big surprise to the Left.

Women are different from men.

I know! It shocked me when I found out, too!

Because men and women are different, they will respond to different stimuli. Because of these differences, men and women will be attracted to different products for different reasons. A burly lumberjack type may be the man of many women’s dreams, but it won’t make them want to buy a certain brand of tampons. That means these different products have to be marketed differently, which in the corporate world means more money has to be spent on what are essentially the same products. As a result, the cost of doing business gets passed along to consumers.

Read that last sentence again. I said “consumers.” Not just women, not just men, consumers as a whole. You see, even though the products are marketed differently because of gender, the cost is still the same for those who buy them. I can’t go into a grocery store, buy a package of tampons for my wife, and get a “blue discount” because I’m a male. I may get funny looks from the other customers, but I attribute that to being a weirdo.

Although I’m poking fun at the absurdity of the “pink tax,” I have to admit the Left has a point. If the only difference between men’s and women’s deodorant is the scent, why not price them the same and eliminate the Left’s talking point? Not to mention, the first company to do this for any product men and women use will gain a major foothold in the market and earn corporate brownie points at the same time. Although I’m sure the price difference results in a tidy sum, sometimes you have to cut prices to gain volume, which has a funny way of making up for any lost profits from the price reduction. Yay capitalism!

Now, for the gender-specific items, that’s a little harder to equalize. Men don’t use tampons (yes, not even trans women), so you can’t use the same argument you can with deodorant. However, the same principle regarding buying said items applies. That “pink tax” hits men and women equally, but it’s easily fixed by both genders through doing one of the new great American pastimes: complaining. If you want to get a company to look into their practices quickly and effectively, use their social media to complain because that shit always has the potential to go global virally. If you doubt this, I have four words for you: Wendy’s Spicy Chicken Nuggets.

In the meantime, the “pink tax” should be exposed as the uninformed economic talking point it is. Companies don’t see blue and pink outside of their marketing departments. They prefer green, gold, and silver. (For you Leftists out there worried about the pink tax, I’m talking about money.) In order to affect positive change, you have to hit the companies’ bottom lines, not invent a crisis and turn it into a talking point for politicians. If you’re not willing to engage with the problem honestly, you can take your complaints and stuff them.

One more note. National Period Day? Just…ewwwww.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

139 Views

CNN has been having a bad week. Not only is it experiencing a ratings slump that puts the former cable news giant at the public access channel level, but it’s been the subject of a series of videos from the Left’s least favorite video producer, Project Veritas. Seems the Left doesn’t like it when James O’Keefe and his merry band of videographers expose their antics, almost as if the Left is doing something shady and dishonest…

And, as a result, Project Veritas is eeeeevilllllll!

Or are they? Let’s dig a little deeper, shall we?

Project Veritas

What the Left thinks it means – a group of dishonest right-wingers who selectively edit footage to make the Left look bad

What it really means – a group of people doing what the media used to do before they became Leftist lapdogs

Journalism has had its share of investigative reporters, raking through the muck to find the kernel of a story that would bring the powerful and corrupt to heel. Back in its heyday, “60 Minutes” did stunning exposes on dishonest brokers in the corporate sector. This style of “guerrilla journalism” made people like Mike Wallace feared in the deepest, darkest corners of companies because they never knew if or when they would be the next target and be caught on camera trying to defend the indefensible. “60 Minutes” gave rise to “Dateline NBC” and “20/20” and Geraldo Rivera, who took the practice to new heights, and lows as the reporters got disgraced or the companies started catching onto their shtick.

Then, something happened: journalism became PR for the Left. No longer would investigative reporters dig for sources to expose Left-leaning crooks and liars because it would hurt their careers behind the scenes. Just print what the nice DNC press release says, write a scathing piece about how evil Republicans are, and cash the checks. It was simple, albeit dishonest, work. Conservatives and independents, including your humble blogger, cited frequent examples of Leftist bias in media reporting, but these examples were brushed aside as paranoia, ignorance, or even denial of the “fact” the truth skews to the Left.

That changed when James O’Keefe decided to see what he could find behind the veneer of Leftist organizations, starting with ACORN. One series of videos later, and the Left was knocked back as one of its lesser-known branches got caught red-handed being dishonest and downright corrupt. Since then, O’Keefe started Project Veritas and released several other video series that have exposed Google, Facebook, and now CNN. Due to previous practices, critics have labeled the group as dishonest for “selectively editing” videos and engaging in dishonest tactics to try to gain visibility. Some have gone so far as to say they engage in disinformation.

To be fair, some of this criticism is valid, as they have made factual errors in their reporting and have skewed their stories to fit an agenda, namely making Leftists look like buffoons. Having said that, Project Veritas has done something their critics hate: they’ve posted raw, unedited footage of their encounters. In other words, they brought receipts, to use the slang the kids use today. Even so, Project Veritas has gained a reputation (in Leftist circles, at least) as slanted, dishonest brokers who seek to push an agenda in direct defiance of the truth.

So…they’re CNN?

The uproar over Project Veritas can be boiled down to the Left getting a taste of its own medicine, and it’s making them look like the underhanded scumbags they are. That hurts them politically, so they have to do everything possible to discredit Project Veritas, even if the information they’re putting out is inaccurate. Even the “selectively edited” line has been fact-checked into oblivion by Project Veritas putting out the unedited footage. Now, anyone can see the videos in full context.

The thing is the Left doesn’t want to do that because it ruins their narrative, and when it comes down to it, the narrative is all-powerful and must be protected. I’m talking Gollum-with-the-One-Ring-level of protection. As precioussss as that may be to the Left, it’s creepy to me, and it doesn’t square with the facts to anyone else who is paying attention. On the surface, it boggles the mind that an ideological group who insists the truth agrees with them would object to people outside of their group finding the truth for themselves. However, it’s not about the truth, and it never has been. It’s about control.

Like they do with the language, the Left loves to control what is considered to be the truth, and far too often Republicans and conservatives wind up being the victims of these efforts. With Project Veritas, the Left can’t control the narrative as easily on controversial topics, and that scares the Left. Now consider there are other groups starting to emulate what Project Veritas does and throwing open the curtains on what the Left is trying to hide. Just ask Planned Parenthood about how they pay for Lamborghinis.

Yet, as with all people seeking the truth, it’s ultimately up to us to determine their credibility. I would be doing you a disservice if I glossed over the times Project Veritas screwed up or got the facts wrong or tried to frame someone’s words a certain way. You must take the good with the bad and determine whether these folks can be trusted. By and large, I trust Project Veritas, but I always verify, as one of my heroes Ronald Reagan said. The Left doesn’t want you to do any of that. They want you to trust and believe, all to protect a narrative and their own political viability. Anyone who tells the truth will welcome the scrutiny, myself included.

The fact the Left is up in arms over Project Veritas tells you much more than they intend, and it’s not good.

1000 Days

143 Views

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

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

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

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

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

Enemy Mine

148 Views

We need to dispel the myth that the Kurds are our friends. They are not. They are a radical Iranian sect of Moslims.

They were not our friends when the Shaw ruled Iran. The Kurds assisted in the over through of the Shaw during the Iranian Revolution. The Kurds have been murdering Middle Eastern Christians and Jews for centuries as well and this practice continues to this day.

And like all sects of Islam, they fight and kill one another as well.

The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. Yes, we armed them because they were fighting a common enemy in Syria. But that does not make them an ally or a friend of ours. Once the common enemy is routed they will turn on their older enemies which includes the United States and it’s allies.

President Trump is right to remove ourselves from that region.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

105 Views

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

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

obstruction of justice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

116 Views

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

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

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

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

Second Civil War

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

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

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

Which is by design.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

126 Views

The big news of the past week was House Democrats finally initiated an impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump for…well, I’m still not sure exactly. They’ve tossed so much mud at the walls that it’s looking like an adobe hut, so please excuse my befuddlement.

Yet, if you watch the Left, you would think they won the White House, House, and Senate for the next five generations. After the Mueller investigation came up emptier than Bill de Blasio’s Presidential Cabinet, the Left needed anything they could hang their collective hats on to continue their quest to unseat the President. So, the start of an impeachment inquiry, at least to them, is a step in the right direction.

Even so, I don’t think our Leftist friends quite understand the process. Fortunately, I’m here to help because, dammit, I care.

impeachment inquiry

What the Left thinks it means – the first step in bringing Donald Trump to justice

What it really means – much ado about something or other

For the first time in a long time, the Left has found itself behind the curve when it comes to messaging, and it’s really hurt them in the quest for impeachment because they haven’t been able to give us a single reason for impeachment. Oh, they’ve thrown out any number of reasons they believe the President should be impeached, but there isn’t a consistent argument so much as there is a lot of vague concepts that when put in a certain way make it appear as though the President committed either impeachable offenses or just pissed off the Left because feefees.

Seriously, though, some of the “impeachable offenses” Leftists have thrown out there border on the absurd and, surprise surprise, aren’t even actual impeachable offenses. The Constitution states impeachment of the President and other federal officials is limited to “high crimes and misdemeanors” which, by its very nature, heavily implies crimes have to be committed. And, having Trump as President isn’t illegal…at least not yet.

As a result of this lack of messaging, there has been a growing unrest within Leftist circles wondering where the leadership is. Then again, when your leadership idols are Adam Schiff and Ted Lieu, you’re already in a hole deeper than the Grand Canyon. For what it’s worth, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has tried to temper the temper tantrums of the “Impeach Trump Now” crowd by lowering expectations and urging caution. She has been waiting for a slam-dunk case to initiate the impeachment process while at the same time trying to get the messaging right. In both cases, I think she has failed, and she has her own party to blame for it.

The biggest problem the Left faces with the impeachment push is they don’t know when to shut up. From before Trump was President, the Left has been filling the airwaves, the column inches, and the Internet with all sorts of allegations of criminal activity and demanding someone do something. We’re going on 3 years or so of this constant drumbeat of “Impeach Trump” and the needle isn’t moving in that direction with any degree of speed, no matter how many times the Left says the same thing. Look, we get it. You want Trump removed from office. How’s about you let it not be the focal point of your entire existence for even a microsecond. Chill out. Have a Pop Tart. Watch Scooby Doo. Just give it a rest for a little while and let your reasons try to persuade us since screeching incessantly hasn’t done it yet. Although, Yoko Ono may sue you for copyright infringement.

This is an example of what I call the Firehose. When you want a drink of water, the firehose may not be your first choice, or any choice for that matter. Oh, you will get water, but you will also get drenched and possibly injured in the process.

Instead, let’s take a more measured approach to the impeachment inquiry. This is the first step in determining whether President Trump has committed high crimes and misdemeanors, and under the current House set up, there are going to be six House committees working on the inquiry. Given how slowly government works when it comes to important matters, it’s a safe bet the impeachment inquiry will take a loooooooooong time.

Which is the point. With 2020 being a Presidential election year, the Left has a vested interest in hampering President Trump by any means necessary. Don’t forget impeachment is a political process, which means it can be used as a tool, as it is in this case. However, it’s a divisive tool that can backfire for candidates and elected officials on both sides of the aisle. It’s this fact that should worry Leftists, but it doesn’t. Their hatred of Trump overrules their political reality and perception of public sensibilities.

Say, Leftists, what happened to your nose? Did it get cut off to spite your face?

While the impeachment inquiry isn’t the end of the Trump Presidency yet, I get the feeling it’s not going to end well for the Leftists who think it is. It is the first step on a longer journey, one that has the potential to turn into an utter clown show…oh, wait. Rep. Schiff already did that with his stunt of fabricating the details of a phone conversation between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and then saying it was a “parody.” On the plus side, Rep. Steve Cohen no longer looks like the biggest asshat in the House of Representatives.

With Schiff’s miscalculation, the impeachment inquiry is already off to a shaky start, and people outside of the Leftist hivemind won’t take too kindly to it. If anything, most of them will be indifferent because, like it or not, President Trump hasn’t done enough to sway his base to ditch him, nor has the Left presented a better alternative. With the inquiry in place, Trump has an automatic Get Out of Being Defeated in 2020 Card because he can, has, and will play the victim which will rally support for him or at least make the Left’s alternatives look less stable by comparison.

There are two ways this inquiry ends, neither of which should make thinking Leftists happy. The first is it dies quickly with a fizzle instead of a bang. Although this hurts the Left in the short term, I feel it would be better for them in the long term because it gives them time to focus on coming up with winning issues and stronger platforms. Impeachment fever may be popular in the Leftist hivemind, but with football season and the new fall shows coming out, the average person could care less about whether the President is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors.

The other way it ends is with the inquiry leading to an actual impeachment trial in the House of Representatives. Given how government works like a sloth on a NyQuil drip when it wants things done quickly and the fact there are six House committees working on the inquiry, it’s going to take a long time for impeachment to get to a floor vote. Even though this may seem like the better option because it gives the Left time to win more seats in the 2020 election, it’s still a pretty big gamble. In order for impeachment to succeed, Democrats have to retain the House while securing enough Senate seats to remove Trump from office.

In order to do that, there’s another gamble to be taken: convincing enough people Trump is doing a bad enough job to warrant his being ousted. Even if the inquiry leads to an actual impeachment trial, candidates on the campaign trail will have to decide if they support the impeachment effort. For solid blue or leaning blue Districts, that’s easy. For purple or red Districts, that’s going to be a bit tougher. These candidates will have to figure out a way to appease both the Impeach-A-Palooza crowd and the voters who are either undecided or oppose the impeachment effort. That’s a major Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads.

In the end, the Left made it their goal to get to this point, and they’ve succeeded. The next several steps, though, aren’t going to be easy. But at least I’ve stocked up on popcorn!