Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


Leftists have been complaining about stolen elections since they started losing to candidates they felt had no chance of winning. After all, they had only the best candidates who were smarter and better suited to leadership, right? Who could forget the campaign brilliance of 3 time Presidential loser Al Gore and 2 time Presidential loser Hillary Clinton?

One of the favorite terms tossed about since President Donald Trump took office is Republicans cheat through a process called gerrymandering. I’m not exactly sure how to mander Gerry, but it’s worth taking a look at for no other reason than it gives me something to write about.


What the Left thinks it means – a form of cheating done by Republicans to ensure they retain political power at the expense of our democracy

What it really means – a form of legalized cheating done by both major parties to ensure they retain political power at the expense of logic

In short, gerrymandering is when political parties in power redraw Congressional districts after they get census results. In recent years, this means Republicans have more of a hand in the district redrawing process than they have in past years. And, as a result, districts seem to be drawn by drunk spiders rather than reasonable methods like…oh, I don’t know…splitting up districts geographically without considering political leanings. Yeah, I know I’m a bit of an oddball when it comes to this, but hey, it’s my lot in life.

This is not to say Democrats don’t do and haven’t done the same in the past when they’ve held power. In fact, they do, and quite often with the same logic applied to letting Mel Gibson give a speech at a bar mitzvah. Take the House members of the Congressional Black Caucus, for example. Back in the 1990s, the Left decided only blacks could represent blacks, so they drew up Congressional districts that would allow just that. And, boy, it worked well. It not only gave us the psychotic brilliance of former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney, but it gave us plenty of other dim bulbs who wouldn’t be getting into Office Depot let alone political office.

Of course, the Left doesn’t consider this to be a problem because…reasons. And in a rare display of bipartisanship, the Right agrees.

I, however, see a problem with gerrymandering regardless of who does it. First, it makes zero sense from a logical sense. I know, expecting politics to be logical is like expecting Michael Avanetti to stop chasing ambulances, but it doesn’t negate the point. When your Congressional district changes borders from block to block depending on what side of the sidewalk you live before expanding to include entire neighborhoods, it’s hard to argue the districts make sense.

Second, it shows a lack of political courage. If you have to redraw districts to ensure an outcome, you are rigging the results barring a political upheaval that would make the French Revolution look like a Buddhist picnic. What’s wrong with advancing a better argument in your favor? Why do we need racially-minded redistricting if all people are supposed to be equals under the law? It’s nothing short of cowardice to be afraid to face opposing ideas.

The third, and the most pressing one to me, is the fact gerrymandering is ultimately pointless. As we’ve seen with the Congressional Black Caucus, it’s easy to create districts that fit a specific political and/or social goal. That creates a natural pushback that gives politicians a vested interest in breaking up those districts when they can. If that pushback leads to upheaval, it creates a desire for the other party to return to or even expand their original district borders.

Mutually Assured District Destruction at its finest, kids.

What gets me is how the Left takes the concept of gerrymandering and completely misuses it. Although it can be argued it has had an impact on previous elections, it has nothing to do with Senate and Presidential elections. Yet, whenever Leftists talk about what they see as political shenanigans by Republicans, they throw around gerrymandering like a gangsta rapper throws around the word “ho.”

And remember, kids, Leftists are the smart ones.

Right now, gerrymandering is a problem made worse by both major parties trying to jockey for any power they can muster, but it doesn’t have to be that way. Typically I’m not a fan of adding laws to the books, but in this case I’m willing to make an exception. Call it the Congressional District Sanity Act. Under my law, gerrymandering for political, racial, or other reasons would be outlawed, and Congressional districts would all be redrawn to ensure representation actually resembles the population in the districts. I’m looking at you, Maxine Waters, whose actual home in her district bears little resemblance to the homes in the majority of her district. And I’m willing to bet many of her constituents wouldn’t be welcome at Auntie Maxie’s house. Don’t want to associate with the hoi paloi, after all!

Gerrymandering shouldn’t even be on the table in politics today or the future. The fact both sides see nothing wrong with it as long as they’re doing it speaks volumes about how little they care about representing the people.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


As someone who has been online since 1996, I can tell you the Internet is a weird place, and it keeps getting weirder. Whether that’s because of me, I can’t say…

Online political discussions have their own lexicon, much of which involves disparaging the other side. Thanks to the allegation of Russian interference with the 2016 election and how it’s alleged they did it, we have two new terms to consider: bot, and Russian bot. I’ll give you three guesses as to who uses these terms most frequently, and the first two guesses are “Leftists still butthurt at Donald Trump beating Hillary Clinton.”

So, let’s put on our digital wetsuits and go all Jacques Cousteau on these terms.

bot/Russian bot

What the Left thinks it means – virtual people spouting pro-Trump sentiments while giving away telltale signs they aren’t real, such as a low number of Twitter followers

What it really means – people the Left can’t defeat, so they defame

Let’s make one thing perfectly clear. There are people out there who have Twitter and Facebook accounts that are fake and should not be taken seriously. Nothing is gained by pretending to be someone you’re not online. I would go further into detail, but my court-appointed attorney has advised me not to go into specifics due to the pending litigation.

Now, this begs the question of whether there is a significant number of fake accounts for the allegations of a poster being a bot or a Russian bot to be true. If you believe the Left, there are so many bots that we might as well be under SkyNet’s digital thumbs. If you believe the Right, bots are as rare as believable Al Franken apologies. If you believe me, don’t because I really don’t have an answer. What I do have, though, is common sense.

Whenever there’s a situation that needs a thorough analysis, I start with a simple question: who benefits? This helps me focus on the matter at hand and strip away the non-essential details. So, who benefits from accusations of people being Russian bots?

Donald Trump? Not really. He’s already won the Presidency and has his own bully pulpit on Twitter, so he doesn’t need outside help to make his presence felt.

Trump supporters? Another swing and a miss. Trump supporters are usually pretty vocal in their defense of the President, and having their viewpoint potentially amplified by alleged Russian agents or bots makes no sense. Just like the President, they’re pretty good at speaking their minds.

The GOP? Possibly, but not likely. For the most part, Republicans are behind the curb when it comes to social media. Some of them have Twitter accounts, but they’re usually managed by interns or people far younger than they are because they’re more adept at the subtle nuances of social media. I’ve heard John McCain doesn’t text because he can’t figure out how to make the letters using the rotary dial.

The Left? DING DING DING! We have a winner! Considering the Left has a cottage industry in making Donald Trump look as bad as Freddy Kruger dipped in sulfuric acid, any even semi-reasonable points made by people outside of their bubble must be discredited. And while the Russian story can be milked, the Left will be yanking on those udders like a milkmaid working straight commission.

And how does the Left determine who is a bot? It depends on the situation. If you have few Twitter followers, it’s proof they’re a bot. If you say anything supportive of President Trump, it’s proof you’re a bot. If you question the Left’s narrative regarding Trump, it’s proof you’re a bot. If you’re breathing, it’s proof you’re a bot. In other words, not being a Leftist makes you a bot, and most likely a Russian bot.

Of course, most of these conditions have nothing to do with one’s botitude, but hey, the Left isn’t exactly known for being deep thinkers.

The funny thing about the Left’s bot obsession is how they ignore their own bot-like tendencies. Let’s review. They say the same things. They think the same way. They don’t deviate from their stock answers. Either the Left is not aware of what it does, or they’ve been taken over by SkyNet. And I haven’t completely ruled out the second one yet. Anyway, the Left must spend a lot of money on Windex to make sure their glass houses are kept up.

I’ve been called a number of things over the years online, and while most of them have been unflattering, they usually came from a position of inferiority or self-consciousness. Being called a bot or a Russian bot is no different. You can choose to either fight back or laugh it off. I personally prefer laughing it off because a) you’ll never get a Leftist to admit they’re wrong, and b) the Left can’t stand when their ideas are mocked. Laughing at their absurd claims is a good way to throw them off their game and give them the respect they’ve so richly earned.

Which is to say less respect than Rodney Dangerfield.

Ya’ll Don’t Comey Back Now, Ya Hear


What a difference a week makes!

We return to the thrilling days of yesterweek and to the story of now-former FBI Director James Comey. After Congressional testimony where Comey looked more out-of-sorts than Gary Busey on a day ending in y, Democrats were up in arms. Comey was incompetent and was responsible for Hillary Clinton losing the 2016 election! (Little did we know the FBI had so much control over Hillary’s lack of campaigning in key states!) Comey was compromised and he needed to go, like, yesterday!

Fast forward to yesterday afternoon. President Donald Trump fired Comey after another brutal day of Congressional testimony after it was clear he was more of a liability than an asset. Who knew Trump had a history of firing people? And Democrats reacted by…claiming Trump fired Comey because he was getting too close to the truth with a probe into whether Trump colluded with Russia to help him win the 2016 election.

If you ever wonder why I stopped being a Leftist, this is why. Keeping up with the day-to- day narratives requires either flexible morals, the attention span of a mayfly with ADD, or a flow chart on a dry erase board. One week, Comey is horrible. The next, he’s a valiant warrior for truth, justice, and the People for the American Way (a wholly owned subsidiary of our good friend, Uncle George Soros.) Even Leftists are having a hard time keeping up with the narrative, if Stephen Colbert’s recent audience reaction to news of Comey’s firing is any indication. (Spoiler Alert: Colbert didn’t expect cheering and had to tell his audience how to feel about the news. Hmmm…maybe Colbert has more experience being a news anchor than we thought…)

There is an easy way to cut through the crap, though: stay consistent to your beliefs. Granted, that’s hard for the Left to do, but for the rest of us, it’s not that hard. I’m on record as saying I felt Comey wasn’t doing a good job under the spotlight, and I still feel that way. In fact, I still think he may be angling for something else just like Joe Wilson, husband of CIA Barbie Valerie Plame, was. We’ll see what comes of Comey now that he’s out of a job. If my hunch is correct, he will show his true colors and give the Trump Administration more fits simply by existing, and the Democrats and Leftists will eat it up.

Just a word of warning, Mr. Comey. Remember the last time you saw either Wilson or Plame? Neither do most of us. That’s the fate that awaits you if you try to curry favor with the Left after being fired. They will chew you up and spit you out faster than feces flavored chewing gum. These fairweather fiends will never let you into their inner circles no matter what you do for them. You are a means to their ends, and that’s all you’ll ever be.

But give the Left time. They’ll pull another Jeckyl and Hyde act soon enough.

I Don’t Mean to Scare You, But PANIC!!!!!


Sometimes people ask me why I stopped being a Leftist, and I usually point to me not wanting to be angry all the time. Lately, I’m seeing another very good reason not to be a Leftist. They have become total drama queens. Yes, even the men, and in some cases, especially the men. I’m looking right at you, Shep Smith.

Since Donald Trump won the 2016 Election, I figured the Left would have a hard time adjusting to life where they had less power than a burnt out Lite Brite set. Little did I know the Left would go hardcore cray-cray on us. Every incident that even remotely could be turned into a sinister act has been or will be.

Take Attorney General Jeff Sessons’ request for 46 Obama-era US Attorneys to resign. To hear the Left speak of it, it was a massive purge designed to derail any investigation into Trump’s ties to Russia, business dealings, putting ketchup on his well-done steak, and other presumed atrocities. (To be fair, though, I kinda agree with the ketchup on the well-done steak. That’s just offensive on two levels.) And the Left’s mouthpieces in the media amplify the freak-outs by repeating and embellishing the outrage. And don’t you dare try to reason with them! These brave warriors are standing firm against a Trump Tyranny and are our last best hope for America!

Of course, they’re full of shit, but as the line from “Animal House” goes, “Forget it, he’s rolling.”

This is a good time to remind the readers out there to question what you see, hear, and read from any and all news sources, even the ones you agree with. For years, conservative media turned just about everything President Obama did into a scandal worthy of a -gate designation. Over time, this kind of reporting gets some people riled, but it turns off more and more people because they get tired of hearing the reporter who cries “scandal” in lieu of “wolf.” Plus, it diverted attention away from real
scandals and made it easier for opponents to dismiss it as another wild goose chase. I firmly believe oneof the reasons Hillary Clinton’s private email server wasn’t a bigger deal to people is the fact the Right
spent a lot of political capital on meaningless scandalmongering that resulted in less than my bank account after a trip to ComiCon.

Now, the Left is doing exactly what the Right did under Obama, and it’s not working. All it’s doing at this point is giving red meat to their supporters (or tofu to their vegan supporters) while making others look at them like most of us look when Alec Baldwin does a Donald Trump impression so bad, Frank Caliendo is rolling over in his grave and he’s not even dead yet. A bit of a long-winded way to get to a joke, but I think it’s worth it.

What isn’t worth it is paying attention to every little freak-out the Left has these days. Listen. Donald Trump as President isn’t a sign of the apocalypse. That distinction belongs to Justin Bieber continuing to make
music. While you try to make every perceived discretion into the next Watergate, you’re making yourselves look foolish and not credible. When Alex Jones is seen as more credible than you, you have a serious problem.

And guess what, kids. Alex Jones is Edward R. Murrow compared to you nozzleheads right now.



Leftists, we need to talk.

Since Election Day, you guys have gotten really unhinged. I’m not talking your normal level of unhingedness. I’m talking Nick Nolte on a Red Bull and cocaine bender unhinged.

In the past week, Rosie O’Donnell tweeted she wanted martial law to be enacted until Donald Trump could be cleared of all charges. Of course, she doesn’t say what charges exactly, but given how Russian hacking is in the news and living rent free in your heads, I’m guessing that’s the charges in question. Now, I’ve come to expect this from Rosie, so it didn’t shock me. What shocked me was the number of people who agreed with her.

Let’s take a step back away from the abyss here for a moment. We have people thinking martial law is the way to stop Trump from being President, and they don’t see anything wrong with that. As someone who happens to like freedom, I have to object. Not only is it a stupid short-term solution to a minor problem, but it’s not one you can just take back once you’re satisfied. Yeah, once you give government that much power, they tend not to give it back so quickly.

Then, there are the celebrities holding an anti-inaugural concert to compete with Inauguration Day. I’m sure it will be well-attended and will make a lot of news, but think about this for a second. You guys did stuff like this before Trump won the Presidency, and how did that work out for you? No matter how many concerts you hold, no matter how many celebrities give their opinions on our future, no matter how much you stomp your feet in anger and disgust, it’s not going to work. Donald Trump is going to be President, and it’s going to be for a while.

Consider this to be an intervention because you Leftists are addicted to stupid.

The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem, and you have a lot of problems starting with the soon-to-be-former President, Barack Obama. He helped you win the White House in 2008 and since then has done nothing to help you advance. If anything, he has caused your ideology to take several steps back by living up to your current standards. Obama could have ensured a progressive future if he (and you) had been more willing to find ways to compromise. Instead, once he won, he (and you) decided to use a chainsaw where a scalpel was needed.

Then, came Hillary Clinton, who was the ideological heir to Obama’s kingdom, but didn’t have the same charisma to pull off the argument. Let’s not forget this is the same Hillary Clinton who got trounced by Obama in 2008, but 8 years later she’s supposed to be unbeatable? Well, when you have a DNC chair willing to rig the primaries for her, maybe she thought she was unbeatable. And it doesn’t hurt to have a temporary DNC chair feed debate questions to her campaign.

Yet, with all of that rigging, Hillary Clinton lost. And, no, her winning the popular vote doesn’t give your side any more credibility because the Presidency is not always awarded to the candidate who wins the most votes. This may help you in making a case to do away with the Electoral College, but it doesn’t reverse the 2016 election.

Maybe if you hadn’t mocked Trump’s claims of a rigged election when you thought you were winning, you might have a leg to stand on. As it stands, you’re the ideological equivalent of Lt. Dan from “Forrest Gump.”

While you’re trying to find your way out of the wilderness, you will need people to step up as leaders. Given the fact Nancy Pelosi is still House Minority Leader, you folks are sticking with some of the morons that got you President Trump. I understand loyalty, but loyalty towards someone who has literally been an anchor to your political power is insanity. It’s time for you to find new leaders, people who can actually represent what you believe and be effective voices in articulating your vision. And, no, “we’re not Trump” isn’t effective. It didn’t work for Hillary, and it won’t work going forward. When you define yourself in terms of your opposition, you not only fail to make your argument, but you also bring attention to your opponent.

Also, you need to ratchet the negativity down a lot. With your current train of thought, you are guaranteeing more people will be willing to give Trump a chance because you are being ugly, authoritarian asshats. Remember how you went after the “alt-right”? Well, contrary to what you think, there are a lot of people you lumped in with the alt-right that do not agree with conservative causes. In short, you created monsters from people who agree with you, but because they don’t agree with you 100% of the time, you treated them like garbage.

By the way, Donald Trump thanks you for the votes and support, and I say this as someone who isn’t thrilled with the prospect of a Trump Presidency.

And you know why Trump won a majority of the country? He wasn’t an arrogant snob like you have become. You may think you’re the smartest people in the room, but you don’t have to tell us you are. Words don’t mean anything unless there are actions to back them up. Talking down to people you disagree with or who don’t live on the coasts is a clear turn-off. And calling us racists, sexists, homophobes, etc., because Hillary lost isn’t the way to win elections and influence voters. But I’m sure it will totally work for you in 2018.

By the way, that was sarcasm.

As a recovering Leftist myself, I see the patterns you have fallen into and need to overcome for your continued survival. Take the first step and get weaned off the stupid.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


Since late October of last year, Democrats have suspected Russia had a role in the 2016 Presidential election. And thanks to a recent report from American intelligence agencies, they have renewed their suspicions to the point of accusing Russia of “hacking” our election. (Oddly enough, these same folks didn’t have a problem with our government trying to influence the Brexit vote or Israeli elections…).

With the allegations sticking around longer than a STD contracted from Courtney Love, maybe it’s time we tackle this idea head on.

hacking the election

What the Left believes it means – Russia influencing the 2016 Presidential election, an act of treason by Donald Trump and his supporters

What it really means – The Left can’t accept the fact Hillary lost.

Let’s get one thing straight. I am not a fan of Russia, especially under Vladimir Putin. I am also not a fan of jumping to conclusions, especially when the risk of being wrong is creating an international incident. As a result, I am cautious about letting my feelings towards the former taint my commitment to the latter. Yet, to hear the Left describe it, I am an evil Russia-loving, Putin-worshiping traitor.

You know, like Hillary Clinton was in 2009?

Either way, we really don’t have much to go on when it comes to the “hacking the election” allegations. “But didn’t 17 intelligence agencies just issue a report saying Russia tried to get Donald Trump elected?” you might say. Well, yes and no. Yes, American intelligence agencies issued a report that suggests Russia did what they’re being accused of, but it wasn’t nearly as much of a slam dunk as the Left wants us to believe.

Out of the 17 agencies, only 3 offered any analysis. And of those 3, a whopping 0 offered any hard evidence of such. Oh, they offered suggestions and assumptions, but no hard evidence.

Think about that for a moment. We have members of a political party willing to condemn a foreign country of a major crime solely based on assumptions. Then again, these are some of the same folks who ran with the UVA rape story from Rolling Stone, so actual justice may be something alien to them.

So, if it’s not Russia, who did “hack the election”? The first thing to understand is our election was not hacked. Hillary Clinton lost because she was a bad candidate. The only reason for this line of absurdity is because Democrats cannot accept the fact Hillary lost. If the election results were different, Russian hacking would be the last thing on the Left’s hive-mind and they would be telling Trump voters to get over it.

But there is a deeper reason why the Left needs to blame their Presidential loss on Russia: they suck at cybersecurity. This is where Wikileaks comes into the picture. Had it not been for Julian Assange, we might not know about how the Democratic National Committee screwed over Bernie Sanders to bestow the party nomination to Hillary. And how did they get caught? There are two lines of thought.

First, Wikileaks got emails from a Bernie Sanders supporter who had access to some of the most damning emails. This makes sense, given how Sanders got treated worse by his party than Ike Turner treated Tina. And let’s not understate the fact the DNC all but disregarded Sanders supporters unless they knelt before Zod…I mean Hillary. Even prominent Sanders supporters were told to knuckle under, and more than a few of them did. One can imagine what that did to more strident Sanders supporters. If the party felt fine with betraying them, it’s not impossible to imagine they would betray the party. And thanks to Wikileaks, these Sanders supporters earned a measure of revenge. One rule of cybersecurity is to make sure you have everything protected, and the Left didn’t do that here.

The other line of thought is John Podesta, Hillary’s right hand man, got caught by a phishing email. For those of you unfamiliar with the concept, a phishing email looks like a legitimate email from a trusted source, but contains malicious software that captures vital information that can often be used against the victim and others in the victim’s email groups.

And remember, kids, these are the smart people. Just ask them!

I tend to believe both lines of thought are valid and may actually be part and parcel of the same conclusion. In either case, the Democrats got caught with their pants down (not unlike one of their previous Presidential candidates) and couldn’t figure out a way to recover. But they sure figured out who they could blame for their failures.

Now, we just need to hope we don’t wind up in another Cold War because of them.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


By the time you read this blog, electors will be meeting in their respective states to vote for the President of the United States. The good news is the electoral vote means the end of the 2016 campaign. The bad news is electors will be choosing between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

To that end, Clinton supporters are attempting to appeal to Trump electors’ patriotism by persuading them Trump is too dangerous to be President. (Ambassador Chris Stevens was unavailable to speak on Hillary’s dangerousness because, well, he’s dead and all.) To do this, the Left is invoking a portion of The Federalist Papers written by Alexander Hamilton that suggests it is their duty to vote against Trump.

So, do they have a point, other than the ones on their heads? Let’s find out.

Hamilton electors

What the Left believes it means – electors who must be persuaded not to vote for Donald Trump, thus preventing him from becoming President

What it really means – a last ditch effort to give an unqualified candidate the Presidency

Before we get into the whys, we need to understand the thinking behind the Hamilton electors. According to them, they derive inspiration from Federalist 68, which they say disqualifies Trump from becoming President. After reading it in greater detail, the points the Hamilton electors raise are at least somewhat persuasive.

Here are their qualms about Trump, from their website.

What were 3 tests that the Founding Fathers used to judge the
“fitness” of a President?

Election of a Qualified Person: As Hamilton stated [in Federalist Papers 68], the purpose was to ensure that “…the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”

Preventing Election of a Demagogue or Charlatan: The Founders did not want a person who would play on public fears and temporary passion to hold the office. Hamilton again: “Talent for low intrigue…may alone suffice to elect a man… but it will require other talents and merit to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union.”

Preventing Election of a President under Foreign Influence: The Founders feared attempts by other countries to orchestrate the election of a person under their influence. The Founders believed, as Hamilton put it, that the decentralized, layered electoral college guarded against foreign nations “…raising a creature of their own to the chief magistry” of the United States.

Now, here’s the funny part. Every knock they make against Trump can also apply to…Hillary Clinton. Let’s review the facts, shall we?

Although Hillary Clinton spent 8 years living in the White House, that doesn’t make her qualified to be President. I’ve lived in my house for 3 and half years, but that doesn’t make me qualified to run a mortgage company. Well, maybe Wells Fargo, but beyond that, no. As First Lady, Hillary did…nothing. She tried to create a healthcare system, but failed. Her failures continued into her roles as Senator and Secretary of State. Holding an office doesn’t equate into accomplishments in said office. You actually have to, you know, accomplish something.

Then, there’s the “talent for low intrigue”, which is pretty much the Clinton M.O. since, oh, ever. However, Hillary’s talent isn’t as well developed as she thinks it is. Email scandal, anyone? Clinton Foundation? The rigging of the Democrat nomination? It’s almost like Hillary was an unpopular, dishonest, and utterly corrupt politician!

And while we’re here, I seem to remember a certain candidate who called a large chunk of the electorate “deplorables.” Damn that Donald Tru…uh, that was Hillary. Or maybe I was thinking of the time Trump said his greatest enemies were Democra…ah, that was Hillary, too. The only way Hillary is in the clear is playing on the temporary passion of the people. I’ve seen more passion in coma wards than at Hillary rallies.

Preventing foreign influence is a valid concern, but one has to look at the Clinton Foundation books to see…Hillary has taken cash from foreign countries as a means to peddle influence. Even with Trump’s connections to Russia (some of which are so poorly sourced, it makes Vox look like Solomon), one cannot ignore the other side of the political ledger.

But to hear the Hamilton electors describe it, only Trump is the problem. I’m sure it’s just an oversight because we all know the Hamilton electors are completely bipartisan. They say so!

Here’s the problem with their idea. The Constitution states if no Presidential candidate gets a majority of the vote, the House of Representatives votes for President, and the Senate votes for Vice-President. Hmmm…now, which party controls both houses of Congress? Why, it’s…the Republican Party! And it’s not like they can choose whomever they want, either. They have to choose among the three candidates who got the most votes.

Can you say “exercise in futility” boys and girls? I knew you could.

This leads to the question of why the Hamilton electors would do something that will ultimately fail. Aside from being dumber than a bag of hammers, it’s to undercut Trump, a candidate they never thought would be President. They literally cannot bring themselves to admit Hillary was a flawed candidate, so instead of sucking it up, they’re attempting to use Alexander Hamilton to justify their actions.

For as serious as they claim to be about preserving the Constitution, they’re ignoring the process to play favorites.

And here’s the best part. These folks are predicting gloom and doom before Trump has even done anything as President. And some of these folks are already pushing for Trump to be impeached right now…before he’s even won the Presidency under the Constitution. Granted, no one ever said the Hamilton electors were as smart as they claim, but the point remains. These folks aren’t doing anything heroic, justifiable, or patriotic.

They’re just being self-righteous asshats.

The New Red Scare


If you’ve been following the news the past couple of weeks, you’ve heard a lot about allegations Russia tampered with our election. It’s gotten to the point President Obama has taken time away from his busy schedule of golfing to order research be done on the 2016 elections to find out what happened. Mr. President, you could pay me half the money it would take for that report to be done and give you the right answer: Hillary Clinton sucked as a candidate and believed her own press.

Of course, that hasn’t stopped the CIA from speculating and letting the media know there is a possibility of Russia getting involved in our election. I’ve had the chance to read what Reuters and the Washington Post wrote about this CIA report. If you haven’t read it, don’t bother. It’s basically two anonymous sources who allegedly have knowledge of the report saying exactly what Hillary’s camp is saying. Wow. Imagine that! Leftists covering for Leftists!

Now, members of the Senate are getting into the act. Four Senators,  Democrats Charles Schumer and Jack Reed and Democrat Lites John McCain and Lindsey Graham, released a statement echoing the sentiments from the Left, the media, and just about every conspiracy theorist from the Left.

But here’s the thing. We don’t know for sure if the information is accurate, and that’s kinda important if you’re going to level such severe charges against Donald Trump and Russia. The Left is quick to point out Trump’s cozy relationship with Vladimir Putin (a bromance story no one wanted) as proof. Throw in allegations that Wikileaks was working with Russian hackers, and you have an iron-clad argument according to the Left.

Yeah, but that ignores a lot of information. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has ties with Russia since, well, it was part of her job. And as we’ve seen, she sucked at her job. Remember the “Reset” button fiasco? Put simply, she wasn’t ready for the job, and it showed.

Russia knew President Obama and his cast of misfits could be easily manipulated and mocked, and they did both in spades. Having Hillary be President would have been a boon for them because she would have guaranteed more ineptitude which would allow Russia to thumb its nose at us for at least 4 years. But that changed when the US Government attempted to interfere in Russia’s election. Yeah, that might have given Putin a legitimate beef with us. Thanks Obama!

So, Russia had the motive, if you want to accept revenge as a reason for acting out. And they certainly have the means. Russian hackers have been busy for the past several years and may have been responsible for at least some of the embarrassing emails Wikileaks published. But having a motive and means is not as air-tight as you might think. The fact Hillary Clinton would have been an easy target for Russia to muscle in on adds a level of disbelief that cannot be discounted.

Another factor to consider is when it was “known” Russia influenced our elections. If they were as clever as the Left makes them out to be, why wouldn’t they have disrupted the nomination process to prevent Hillary from even becoming the nominee? After all, Bernie Sanders’ ideology is a lot closer to Russia’s than Hillary’s. A case could be made they wanted to string her along so she could fail on the biggest stage, but why would they do that? Stringing her along would only make it more likely she might have won, especially if the polls were right. (They weren’t, but stay with me here.) Such a strategy would have had the potential for major blowback if Hillary won.

The Left has also claimed Russia was involved in spreading fake news about Hillary that made her look bad. Listen, kids, Hillary Clinton made herself look bad. The Russians had nothing to do with that.

Granted, this is all speculation on my part, but where I deviate from the prevailing sentiment on the Left is…I actually acknowledge my speculation. If Russia did have a hand in the 2016 election, I want it called out and addressed. If not, the Left will have a lot of explaining to do, but they won’t be bothered with it. They’ll stick it away in their memory hole and pretend they weren’t wrong.

Until such time as hard evidence is presented, I will withhold condemnation of Russia at this time. Call it my “Don’t Want to Wind Up Like Rolling Stone With the UVA Rape Story” sense.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


While most of us have moved on from the 2016 Election and focused on more important matters like pumpkin pie (mmmmm…piiiiiiie), there is a new movement making the rounds in cyberspace alleging there were irregularities in the vote counts. Yes, they’re even alleging voter fraud and possible Russian influence in the election. Good thing voter fraud and outside influences on our elections aren’t a thing, right Leftists?

As with most movements these days, the effort to look at the election results started with a hashtag, #AuditTheVote. And as with most movements from the Left these days, it’s a target-rich environment for mockery.


What the Left thinks it means – an effort to restore faith in our democracy through ensuring the votes cast are legitimate

What it really means – The Left creating a crisis to “find” more votes to try to overturn the election results

Have you ever been playing a game with someone who was so cocky he or she would win, only to see them lose? The cocky become bratty very quickly, and they start blaming everyone and everything else for their failure. The rules aren’t fair. The winner cheated. There was no way I could be in the Molasses Swamp for that long.

That’s the last time I was allowed to play Candyland at Grandma’s house over Thanksgiving. Ah, memories.

It wasn’t that long ago that the Left was chiding Donald Trump for suggesting there might be voter fraud. Now, they’re sounding just like Trump, and it’s a yuge…I mean huge problem for them. If you listen to Twitter (and, really, why would you), you’d hear whispers of corruption, vote counts being off in favor of Trump, and all sorts of rumors about the election not being on the up-and-up. And I’m sure they have evidence for all of it.

Not so much.

If you did a Venn Diagram with one circle representing the accusations of impropriety in the election and the other circle representing the amount of truth there are to the allegations, you’d have two circles further apart than Johnny Manzel and an NFL contract.

The common theme in all of the accusations is they all sound like things the Left have already done in previous elections. Having more votes than registered voters in some districts? Yep. Happened in 2008 in favor of Barack Obama. Mysterious votes appearing just in time for a recount? We have a winner. Happened with Al Franken in 2008. Outside influences on our elections? Ditto, thanks to our old friend, Uncle George Soros.

You know what this is called? Projection. The Left loves to project their faults, foibles, and otherwise dirty tricks onto their opponents on the Right. Whether they actually do the things the Left accuses them of, however, is a matter of debate. And judging by most of the people I know on the Right, they wouldn’t do it because they have faith in the process and tend to accept the results even when they don’t go their way.

You know, like adults do?

Right now, Green Party candidate and all around snappy dresser Jill Stein is leading the effort to have votes audited in three states: Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. These states were all won by Donald Trump by 27,257 votes, 68,236 votes, and 11,612 votes, respectively. In each case, a recount or vote audit may change the totals one way or the other, but the likelihood is Trump would still win.

So, why is Stein tapping into the #AuditTheVote sentiment? To tap into Leftists’ wallets. And given the Butthurt-A-Palooza from Election Day, there are a lot of people willing to part with their hard-earned money to advance the narrative.

Okay, I’m kidding. These nozzleheads don’t have hard-earned money.

It’s going to be interesting to see what comes of the latest hashtag activism effort. And by interesting, I mean amusing as all get out. Pop some popcorn, grab a cold drink, and watch the Left’s dream of defeating Donald Trump go up in flames…again.

The Great Ragequit of 2016


As I write this, we are a week and a half removed from Donald Trump winning the Presidency over Hillary Clinton. (And, yes, it still feels weird for me to type that.) In that week and a half, we have seen protests, walk-outs at schools, and even the time honored tradition of riots after Clinton lost. I’m sure you remember the 2012 riots in the aftermath of Mitt Romney losing. I mean, it was all over the news. Angry mobs fueled by too much buttermilk and non-alcoholic eggnog storming every family restaurant they could find.

In watching the various forms of expression from the Left, it came to me I’d seen this type of thing before. In video gaming, there is a term for when a player gets so angry and frustrated at not playing well that he or she will throw a temper tantrum so bad it makes the meltdown at Chernobyl look like a mild annoyance. Usually, this temper tantrum involves yelling, the throwing of a game controller, and the immediate quitting of the game being played. That term is known as ragequit.

The Left is undergoing a major ragequit right now for the entire world to see, and it’s both humorous and frightening to me. It’s frightening because so many people had their hearts and minds wrapped up in the notion Donald Trump could never beat Hillary Clinton, even though it was clearly evident Clinton was a dud as a candidate. The Democrats could have run Pat Paulsen and had a better shot at winning the Presidency, and when you consider Clinton’s alternate was Bernie Sanders, they might have nominated a suitable facsimile.

Consider what we’ve already seen in the past week and a half. Rioting, vandalism, acts of violence against Trump supporters, threats of violence against Trump and his family, and a slew of other events that are on the wrong side of legitimate protest. And we’re only going to see more because the people doing this crap are letting their emotions overrule their intelligence.

On the other hand, it’s precisely the fact they’re letting their emotions overrule their intelligence that makes this situation humorous. Watching the Left lose their marbles has been enjoyable. Watching young people crying on YouTube and demanding people fix the situation because they don’t want Trump to be President (while ignoring the fact they had the ability to change their future by, you know, voting) is comical. In fact, there was at least one young person wanting to impeach Trump…before he was even President. That’s weapons grade stupid right there.

If you want to see one of the funniest people with a severe case of ragequit, check out the Twitter feed of one Laci Green. For those of you who don’t know her, count your blessings. In short, she is a sex-positive feminist whose SJW (Social Justice Warrior) credentials are pretty solid. On Election Night, Ms. Green tweeted a message about coming together after the election. It should be pointed out she did this before Trump was the projected winner.

After Trump won, though, Ms. Green tweeted a rather hateful, divisive, and expletive-filled message.

That turn around was so fast, it gave me whiplash.

There is a German term that means deriving enjoyment from the sorrow of others. That term is schadenfreude. I would be lying if I said I wasn’t having a schadenfreudepalooza right now, but it’s measured with a sense of fear and sadness. And maybe hunger. Possibly melancholy. Definitely whimsy.

In any case, what we’re seeing is the political equivalent of ragequit, and it will be interesting to see how long it is before the ragequitters throw their controllers.