Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

100 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.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

153 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.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

193 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

193 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.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

147 Views

Welcome to the holiday season, where it seems like just about everyone is celebrating something. Christmas. Hanukkah. Boxing Day. Kwanzaa. International Day of the Sea Otter. (Okay, I made that one up, but I’m sure Hallmark and the US Postal Service are already working on cards to make that a thing.) And thanks to the Left, there’s a new one: Impeachmas.

Thanks to the House of Representatives impeaching President Donald Trump, Leftists went from the depth of despair to the heights of ecstasy in the span of a few days, mostly because Twitter Leftists don’t understand the impeachment process. No word yet on whether the aforementioned Hallmark and/or USPS are recognizing it as an official holiday yet, but it’s still early.

I know I’ve been harping on impeachment a lot lately, but with this new holiday, I want to show the appropriate amount of diversity and discuss it.

Mainly so I can mock it.

Impeachmas

What the Left thinks it means – a celebration of the rightful impeachment of Donald Trump

What it really means – a celebration of a foregone conclusion that will most likely accomplish nothing

As I’ve noted previously, the Left are primarily short-term thinkers, meaning they go more for instant gratification than long-term strategic victories. Remember when former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid enacted the “nuclear option” for President Barack Obama’s judicial appointments? Yeah, that worked out really well until Mitch McConnell used the same tactic to get President Trump’s judicial appointments pushed through like a Chipotle meal.

Impeachmas works on the same premise. It doesn’t matter what happens down the road; what matters is President Trump is impeached for whatever reason because it makes the Left feel good. And judging from the amount of whining, complaining, and emotional outbursts ranging from anger to frustration to depression that I’ve seen on social media, they needed this one to make them feel good for a little while. When you look at it from a slightly different perspective, President Trump’s impeachment was like a drug, which makes House Democrats the pushers.

As with other drugs, eventually the high will wear off. In this case, when the Senate gets the articles of impeachment and laughs them out of the Senate chamber (and justifiably so). Then what? And that’s the part the Left can’t answer because they’re too busy relishing their “accomplishment.” Of course, even Stevie Wonder channeling the Great Kreskin could have seen the result of the impeachment effort following the 2018 midterm elections, so it’s really not an accomplishment, per se. It’s like me throwing a party every Saturday and Sunday when I wake up and can stay in my jammies all day.

Yes, my Leftist friends, I am going to be a buzzkill, but since I’m not on your holiday card list, I don’t care.

Here’s the funny part. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and several other House Democrats talked at length about how somber and serious impeachment was. (It was so somber and serious, many House Democrats cheered when the articles of impeachment were approved.) Yet, outside the chamber, Leftists everywhere were celebrating, which undercuts what the Speaker was saying. I have to give credit where credit is due, though. Speaker Pelosi was correct. Impeachment is a serious matter and shouldn’t be taken lightly. To celebrate the outcome of a successful vote for impeachment makes the Left look really stupid. I mean, even more stupid than the articles of impeachment themselves, but I’ve already stepped off the soapbox on that subject.

Leftists will also get a bit of a tingle knowing the President was impeached, but before they go all Chris Matthews with Obama on us, let me interject another perspective. The first article of impeachment was for abuse of power, which isn’t actually against the law. By voting in favor of impeaching President Trump on that charge, the House has essentially created law without debate, without giving it to the Senate for consideration and debate, without the President signing or vetoing it, and without following normal legislative and/or legal protocol. To build upon a well-worn legal notion, they have not only proven you can indict a ham sandwich, but can charge and convict that ham sandwich of anything, legal or not, solely by the say-so of the House of Representatives.

And just like with Harry Reid nuking the nuclear option, this will come back to bite the Left in the ass like a school of piranha going after Rosie O’Donnell. The political pendulum will swing back someday, and what you set forth today may turn against you tomorrow. I wonder how many Leftists celebrating Impeachmas will be celebrating when the next Leftist/Democrat President gets impeached for not being a Republican by a Republican House. I’m guessing, oh, zero.

In the meantime, there is already a growing backlash against the House Democrats, not just in polling data, but in actual potential voters. I follow the #WalkAway movement on Facebook and have noticed a lot of former Democrats deciding to do just that because of the way House Democrats ran the impeachment circus. In some polls, impeachment is underwater in popularity, albeit within the margin of error. Even so, you cannot assume more people favor impeachment than oppose it. And with Leftists holding public Impeachmas parties and sharing photos on social media, you can bet those numbers will make Captain Nemo look landlocked.

We can have a discussion on whether President Donald Trump deserves to be impeached, but Impeachmas isn’t that discussion. It’s the epitome of being sore winners. And no matter how many times you try to impeach the President, it won’t undo the 2016 election. At best, you’ll get President Mike Pence and have to start the process all over again, this time with someone much harder to paint as crooked.

Good luck with that.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

199 Views

Time magazine (yes, it’s still being published) just named Greta Thunberg as their Person of the Year because of her efforts on behalf of fighting global climate change by…shaming people? The editors made it sound a lot nicer than I did, but it’s still heaping praise on Ms. Thunberg for giving a speech, doing things that do nothing for the environment, and most likely not getting the Nobel Peace Prize for the same non-accomplishments that got her the Person of the Year award.

At only 16 years old, Greta Thunberg has taken the world by storm like the latest auto-tuned teen singing star. She’s inspired millions of people (according to her followers) and sparked a global conversation on climate change while leading school walkouts to protest the world’s governments’ inaction on it. Although her accomplishments are rarer than the way Dracula likes his steak, the impact she’s had on the world cannot be understated.

And now, she’s getting her own entry into the Leftist Lexicon!

Greta Thunberg

What the Left thinks it means – a young woman and future leader on climate change

What it really means – the latest useful idiot in the climate change PR machine

The prevailing thought is that we cannot attack Ms. Thunberg for any number of reasons, ranging from her being on the autism spectrum to her age and gender. I will abide by that idea because I honestly think she’s being used by the very people who claim she’s an inspiration to the world.

That’s where the “useful idiot” part comes into play. The Soviets used that term to describe anyone unwittingly doing their bidding by supporting their ideology. In the case of climate change, the rotten apple didn’t fall too far from the Soviet treeski. One of the common tactics of the eco-Left is to bring children into the conversation. “What kind of a world do you want to leave for your children and grandchildren” is still being used today as a means to guilt people into agreeing with the Left. By and large, it works. Very few adults want an ecological disaster for future generations to clean up or live through and it’s been that way for decades.

Yet, none of the dire predictions of ecological disaster have occurred in the decades we’ve been asked to think about the children. I’m sure the Left wants to take credit for it, but little actual change has occurred in spite of the warnings that we have X number of years before it’s too late. And if you’ve noticed, that date keeps getting pushed back every few years.

In the meantime, we get treated to Ms. Thunberg’s screeds on climate change. Lucky us.

The funny thing is her use as a figurehead for the climate change movement contradicts the standards the movement itself has set. Whenever anyone who disagrees with them presents facts, the Left always disregards that person’s facts because “he/she isn’t a scientist.” (See last week’s Leftist Lexicon for more information on how the Left uses the appeal to authority fallacy.) Yet, Ms. Thunberg isn’t a scientist. She hasn’t even graduated high school to my knowledge. Even if she has, she’s as much of a scientist as former global warming figurehead Al “I Swear I’m Not a Robot” Gore, which is to say neither one is. They can quote scientists all they want, but they will always be given the benefit of the doubt because they’re saying the “right” things.

The major downside to being a Leftist darling is they typically have a short shelf life. Once the issue is played out, the Left will jettison you to the ashbin of history. The plus side? You’ll have plenty of new friends. Remember Emma Gonzales? Cindy Sheehan? Chelsea/Bradley Manning? Karen McDougal? Walter Mondale? Al Franken? And, just like the old TV record offers, there are many more. If the past is prologue in Leftist circles (and by sheer volume of people in their Has-Beenville, it is), Greta Thunberg will be getting a small eco-friendly studio apartment there eventually.

The saddest part of it is it doesn’t need to happen. Whether she chose the life of an activist or was talked into it by the adults in her life, Ms. Thunberg has chosen a path that is filled with hope, but winds up in despair and disillusionment because it’s based on a careful series of lies that have been repeated over and over again for 50 years or so but have never been truly exposed as lies. Every effort made by actual climate scientists to self-invested individuals to show there is more than one way to crunch the data gets buried, mocked, and discounted by the Left as a means to protect the narrative.

And guess what, Ms. Thunberg? You’re now a vital part in that lie. At least until another issue or another young person comes along and takes your place. At that point, your life becomes just another worn-out cog in the Left’s machine.

Many of Ms. Thunberg’s fans have said she’s hurt fragile male egos with her actions. Nothing could be further from the truth in my case. She’s free to do what she wants with her life, and I’m free to comment on how absurd it is. If I do feel anything for her, it’s pity, as well as a little wistful reminiscence. It wasn’t that long ago that I was just as idealistic and full of piss and vinegar as she is. When I realized the Left’s manipulation of what and how I thought, I was disappointed, but I resolved to use that piss and vinegar to stick with the truth. And, if I may be so bold, the truth doesn’t support your position or pseudo-solutions, Ms. Thunberg.

I pity you because you are so wrapped up in your cause that you aren’t able to see an alternate perspective. Regardless of what accolades you receive now for saying and doing what people tell you is the right thing, you have limited your intellectual growth, which is always the wrong thing to do. In order to achieve anything worthwhile, we must be willing to challenge our preconceived notions and biases and accept there may be some intelligent people who simply disagree. Shaming them won’t make them turn around and accept your point of view. You’re 16, and you’re being used by people who need you more than you need them, but that window is going to close someday.

And no Person of the Year award will keep that window open for one second more.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

150 Views

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

Guess who got the bulk of the attention.

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

scholar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

153 Views

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

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

cancel culture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

226 Views

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

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

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

ideological credentials

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

181 Views

This week’s Leftist Lexicon entry is a first for me. In the past, I’ve covered (and recovered) words and phrases the Left have used in varying contexts and tried to explain what they mean to the rest of us. Today, I’m going to invent a word for the Leftist Lexicon that they haven’t used yet, but most certainly applies to them. Hopefully this doesn’t lead to a mass exodus from the site, but if it does, I hereby blame the Russians because…reasons.

So, here we go!

impeachment word salad

What the Left thinks it means – Ummmm…I dunno?

What it really means – a phrase that explains the Left’s impeachment efforts against Donald Trump

Remember back in 2009 when the Left got their collectivist panties in a wad over Republicans and conservatives trying to undermine President Barack Obama’s agenda? It seems like a decade ago, mainly because it was. However, one thing the Republicans didn’t try to do is impeach President Obama for crimes he committed or were a party to (much to the chagrin of your humble correspondent because there was fertile ground to make a case or, say, 50). When Donald Trump became President, though, Leftists wanted to impeach him from Day One, oddly enough for crimes he allegedly committed before becoming President.

Yes, it’s just that stupid.

Today, though, the Left has been making all sorts of allegations for presumed crimes committed before and during Trump’s Presidency. In the process, they’ve tied a number of terms to their impeachment efforts: collusion, extortion, bribery, election tampering, and so on. And as each new word gets attached, the previous words either lose their meaning or get ignored once they’ve served the Left’s purposes. In turn, this makes the people outside of Leftist Fantasyland either utterly confused due to the shifting narrative or utterly disgusted by the Left’s antics.

Guess which camp I’m in.

The Left loves to use buzzwords they test and test to ensure their impact on the people they consider uninformed or easily-led (i.e. the non-Leftists). Most of the time, it works. Words like homophobia, transphobia, and safe spaces have become part of our lexicon (and part of the Leftist Lexicon, too), but with impeachment, these words aren’t making any sense. Hence, the “word salad” portion of today’s Leftist Lexicon entry. For the uninitiated, a word salad is when people string together words that aren’t connected by any logical and consistent thought and that the people using them may or may not know the definitions of when they use them. Kinda like…well, the current impeachment effort. Fortunately, the Left has adopted the idea that it’s better to be emotionally right than factually right, according to their Matron Saint Alexandria of New York.

The problem is words mean things, as Rush Limbaugh has pointed out several times. And when dealing with legal terms, those definitions have implications above and beyond being used towards a political end. In building their impeachment case, the Left has created a multitude of problems with their impeachment word salad. Take extortion, for example. That is a serious charge, and the Left’s definition of it in this case has removed the notion of the victim knowing he or she is being extorted for it to be a crime. And remember, kids, the alleged victim in this case is a grown man who just happens to be the President of the Ukraine. You know, the guy whose statements about the alleged extortion all but destroy the very reason the Left is trying to impeach President Trump? But we should totally believe the Left is above board on this.

And here’s the best part. The reason the Left has been using so many different terms (by their own admission, I might add) is because they don’t think we understand complex concepts like quid pro quo and need it spelled out in explicit detail for us to get it. They want us to believe them while they hold us in contempt for what they perceive to be our intellectual shortcomings. Of course, there’s no way insulting potential supporters can go wrong, right? After all, that’s the strategy that made Hillary Clinton Presi…oh, sorry. Sort of a sore spot for the Left still. My bad!

Here’s a pro tip for the Left from your buddy Thomas. We get it. You don’t like President Trump and want the 2016 Election overturned because you feel it was Hillary’s turn. But you can’t impeach a President for hurting your fee-fees, no matter how hard you try or wish for it. You’re doing what your pals in the manmade climate change camp have done for decades: start with your desired conclusion and work backwards. It doesn’t work that way, and using loaded terminology with actual legal definitions and punishments won’t make your impeachment word salad any more intelligible or defensible before the US Senate, where your chances of getting Trump impeached are less likely than Pauly Shore winning a Best Actor Oscar. A Razzie, sure, but not an Oscar.

Here’s what I think you need to do. Just admit you have nothing, cut your losses, and try to find a non-insane Presidential candidate to beat President Trump in 2020. By the looks of the current clown car, though, I think you’re already at the point of no return on all those fronts. Better luck next time!