Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

81 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

99 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

168 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

123 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!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

121 Views

I may be understating this just a bit, but we are living in weird times. Young people needing “safe spaces” so they don’t feel harmed by words or ideas. Politicians and the media trying to get people to believe someone who put up topless and nude photos of herself on a swingers website is a victim of “revenge porn.” A blogger who puts things in quotation marks more frequently than Nancy Pelosi takes Yaeger shots during the work week.

Then, there’s the story of 7 year old James Younger, a boy in the middle of a legal and social struggle involving transgender rights. James’ mother wanted to give him drugs that would delay his biological maturity as a means to have him transition into being female. His father, on the other hand, objected to it for various reasons. Due to a recent court decision, James will not have to take the drugs his mother wants him to take.

There is a lot of discussion around the subject of transitioning, so who better to discuss it than your humble correspondent? Seriously, I’d like to know. Nobody? Okay, I’ll give it a shot.

transitioning

What the Left thinks it means – the process of changing one’s gender identity through medical and social means

What it really means – a major life decision that may not be taken as seriously as it should be

This is a subject that hits close to home for me because I have family members and friends who are either transitioning, have transitioned, or have people in their lives who are. The process itself can be painful, physically, mentally, and emotionally, and once you go down that road, there aren’t many offramps if you change your mind. It takes a strong resolve to complete the transition from male to female and vice versa, which means such an endeavor must be carefully considered at each step to make sure the person who will be living with the outcome is comfortable and determined to see it through.

That’s one reason the James Younger situation is so disturbing to me. Both parents have a say in this decision, and both have particular axes to grind with the other. The mother says James has gender dysphoria, a condition where a person believes he or she was born with the incorrect gender. The father says the mother is forcing James to dress and act like a girl to get affection from her. At this point, we can’t trust either side completely because we don’t know what is factual and what isn’t.

That leaves James, who regardless of whether you believe the mother or the father, is still 7 years old. Knowing what we know from science, girls mature faster than boys, and if I remember the studies correctly, neither one of them are fully mature in the single digits. That makes the decision to transition a lot harder to justify in my eyes because the person most affected by the transition isn’t mature enough to make that decision.

And before any Leftists jump down my throat accusing me of transphobia, let me point out there is precedent on my side in the form of age of consent laws. These laws were put in place because of the very immaturity of children I just mentioned. Although what is happening to James right now isn’t the same thing as an adult wanting to play Hide the Salami with an underage boy or girl, the principle is the same. And let’s not overlook the science here, “Party of Science.” Science isn’t a Chinese restaurant menu where you can pick a principle from Column A and another from Column B. You either accept what science says even if it goes against your political aims or you don’t.

Now for the coup de grace: there are a lot of trans people out there who think 7 is a tad young to be transitioning. Yes, I know this is an appeal to popularity, but it’s still something to consider. When people who may feel inclined to lean Left tell you it’s messed up, it’s probably more messed up than a Gary Busey/Charlie Sheen coke bender. And as someone outside of the Leftist bubble, let me confirm it looks messed up to most of the rest of the people out there.

Even though I have strong opinions on the subject of transitioning and when it should be considered, my opinions don’t mean much. I am just an outsider, so you can take my comments with a grain of salt, or even a pillar of salt if you prefer. But I will say this. If you believe James Younger is mature enough to make such an important decision to transition, then he is mature enough to make an informed decision, not just the decision you may want him to make.

And therein lies the problem. Many young people who attempt to transition or completely transition regret their decision later in life, some to the point of committing suicide. No matter how much the Left and the media try to make children transitioning or being transgender into a positive, the negative is too important to ignore. It’s neither fun, nor brave, and not every child who transitions will be lavished with praise and attention. After the novelty wears off, the children will be ignored while their lives are left in chaos.

But hey, what’s a little child abuse among trans fans? Amirite?

This may seem like a bit of a stretch, but it was the only thing that comes to mind when thinking about the James Younger case, and I’m talking to both sides here. There don’t seem to be any white hats here, just various shades of gray. You can chalk it up to life not being black and white, but I chalk it up to not wanting to be called a bigot in today’s society by opposing an idea that makes no sense whatsoever. James is a child. As a result, he is in no position to make a life-changing, and in many cases a life-ending, decision, and his parents aren’t helping the matter any by putting pressure on him one way or the other. If he wants to transition in, say, 10 years from now, then let him. Until then, let him be the child he is, not the tiny adult you think he is.

To the young adults and adults who are considering transitioning, I have one request: look at the decision carefully and with as much information and self-reflection necessary for you to make a definitive stance. If you have any qualms, don’t do it until they’re addressed to your satisfaction. And if/when you transition, know that I will treat you like a person, not as a label.

Unless you’re an asshole. Then all bets are off. 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

108 Views

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

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

pink tax

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

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

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

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

Women are different from men.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

154 Views

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

And, as a result, Project Veritas is eeeeevilllllll!

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

Project Veritas

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

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

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

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

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

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

So…they’re CNN?

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

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

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

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

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

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

112 Views

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

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

obstruction of justice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

124 Views

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

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

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

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

Second Civil War

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

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

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

Which is by design.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

135 Views

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

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

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

impeachment inquiry

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

What it really means – much ado about something or other

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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