Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


The home of the Free Speech Movement in the 1960s is at it again! The University of California at Berkeley (home of the Fighting Totally Non-Violent Yet Destructive Antifas), is preventing conservative commentator Ben Shapiro from giving a speech on campus, citing their inability to find a venue. Similar circumstances affected Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter when they attempted to give speeches on campus.

Leftists, those champions of free speech as long as you agree with them, cheer whenever a conservative speaker gets shut out from giving a speech or offering an opposing viewpoint on news show, citing it’s not right to give these people (if the Left deem to call them that) a platform to share their opinions. Those vital spots should go to people who actually bring something to the table (i.e. who regurgitate the squawking point du jour). To better understand the Left’s objections, let’s take a look at the core of their complaints.


What the Left thinks it means – an area where ideas can be expressed with the consent/approval of the person, people, or entity providing said area

What it really means – the free market arena of ideas

One of the driving forces behind the Left is control. To put it simply, they are control freaks to the point Lady Macbeth looks like a coma patient. Since so much of their agenda revolves around controlling what is said and who is given credence, the Left needs to ensure theirs is the only voice people hear and their people are the only ones who are deemed credible. As a result, they need tight control over the medium, the message, and the messenger, and for many years, they had it all.

That’s when people like Rush Limbaugh came into the picture and started taking on the Left. Once there were new players on the board, there were different opinions that could be given attention. It was no longer one voice and one message, but multiple voices with multiple messages. That created chaos in the Leftist utopia, so they did what needed to be done: they tried to silence and marginalize the opposing voices.

Yeah. That totally worked. I mean, who in 2017 has heard of Rush Limbaugh? I mean, aside from his approximately 20 million listeners per week.

When the platform didn’t exist or wasn’t readily available for Rush, he created his own platform and turned it into a global phenomenon. No matter how the Left tries to demonize or disregard him, Rush finds a way to get his message out there. And Rush spawned others like Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, and scores of others who found their niche over the airwaves, in print, and online.

And the Left doesn’t have an answer. The current mainstream media are writing and reporting stories that make the Weekly World News seem credible by comparison. And the Weekly World News has fracking Bat-Boy! Err America…I mean Air America failed spectacularly, even with George Soros bankrolling it. And when it comes to online presence, the Right has the edge. Then again, when your Leftist standard bearers are Vox, Slate, and Daily Kos, the Right could just run a Blue Screen of Death and be ahead of the game.

And the Left can’t stand it. Since their efforts to delegitimize the Right have failed worse than an Al Gore exercise tape, their next step is to deprive conservatives of the ability to spread their message to people who might be receptive to it. That brings us back to UC Berkeley. Instead of allowing multiple voices on campus, the Leftists have resorted to any means necessary to take away the platform given to conservatives and then using that as proof the conservatives don’t have anything worth saying. That’s like an arsonist starting a fire and then saying it proves the need for more firefighters. These tactics include shouting down speakers, actively engaging speakers, physical altercations, violence, death and bomb threats, and rioting. In many cases, it’s worked.  This tells me two things. First, liberal arts majors are taking some seriously disturbing electives, and second, the Left isn’t prepared to defend their positions against opposing viewpoints. By taking the stance they have, Leftists are conceding the intellectual battlefield through trying to turn college campuses and other venues into actual battlefields.

Not exactly an air of confidence from the “smart” ones.

The Left’s approach stems from the notion that allowing someone outside of their ideological and intellectual bubble to speak his or her mind gives the ideas legitimacy and means the entity hosting the outsider agrees with him or her. That’s an assumption without a basis in fact. Sometimes television news programs or radio shows give time to people with opposing viewpoints for ratings or to give another side of a situation. That does not mean they necessarily agree with the opposing viewpoint. In this case, silence is not consent, and silencing others is not an appropriate response. As we’ve seen with CNN, the Left will put on people the hosts vehemently disagree with just to get a rise out of people or to try to give the Left’s arguments more credibility by comparison. And that worked about as well as you might think from one of the networks running with the “Trump colluded with Russia” story.

If you want to showcase your brilliance, test it against those who disagree. If you win, great. If you lose, that shows flaws in your thinking that can be addressed to make your arguments stronger. But the Left can’t bring themselves to making better arguments, so they resort to trying to win debates by default through intimidation, disinformation, and shouting down arguments they don’t like. They think a crappy argument without a response makes the crappy argument unassailable, but what they don’t realize it is only makes their argument seem weak when you realize what they’re doing and why they’re doing it. If you have to win by deceptive means, you’re not really winning. You’re merely participating.

Then again, the Left loves participation trophies, don’t they?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


Remember Hillary Clinton and the “vast right wing conspiracy”? She might not due to her recent health issues, but I do. Well, it’s back in a new form for the 21st Century.

It’s called the alt-right, and depending on who you ask, it’s either innocent or the worst people in the universe not named Kardashian. I’ll let you guess where Hillary comes down on the alt-right. Considering she gave a speech recently where she ripped into them like I rip into a bag of pretzels during Oktoberfest, I’m going to say she’s not a fan.

As a member of the alt-right, I figured I’d try to help Hillary because, dammit, I care. (Well, that, and the fact I have a weekly blog post to write.)


What the Left believes it means: a group of white supremacist misogynist hatemongers terrorizing cyberspace and the world

What it really means: a group of liberals, libertarians, and conservatives who aren’t afraid to stand up to the Left

The Left has had it pretty easy for a while. They controlled most of the media, academia, and popular culture, but over time things changed. Rush Limbaugh happened. Fox News happened. Conservative teachers…well, we’re still working on that. But the point is the Left got complacent and let a few things slip.

Then, the Internet happened, and the Left was really thrown for a loop. (Well, except Al Gore, who invented the thing.) Within the Internet, there was a whole unexplored frontier where people from around the world could come together and…post cat pictures. I mean, there can’t be any other reason the Internet became so popular, right?

As the Internet grew, other electronic outlets like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter became popular, thus exposing more people to opinions they may not have otherwise gotten. Well, that was too much freedom for the Left to handle, so they did what they do best: try to make everybody miserable.

But, that didn’t happen. Instead of being miserable, some people decided to continue having fun and poking fun at the Left at every opportunity. These people became what Hillary and the Left call the alt-right. And since they were having fun, the Left just had to try to destroy them.

People wonder when the alt-right really came into its own, and I have to say it started with a little thing called GamerGate. For those of you who don’t know about it, here’s the short version.

For a number of years, gaming journalists and game developers started getting chummy, not unlike the Left and their media lapdogs. As more and more of these incidents occurred, gamers, YouTubers, and Tweeters joined forces to expose the truth and call out the offenders. Of course, that meant the Left had to do something, and they did.

They called names like bratty four-year olds, but without the maturity.

As GamerGate started to flourish, many of the aforementioned gamers, YouTubers, and Tweeters turned their attention on other problems, problems that just so happened to be started by…Leftists.

But the straw that broke the Leftists’ back was a man named Milo Yiannopolous. In Milo, the people fighting the Left had the ultimate trump card (if you’ll pardon the expression). A gay white man with a penchant for black men, a wit sharper than a sword sharpened to the width of a single atom, and a fearlessness that was unmatched by most people. And, he always looked FABULOUUUUSSSSSSS! (Sorry. Had to do that.)

To combat the rise of Milo and many like him, the Left invented a narrative where the alt-right were all white supremacists who hated women.

Remember what I said about Milo and his desire for black men? Yeah, that kinda ruins the whole “alt-right is racist” idea in a single bound.

What the Left doesn’t understand (among many, many other things) is the alt-right as they wrongly define it isn’t just Trump supporters. There are people on YouTube who openly mock Donald Trump, but they think the Left isn’t much better. There are atheists who wouldn’t be caught dead at a TEA Party rally, but they’re lumped in with people like me because we share a common disdain for the way the Left operates. And if you don’t agree with the way the Left does things, they consider you to be an enemy, hence Hillary’s attack on the alt-right and the Left’s hard-on to trash the alt-right alongside the Hill Dog.

But here’s the thing. The people who are being attacked really don’t care what a fraud like Hillary says about them. These are people who have been outcasts from society at one point or another and have dealt with the kind of bullcrap the Left spews about them. You think being called every name in the book by a bunch of stuck-up self-professed “cool kids” is going to faze them? Kids, they live for that kind of abuse. It will be like blasting cockroaches with radiation; it won’t affect them and it may even make them grow.

No matter how much Hillary and her followers try to run down the alt-right, the more it will push right back.

This Is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things


Earlier this week, Twitter permanently banned Milo Yiannopoulos due to alleged Terms of Service violations. For those of you who haven’t been following along because you have a life, Milo has run afoul of Twitter before, but somehow this was the last straw.

And what was his crime? To hear Twitter describe it, it was harassing Leslie Jones, a star of the recent “Ghostbusters” reboot. In reviewing the Tweet logs, however, Milo didn’t really break the Terms of Service, but many of his supporters did by posting pictures of apes to Jones. There was also a possibly Photoshopped Tweet of something Jones allegedly posted, but didn’t.

Granted, I’m not on Twitter. (Too many twits on there, you know.) But what I do understand is Twitter is a private company, so the calls that Twitter are denying Milo his First Amendment right of freedom of speech to prevail in this case are not really applicable. Twitter, like any other online service, can make up their own rules and apply them as they see fit. Of course, that begs the question of how they apply their own rules.

Not very well.

The fact ISIS/ISIL and Black Lives Matter both retain their Twitter statuses for doing and saying far worse than Milo has is telling. Maybe if he starts beheading people or calling for the death of police officers Twitter will let him back on…

Seriously, what Twitter has done is egregious, but well within their rights to do. The Twitterverse has already established a couple of hashtags to protest Twitter’s decision, one of the hashtags being #FreeMilo. Twitter, being the social media geniuses they are, shut down the #FreeMilo hashtag. I guess the time they removed Milo’s verified status on Twitter didn’t teach them anything after many of his followers changed their profile pictures to ones of Milo himself.

But the icing on this crap cake comes in the form of Leftist Tweeters applauding Twitter’s decision, citing “hate speech” as their justification. Well, that’s a problem because when you start banning hate speech, it always goes underground until such time as it becomes acceptable again. By leaving it in the open, you can see the true hatred and act accordingly. For example, I tend to avoid Leftists altogether in online forums because inevitably their high-minded rhetoric will turn into the very hate they claim resides only on the Right. Need proof? Talk to Alan Keyes, Herman Caine, and other black Republicans/conservatives about how they’re treated by the “tolerant” Left.

Twitter’s double standards about their standards isn’t a good look for them, and it’s going to hurt them more than they think. That’s, of course, assuming they do think, which given their recent track record with Milo alone is suspect. Personally, I think Milo is better off without Twitter, but Twitter needs people like him to justify their draconian double standard.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


As America celebrates Independence Day, two concepts always enter the discussion: barbecues and quasi-legal fireworks. And between food-induced comas, we occasionally talk about freedom and our rights. We all have different ideas about what these concepts mean, but the Left has some pretty kooky ideas about them.


What the Left believes it means: the ability to do what you want when you want
What it really means: the ability to do what you want without negatively impacting others


What the Left believes it means: the legal authority to do what you want when you want
What it really means: the legal authority to do what you want without negatively impacting others

That’s right, kids. Freedom and rights are not necessarily interchangeable. You may have the freedom to yell “fire” in a crowded theater, but it’s not a right. Now, if you yell “movie” in a crowded firehouse…

Where the Left gets the two concepts mixed up is when they apply it to what they would like to happen. Take the entire concept of “safe spaces,” for example. The idea behind them is to allow people the Left believe aren’t getting enough attention to speak freely in a comfortable surrounding where their voices will be heard and accepted.

In other words, it’s an echo chamber.

Now, try to be someone who doesn’t “belong” in a safe space. Your right to express yourself goes away faster than Bill Clinton’s pants on Spring Break. And don’t expect the Left to take up your cause because you’re not one of them. They will restrict your freedoms faster than you can say the first syllable in “First Amendment.”

Meanwhile, they claim any time they disrupt a conservative speaker it’s free speech. Just YouTube any of Milo Yiannopoulos’ speeches during his Dangerous Faggot Tour, especially the one involving Trigglypuff. But I would advise you not to eat while you watch it.

In the particular scenario referenced above, the Left has taken the freedom to speak their minds…sorry, hive-mind and equated it to their right to speak. One tiny problem with that approach. You do not have a right to be an asshat. Interrupting a speaker exercising his or her right to free speech is pretty much the definition of being an asshat, and it doesn’t exactly help your case.

Where the rest of us get confused is because we don’t see rights and freedom separately. Quite the contrary. We see rights and freedom as connected as your fingers when using Super Glue on anything, except the thing you’re trying to glue. The difference between the two is there is no legal support for freedoms. If you claim you have the freedom to run around naked in your backyard, that’s cool, but try to exert you have a right to run around naked in your backyard and you’ll have the cops arresting you for indecent exposure. (Or so I’ve heard…)

Rights are concepts that require a really good reason to have them curtailed. And, no, protecting your fee-fees from opposing opinions isn’t a good enough reason. Going back to the “fire” in a theater example for a moment, there is a greater need for personal safety than the right to free speech because yelling “fire” would create a panic and result in potential injuries and death to those in the theater. The same could be said of someone yelling “This is the latest Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movie” in a crowded theater.

Put another way, freedom is what you can do as long as nobody is looking and nobody gets hurt. Rights are what you can do even when nobody is looking and nobody gets hurt.

But if you’re looking for someone to watch…I have no idea who you can talk to about that. After all, this is a family blog!

(But seriously, I might know some people.)