Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


Leftist obsessions are like Iowa weather: if you don’t like what you have now, wait a little bit and it will change. This past week saw renewed interest in Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh after a new book by two New York Times reporters revisited sexual abuse allegations that were as substantiated as…well, the first time these allegations were rolled out to the public. Regardless, the authors of the book are now peddling the fruit of their libel…I mean labors and finding themselves caught in the middle of a credibility crisis of their own creation.

Wherever you fall on the Brett Kavanaugh allegations, there is something extremely personal in the Left’s attacks on him. To better explore this, I figured we could take a few moments to try to puzzle this thing out.

Brett Kavanaugh

What the Left thinks it means – a sexual predator whose crimes were concealed by the Senate and who should have never been approved to be a Supreme Court Justice

What it really means – the reason we have due process in this country

The easiest and most obvious reason the Left hates Kavanaugh so much revolves around a fun little Supreme Court decision the kids like to call Roe v Wade. To put it bluntly, the Left has sanctified this decision that, while attempting to set up guidelines, ultimately sucked. If there were any more legal and rhetorical gymnastics in that decision, the Supreme Court would have gotten a gold medal at the Olympics. Without going too far into the decision itself, it created a construct that has been used under the guise of women’s rights to deny life and, in many cases, avoid consequences for bad decisions.

And the Left is perfectly fine with that.

Where Kavanaugh comes into play is with the current makeup of the Supreme Court itself. Based on simple party-line analysis, the Republicans have a 5-4 majority, which the Left sees as a direct threat to Roe v Wade. Kavanaugh was seen as much more conservative than the Justice he replaced, Anthony Kennedy, so naturally the Left went hard with the “Kavanaugh will overturn Roe v Wade” and they would have gotten away with it if it hadn’t been for those pesky kids and people who took the time to listen to him directly and review his rulings. Seems Kavanaugh stated repeatedly Roe v Wade was settled law and he would not take any action to overturn it. So, nothing would change with regards to the decision, and the Left would be unhappy with that?

Beyond that, I have a deeper take on why the Left hates Kavanaugh, and it all goes back to Merrick Garland in 2016. As hard as it is to believe, the Left still hold a grudge over what they call a stolen seat. (It was never his seat to begin with, so it can’t be stolen, nor can Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell be held responsible for following Senate procedures in an election year, but why split hairs?) Since McConnell beat the Left at their own game, they have been so salty merely looking at them discussing this matter will give you high blood pressure. At least until you listen to their opinions, which will give you high blood pressure for a completely different reason.

Anyway, the fact the Left couldn’t get Garland on the Supreme Court has given them a hate boner for Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch could cure cancer, AIDS, and athlete’s foot and the Left would still hate them because they represent what the Left craves: power to shape judicial policy for decades to come. The Left has made it a practice to use precedent as a means to reshape the world and society when they can’t do it through the ballot box. One of the greatest stumbling blocks to that is the Supreme Court, who has the power to overturn court decisions and have no higher court to appeal to if/when the Left’s plans go awry. Once they get to the High Court, it’s one and done. Even though they’ve scored some judicial victories, the prospect of future victories gets slimmer with more conservative and more originalist Justices.

As a result, the Left is going all out to undercut Kavanaugh since their efforts to shatter confidence in Gorsuch were as successful as Beto O’Rourke’s campaign right now. When they’re not questioning his emotional stability, making vague and as-yet unsubstantiated accusations of sexual assault, or suggesting his personal debt was paid off through nefarious means, the Left will track down any and all dirt on Kavanaugh in the hopes of persuading the country to take up their cause.

Guess what, kids? You’re not reaching anyone who isn’t already on your side. And the new book isn’t helping your cause because…how can I put this delicately…you guys suck at research and keeping your stories straight. The fact Kavanaugh has already been through at least three background checks for his previous judicial positions without even a whisper of what you Leftists accuse of him of doing should tell you there might not be anything there. Not to mention, your attempts to use the Anita Hill script and change the ending so you guys win didn’t work, mainly because nobody on your side has put forth a cogent case against Kavanaugh. What you characterized as mental instability was Kavanaugh finally having enough of Democrat Senators who shouldn’t be allowed to ask questions in a game of 20 Questions, let alone in a Senate confirmation hearing, to slime him to score cheap political points.

Your case against Kavanaugh is dead, Jim. Move on and leave him alone.

A Tale of Two Catastrophies


When you really think about it (and I do because I really have no life), the confirmation hearings for potential Supreme Court Justice Brett “the Hitman” Kavanaugh are shaping up to be much bigger than whether Kavanaugh gets fitted for a robe before Christmas and whether he’ll carpool with Ruth Bader Ginsburg. There are high stakes here for both sides, and eventually there will be winners and losers. Oddly enough, the Left seems to be full of losers, both in the confirmation hearings and in general, but there’s one loss they haven’t considered yet, and given how much time they’ve spent on it, I’m surprised (well, not really) they have overlooked it.

Over the past several months, Leftists have loudly defended the FBI against attacks from President Donald Trump. According to them, it is traitorous to question the loyalty and competency of the men and women who work for the FBI (Lisa Page, Peter Strzok and James Comey, notwithstanding). You couldn’t swing a dead cat and not hit a Leftist voicing support for the FBI or without getting in trouble with PETA.

For some reason, though, the loud Leftist voices have gone silent. Is it because the issue is dead? Not really. President Trump still has concerns, at least some of them valid, at how the FBI conducts itself. Although the frequency of his Tweets on the matter have decreased somewhat, the animosity is still there. But something else is going on that has to do with the FBI: Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing and the controversy surrounding it.

To put it mildly, Leftists have jumped on the allegations against Kavanaugh like Rosie O’Donnell on an all-you-can-eat buffet line. Now, here’s where the plot thickens like the aforementioned O’Donnell’s blood after said buffet. Kavanaugh has had six, count ‘em, six background checks done up to and including the Supreme Court. Who conducted these checks?

If you guessed the FBI, you would be correct. If you guessed anything else, you don’t get to move on to the lightning round, you don’t get a year’s supply of Rice A Roni or Turtle Wax, and you don’t even get a lousy edition of the home game. However, you do get a trip around the world as Regis Philbin’s travel buddy.

Six FBI background checks, and not a single shred of evidence linking Kavanaugh to the sexual assaults he’s been accused of. This leads to two possible conclusions. One, there is nothing there that would support the allegations, and two, the FBI missed the same signs six times. Both have the potential to rock the Left to its core, but the latter makes it harder to operate in my opinion because of the remedy they’ve suggested to address the allegations against Kavanaugh: have the FBI open an investigation on whether he sexually assaulted women.

To put it another way, the Left wants the same people who conceivably overlooked the same issues multiple times to look into a situation they conceivably overlooked multiple times. That’s like trusting Hans Blix to find WMDs in Iraq…oh, wait.

The Left is forced into a Kobiashi Maru of their own making. Either they trust the FBI to investigate Kavanaugh while ignoring the six previous times they did just that, or they have to admit the FBI was right all along, thus negating the need for another investigation.

But let’s not tell them just yet. I want to see the looks on their faces when they watch their pro-FBI rhetoric explode in their faces.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


Even before most of America knew Brett Kavanaugh’s name, Leftists were more scared than a Frenchman at a World War II reenactment that the new Supreme Court Justice would overturn Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that made it legal for women to get abortions. Whether it was talking about a “woman’s right to choose” or “healthcare for women”, the Left has it bad for protecting the Roe decision under any and all circumstances.

Including making themselves look like jackasses in the process.

I try not to delve too much into these serious issues much for two reasons. One, I will invariably evoke an emotional response out of a reader which tends to devolve into an online shouting match and open questioning of my lineage. And before we get there, my mother was not a female dog, so you can just drop it. The other reason is because trying to find a lighter touch on a hot-button issue like Roe v. Wade is like asking Lindsey Lohan to babysit while you’re off on a two month European vacation; it might be okay, but more than likely it’s going to wind up badly.

So, with that in mind, let’s take a look at Roe v. Wade.

Roe v. Wade

What the Left thinks it means – A Supreme Court decision that is essential for women’s autonomy, healthcare, and self-worth

What it really means – Bad law based on lies

Hopefully, I wasn’t too subtle with my opinion on the subject matter. I occasionally get accused of being obtuse.

In my younger days, I was pro choice for the same reason Bill Clinton is: to score with the ladies. Unlike Bill, however, it didn’t equate into so much as a second glance from women. On the other hand, I didn’t get impeached for using an immature intern as a personal humidor, so I got that going for me.

As I got older, I decided to do some research on the matter and read some of the legal arguments made in the Roe decision because I know how to party! Anyway, the gist of the arguments in favor of allowing a woman to have an abortion came down to an interpretation of when life began. The lawyers arguing in favor of abortion said British common law made it clear a baby could be terminated within the womb because it wasn’t recognized as a true human being.

Yeah, about that…seems British common law says nothing of the sort. In fact, there is a concept known as the “quickening” referring to a human’s life or spirit. To put it simply, our British ancestors believed a child in the womb had quickening and, thus, was a life. Kind of a problem for the pro choicers who say it’s just a “clump of cells”, wouldn’t you say?

Beyond that, the Supreme Court turned abortion into a federal issue because it broadened the Constitution to include a right that wasn’t really in there: the right to privacy. The arguments made to invent this right were based off the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which has nothing to do with privacy at all. Here’s what it says:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In other words…no state can make a law that doesn’t apply to everyone…which still has nothing to do with privacy.

For all of the legal, Constitutional, and emotional arguments in favor of keeping Roe v. Wade as is, there is one hard fact that the Left doesn’t want us to consider: abortion kills a baby almost every single time. It’s not a clump of cells. It’s not an unviable tissue mass. It’s not a part of a woman’s body. It is a baby. Full stop. With all of the blatant dishonesty and excuses, it’s hard to imagine how much fear the prospect of a child being allowed to come to term puts in the Left.

That’s because the Left makes serious bank off keeping Roe v. Wade in place. Any time a politician suggests even a slight restriction on abortion, the Left whips its supporters into a frenzy and asks them for money. The supporters send money (and dress up like giant vaginas for some reason) to Leftist politicians who will defend the right to kill babies in the womb. Then, sometimes these politicians get into positions where they can allocate federal tax dollars to abortion providers like Planned Parenthood (not directly of course because it would be illegal) who then pays executives with said funds who then turn around and donate money back to the politicians who got them the tax dollars to begin with. No matter how much the Left tries to launder the funds they use for abortion clinics, it is literally blood money.

As much as I disdain abortion as a practice, Roe v. Wade will remain unaffected at least for now. Even with Brett Kavanaugh’s potential appointment to the Supreme Court, it would still take a legal challenge to Roe before any judge, let alone a Supreme Court Justice, would get a chance to render a verdict. But the Left still needs to keep that sweet abortion cash flowing into its coffers (especially considering the DNC makes Arthur Andersen look fiscally responsible). That means maintaining the lies they’ve told since the original court case was settled.

But now that you know some of the ins and outs of the lies, you can be ready to address the lies when they’re told.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


By the time you read this, Neil Gorsuch will have been confirmed to fill the vacancy on the US Supreme Court left by the late Antonin Scalia. And, by the time you read this, Leftists will still be whining about it.

There were a number of reasons Senate Democrats voted against Gorsuch, ranging from his “extreme” viewpoints (like daring to follow the letter of the law instead of inventing new legal meanings out of nothing) to being too legalistic. That last one was courtesy of California Senator Kamala Harris. Finally, we have someone who can fill the intellectual void left when Joe Biden left the Senate!

One of the more common ones, though, was that Gorsuch was not mainstream enough to be a Justice. Of course, when I consulted the Constitution, I didn’t find any requirement to serve on the Supreme Court, but hey, I’m just too legalistic. However, I did find an interesting topic for this week’s Lexicon.


What the Left believes it means – conforming to societal norms as the Left defines them

What it really means – conforming to societal norms as society defines them

When the Left calls something mainstream, it needs to be viewed within context. Remember, the Left considers abortion for any reasons to be normal, so their concept of mainstream is more skewed than the Leaning Tower of Pisa. These are the same people who thought Hillary Clinton was qualified to be President because she lived there for 8 years, won a Senate seat that would have gone to any Democrat this side of Al Gore, and did an abysmal job as Secretary of State. So, yeah, let’s not take their ideas about what constitutes mainstream thinking too seriously.

The important thing to remember is what is considered mainstream can change depending upon time and your perspective. At one time, treating blacks as inferior unintelligent subhumans was considered to be mainstream. Now, we know better and have adjusted our thinking accordingly. Even so, there may come a time when our past thinking becomes mainstream again. And if so, I will be the king of bell bottoms and polyester leisure suits!

The fact mainstream thinking can change is not a good baseline by which to judge potential Supreme Court Justices. If justice is subject to the will of the people, there would be a lot more chaos than there is now. Think of it as a combination of American Idol and America’s Most Wanted. And the cute criminals will get off because the teenage girl population thinks they’re dreamy. Sure, this guy killed 14 people in a food court with an arsenal of assault weapons, but he looks like Johnny Depp, so he gets off.

And if you don’t think that will happen, let me remind you Rolling Stone put one of the Boston Marathon bombers on their cover and then defended it.

The Left will attempt to paint Gorsuch as outside of the mainstream because of the means by which he was appointed to the Supreme Court. When you consider it took Senate Republicans to use the Constitutional option (also known as the nuclear option) to change requirement for approval from 60 votes to a simple majority and the confirmation vote was 54-45, the Left appears to have a point.

That’s where additional context comes into play. President Barack Obama submitted Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan’s names to the Senate and they were confirmed by votes of 68-31 and 63-37, respectively. Yet, when you look at their previous rulings and rulings since becoming Supreme Court Justices, the “confirmation votes mean how close they are to mainstream” argument goes right out the window. Not that they’d admit it, mind you…

The problem with the Left’s argument against Gorsuch is that it’s based on a logical fallacy known as an appeal to popularity. In short, it’s the belief something is correct because it’s a commonly held belief. And with the Left trying to define what should be believed, they may truly believe Gorsuch isn’t qualified because he isn’t popular. Of course, this neglects the years he’s spent on the bench, the quality of his rulings, and, oh yeah, his unanimous confirmation to the Tenth Circuit Court in July 2006 by the Senate (with confirmation votes from Senate Democrats who opposed him this year, I might add).

When the Left says Gorsuch is outside of the mainstream, it’s an excuse to divert attention away from the real reason they oppose him: he was appointed by President Donald Trump. Had he been appointed by President Hillary Clinton (a doubtful proposition, but hear me out), the Senate Democrats would have made him seem like the most mainstream candidate out there. The fact they oppose his politics and decision to follow the law instead of his feelings tells you they’re not really interested in the mainstream. They’re interested in advancing their ideology.

And by doing that, they gained…the ability to call Neil Gorsuch a Supreme Court Justice. Brilliant strategy, kids.

To Nuke or Not to Nuke?


Recently, the Senate Judiciary Committee started confirmation hearings for Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, Neil Goresuch. And to be honest, it was a snoozefest unless you were a Democrat looking to score political points. Then it was a snoozefest and a series epic fails.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and other Senate Democrats have announced they would oppose Goresuch’s nomination and would attempt to filibuster it. Basically, a filibuster is when a Senator or a group of Senators attempt to derail progress on a particular bill or nomination by speaking for long periods. In other words, it’s what they do when they’re on Sunday news programs, just without as many cameras around.

Senate Republicans, on the other hand, have a not-so-secret weapon. Thanks to the machinations of former Senate Majority Leader and exercise equipment victim Harry Reid, the Senate can approve nominations with a simple majority, a move known as the nuclear option. Typically, judicial nominations needed 60 votes to win appointment, but thanks to Reid, that’s no longer the case.

Since I have no life to speak of, I have given the arguments for and against turning the Senate chamber into Chernobyl on the Potomac some thought, and I figured out the nuclear option may be a foregone conclusion at this point. Republicans have the votes in the Senate just on a straight party line vote to approve Goresuch, and Democrats haven’t figured out how to stop shooting themselves in the foot with a Howitzer to realize they’re not in a good position politically to make a stand. Having said that, I think I might have come up with a way to curtail the fallout from using the nuclear option.

One of the main arguments Democrats have raised in opposition to Goresuch revolves around President Barack Obama’s choice to fill the vacancy left by the late Antonin Scalia, Merrick Garland. Democrats feel Garland should get a hearing before Goresuch because they feel Garland’s seat was stolen. (Well, that’s what happens when you run an unlikable candidate with the political intelligence of a pet rock.) Republicans have resisted, and with good reason I might add. However, my idea involves giving the Democrats what they want.

Yes, I want Garland to have a hearing.

But here’s where things get interesting. Since the Constitution only requires the Senate to give advice and consent to Presidential appointees, there is no need for a long protracted hearing. Just a simple “yea” or “nay.” All the Senate Judiciary Committee leader Charles Grassley needs to do is open the hearing, say “We don’t approve Garland,” and adjourn. They would be done in time for brunch or an early lunch if they wanted to really draw out the hearing. It’s simple, Constitutional, and removes one of the Democrats’ arguments against Goresuch in one fell swoop.

Then, all the Democrats will have is political reasons to oppose Goresuch, which in all honesty are the only reasons they have to oppose him. And they will look like dumbasses to boot, while Donald Trump gets his Supreme Court nominee approved. That’s a win-win in my book.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week


Like it or not, theft is a part of human history. From the first time Og saw something Grog had and wanted, the idea of taking what doesn’t belong to you has been a part of us as a species. Even though we’ve advanced from Og and Grog’s day (we now have a federal government to steal from and for us), we still have theft, from the small to the grand.

To hear Leftists talk these days, Donald Trump successfully stole a seat on the US Supreme Court with the help of Senate Republicans. See, President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland last year to fill a vacancy left by the late Antonin Scalia, but Senate Republicans refused to hold confirmation hearings since it was the last year of Obama’s Presidency. After much kicking, screaming, swearing, and general pouting, the Left have now stated Trump should not be allowed to nominate anyone until Garland is given a hearing, citing Trump “stole a seat.”

Brace yourselves, kids. This one is going to be a doozy.

stolen seat

What the Left believes it means – a spot on the Supreme Court taken by Donald Trump and Senate Republicans that should go to Merrick Garland

What it really means – the Left are still being sore losers

Before we speak about the present, we need to take a step back to talk about the Garland nomination. Although President Obama nominated him, there is no requirement for there to be confirmation hearings. The Constitution states the Senate is to give “advice and consent” on nominees, but it doesn’t go into detail as to the form this advice and consent is to take. The confirmation hearing is a Senate creation and has given us such memorable moments as Republican nominees being grilled like a Chik Fil A sandwich, and Republicans rolling over for Democrat nominees.

Back when Democrats thought Hillary Clinton would win, they warned Republicans not to block Garland’s nomination because they were going to keep the White House. Yeah, how’d that work out for ya? Pretty good?

Now that they are not only out of the White House for the short and possibly long term, but also in the minority of the Senate, Democrats are relying on the stupidity of their followers to create a crisis where there is none. Trump’s victory means he gets to nominate whomever he wants to fill the Supreme Court vacancy. Period. Full stop. The End. Thank you for playing, and here are your lovely parting gifts.

In case you haven’t figured it out yet, I reject the “stolen seat” notion completely because it was never the Left’s seat to begin with. The fact Obama nominated someone to fill the vacancy is immaterial. It does not grant ownership of said seat to any one party or ideology.

But, as with most things Leftists complain about, there’s more to the story. With Scalia’s death, the Supreme Court stood at 8 members. Four of the Justices vote consistently to the Left, three vote to the Right, and one is a wild card that votes inconsistently for either side. Garland’s successful appointment to the Supreme Court would give the Left a minimum of a 5-4 decision in their favor in practically every case that got to the high court.

Then, Donald Trump won the Presidency and that Leftist Supreme Court wet dream became a pipe dream. Now, the Left can still count on their 4 favorite Justices to vote the way they want, but the Right may have 4 Justices of their own if/when Gorsuch gets confirmed by a Republican-lead Senate. Granted, the Left may still get 5-4 decisions, but they aren’t going to be guaranteed. Then, the Leftist Justices will have to actually make compelling arguments to create the majorities they want.

And we know how Leftists hate to actually work for something.

When you consider the Left feels Trump stole the 2016 election by, you know, actually campaigning in states instead of letting Hillary win them, the “stolen seat” idea isn’t that unusual. The Left is trying to find any way they can to instill doubt in people’s minds that Trump is legitimate, so if they can get enough people to think he’s a thief they will get what they want.

The problem is the more they rely on this line of thinking, the less effective it becomes. And it doesn’t get any easier when there is no evidence to back up the notion Trump stole anything. But a lack of facts hasn’t stopped the Left before, so it’s not going to stop them now. Of course, that doesn’t mean we have to play along, does it?

Winning the Supreme Court


A lot is being made on both sides of the political aisle of the future of the Supreme Court, and both major party candidates are prospectively expected to replace at least one or two Justices in their futures should they win the Presidency.

Although the next President will have a decision or two to make on the Supreme Court front, he or she has an important partner in that decision: the US Senate. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is where the Supreme Court can be won.

It’s a common perception that Presidents will pick Justices in line with the same political and ideological bent as the President picking them. That’s half true. When Democrats and Leftists get into power, they have no trouble picking similarly-minded people to fill vacancies. That’s how we got Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. (But more on that in a bit.)

When it comes to Republicans…the reverse tends to be true. Sure, you’ll get a conservative Justice once in a while, but more often than not, Republicans don’t get the conservative Justice they want and compromise on a moderate Justice.

That’s where the Senate comes into the equation. Under current interpretation of the Constitution, Supreme Court Justices undergo confirmation hearings where both sides do their best to malign or deify the nominee. When it comes to the Left, they bring their A games. When it comes to the Right, they bring their C- games. A lot of that has to do with who is in the Senate. There are few rock-ribbed conservatives in the Senate, and those who are usually aren’t on the Judiciary Committee. That plum of an assignment tends to go to party hacks who are more concerned about getting along than getting the job done.

Then, when it gets to the full Senate, the Republican party hacks get their surrender pants on and cave. Remember Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg? Remember the Clarence Thomas hearings? Now, remember the Kagan and Sotomayor hearings? Remember David Souter, Anthony Kennedy, and John Roberts and how they were more squishy than principled? The dance was different, but the song remained the same: the Left gets what it wants, while the Right gets to capitulate without getting any positive PR for it.

With the 2016 election, it’s important to consider what the head of each major party’s ticket will do for candidates further down the ballot. Republicans have to defend more Senate candidates, which may give Democrats a bit of an edge. A lot will depend on how the Democrats can make either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders attractive to the Democrat base so their turnout is greater than the Republicans. If that happens, Democrats can take back the Senate and have a shot to take back the House.

On the other side, Republicans typically don’t need much of a reason to go out and vote. To them, it’s more of a duty than a task, and they take it very seriously. Having said that, Republican turnout has to at least match Democrat turnout for there to be any hope of holding the Senate. Then, it becomes a matter of which brand of conservatism holds the Senate. If it’s the conservatism of a Ted Cruz, then the next President will have a bit more spine. If it’s the conservatism of a Mitch McConnell, then a Jello spine it is!

Picking a President to nominate Supreme Court Justices is only half the battle. That President needs a Senate to uphold his or her ideological vision for the Supreme Court to truly change in a significant way.