Month: June 2022

Scared for the Future

A couple of weeks ago the Iowa Republican Party had its State Convention. And I am fearful for the future of my Country.

The mid-term convention is a quiet affair. It is filled with speeches of candidates running for those mid-term election offices and not much else.

There is always a vote on approving the rules of the convention and elected the convention chair and other officers. Usually without a hitch. No one wants to spend their Saturday all cooped up at the convention.

And then the only real business during a mid-term convention is to approve the party platform for the next two years. And this is where I became fearful.

There were two planks for consideration. The first was to have the state party be opposed to any call for a Convention of States. And the second was just the opposite, to have the state party in favor of any call for a Convention of States.

A hand counted votes was taken with the first proposed plank being approved by the majority of the delegates in the hall. A second hand count of votes was required and it resulted in the second plank being rejected by the majority of the delegates in the hall. A sure win for Iowa and the Republican Party.

But the Useful Idiots who support such a dangerous call wanted the results to be different. So much in fact, that they called for a motion to suspend the rules of the convention in hopes that the previous votes could be nullified and changed.

Ironically, this is what those Useful Idiots say would never happen at a Convention of States. The very thing that they are doing at the state convention of the party. And they are too blind to even see or understand it.

Fortunately, reason prevailed and the motion was defeated without the votes being altered or nullified. But this kind of thing could very easily happen at a Convention of States if one does get called. And it would spell the end for this Republic.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

If you heard some shouting coming from the vicinity of Washington, DC, lately, you might be surprised to learn it wasn’t Leftists this microsecond. With the help of 14 Republican Senators, a new gun control bill called the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act will be brought before the Senate for debate and what proponents hope will be passage. That number swelled to 15 when it was brought to a vote, ensuring the bill’s passage and sending it to the House of Representatives for a vote. As you might expect from a government body who can’t balance its/our own checkbook, it’s a mixed bag of good ideas (more funding for mental health in communities) and letting-Eric-Swalwell-write-anti-spying-legislation-level bad ideas.

One of the items in the bill is an idea that Leftists have been promoting for a couple of years now called “red flag laws.” Where does this idea fall on the good-to-Swalwell scale? Let’s find out!

red flag laws

What the Left thinks it means – laws designed to prevent potential shooters from committing mass shootings before they happen

What it really means – the latest in a long line of gun control measures destined to fail

Without going too far into the weeds with terminology, here are the basics behind red flag laws. If a gun owner takes actions that suggest he or she will harm himself/herself or others, family members and/or law enforcement can ask a judge to intervene and prohibit the gun owner from accessing his/her guns. This is meant to be a temporary measure so the gun owner can get the help he/she needs to deal with the issues that raised the red flags in the first place. Surely this is a good idea, right?

Take a drive over to the road to Hell and let me know what you find.

Aside from the obvious “Minority Report” vibe, there are more than a few things wrong with red flag laws. The biggest issue is the fact just about anything can be seen as a trigger (see what I did there?) to raise red flags. If you suddenly do a lot of searching on the Interwebs for guns, that can be a red flag. If you suddenly do a lot of searching on the Interwebs for yoga, that can’t be a red flag, but it may certainly put your Man Card in jeopardy. That applies to you, too, ladies.

If anything can be a red flag, than everything can be, which creates an environment where a gun owner who has not committed a crime is automatically assumed to be the next mass shooter with zero hard evidence. Maybe the gun owner was trying to do comparison shopping for his or her next purchase and decided to look up gun reviews online. Or maybe he/she had a question about legal modifications for a gun or rifle he/she already owned. To the Left, these are red flags that can cause the legal ball a-rollin’.

And that’s where things get really messy, legally. The concerned family member or law enforcement officer goes to a judge to issue a temporary injunction on the basis of public safety. Oh, I forgot to mention this tiny detail: the gun owner doesn’t even need to be at the hearing for the injunction to be approved.

Hey, wait a minute. Isn’t there something about the accused being able to face his accusers in some document that’s fairly important to Americans? Well, there is the Sixth Amendment that deals with criminal trials requiring a swift trial before a jury of one’s peers, so that doesn’t necessarily apply here. However, there are several good arguments to be made with the Seventh and Eighth Amendments that would apply. The Seventh secures the right to a jury trial “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars…” (which would cover pretty much all firearms, especially with inflation these days, amirite) and the Eight states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Although the Sixth Amendment argument is more emotionally compelling, the stronger case is made with the Seventh and Eight Amendments in my opinion.

You can quit laughing now.

Still, the fact a gun owner can have his/her guns taken by a judge, even temporarily, without an opportunity to offer a defense isn’t a good look. It’s made worse by the idea there are some judges on various benches who would rubber-stamp any possible red flag as legitimate. Subscribe to the wrong political ideology, express your freedoms in a way someone else doesn’t like, take your Starbucks without whipped cream and sprinkles, order the wrong color wine with your meal, the possibilities are endless. And they’re also very stupid and easy to abuse. All it takes is one pissed-off ex who carries a grudge and a pro-gun control judge to get your property taken from you without recourse, all without you committing a criminal or civil infraction.

All in the name of public safety. Preemptive public safety, that is.

Or at least that’s what fans of red flag laws will tell you. How are they doing in practice? Welllllll…that’s a bit of a hard one to answer. Currently there are 19 states with red flag laws in place, as well as the District of Columbia. As of this writing, the jury is still out on whether red flag laws are effective in dealing with potential mass shootings, which makes it hard to make the argument they work. After all, in order to confirm the effectiveness of said laws, the shooter would almost have to admit he or she was dissuaded from shooting people because of the red flag laws. And last time I checked, I don’t think that’s happened yet, if ever. However, red flag laws have had a definite impact on…suicide attempts, which represent a significant portion of annual gun deaths. Although this is a good thing, it’s not evidence of the laws’ effectiveness against mass shootings.

By the way, Illinois has red flag laws in place, but they still have several shootings every weekend. Why, it’s almost as if…people who are bound and determined to ignore the law will…ignore the law! In some cases, a desire to skirt the law makes lawbreakers creative. Right now there are any number of ways to avoid red flag laws altogether, including buying black market guns or hiding existing guns well in advance so they wouldn’t be confiscated. No matter how different red flag laws are from previous gun laws, they will invariably end in failure and fatalities.

Which is precisely what they’re intended to do.

Government isn’t in the problem-solving business because a) they don’t know how, and b) solving problems leads to less power and money going to politicians. Politicians need there to be mass shootings to justify power grabs disguised as long-overdue gun safety measures. But with each law that gets passed, we get further away from actual safety and personal freedom.

And red flag laws are waaaaaaaaay off in Leftist field, which is just down the road from Totalitarianville on the bad side of town.

All is not lost, however. Oklahoma actually has an anti-red flag law on the books, which is a step in the right direction. Any law that forces law-abiding citizens to compromise basic Constitutional rights on the promise of safety without a guarantee of it needs to be counteracted within the system of government. Even so, we cannot rely on the courts for favorable rulings, especially when you consider there will be a sitting Supreme Court Justice who couldn’t define what a woman is in spite of being one. If you hear of a politician pushing for red flag laws where you live, speak up and challenge the idea.

And if you’re in a state where any of the 15 Republican Senators who voted to pass the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, give them hell for not standing up for Constitutional rights.

And you can tell them I sent you.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

There are a lot of things to worry about in today’s world. Inflation more out of control than Lindsey Lohan and Charlie Sheen going on a bender with Dennis Rodman in Amsterdam. The potential for international war. Having to decide between paying for food or paying bills. The possibility of another “Scary Movie” sequel. It’s enough to drive one insane!

In my case, it’s closer to a walk around the corner than a drive, but the point remains.

One of the concerns the Left has had on its hivemind recently has been domestic terrorism. In the aftermath of January 6th, Leftists have sounded the alarm bells to watch out for sketchy men and women attempting to derail the country, threaten our democracy, and be general nogoodniks. Without the proper context, though, one cannot begin to grasp the issue. Unfortunately for Leftists, someone has been paying attention.

domestic terrorism

What the Left thinks it means – a movement motivated by hate and a desire to ruin our country through violent means

What it really means – a term that’s being thrown around more than a football at a Brett Favre barbecue

Politics, by its very nature, is an ugly, spiteful thing. In years past, Democrats and Republicans were divided on policy, but united in their desire to bring out the best in America and face any crisis together. As the statesmen of the past gave way to the current crop of short-sighted, reelection-minded egomaniacs with the morals of an alley cat, politics has gotten uglier, more spiteful, and a lot more personal. It seems as though even basic concepts, like, oh I don’t know…not talking about sex to kids still eating their boogers, are grounds for controversy, passionate screaming matches, and general bad behavior.

This eventually leads to asshats deciding to take matters into their own hands, often botching the effort to change public opinion. Anyone heard from Astroturf…I mean Occupy Wall Street lately? Unless they’ve decided to hitch their shopping carts to movements like Black Lives Matter or Antifa, they’re pretty much irrelevant and invisible these days. But their stench lingers…

What could be relegated to a few loud cranks you’ll find in just about any organization is now quickly becoming the unifying core of swaths of the population looking to change the status quo. This leads to an “ends justify the means” approach to political discourse, which opens the door for domestic terrorism.

Before we dive any further, we should define what terrorism is. There are a few variations on a theme depending on where you go to look up the definition, but there’s a unifying concept: the use of fear as a coercive agent. When you really think about it, fear is a powerful motivator. Just look at the caterwauling that has come since the leak of a memo suggesting the US Supreme Court would look to overturn Roe v. Wade. It was the leak that launched a thousand donation requests. And with the recent attempted assassination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, it also seems to have launched a lot of evil.

Yet, the actions of the attempted assassin are not seen by the Left as an example of domestic terrorism because…the end justifies the means. Leftists are fighting to protect the “right” to kill a baby in the womb, so they will get as dirty as they want to make it happen.

That brings us to a little pro-baby death group called Ruth Sent Us. They sprouted up after the aforementioned USSC leak and sought to protest for abortion rights by showing up at certain Justices’ homes, namely conservative Justices. And they went so far as to publish these Justices’ addresses, creating an element of intimidation or, dare I say it, fear. If you get a chance to read up on Ruth Sent Us, I suggest keeping a barf bag handy because they’re nucking futs.

Compare that to the January 6th protesters. To listen to the Left talk (and, really, why would you), these people were mere microseconds away from destroying the country by protesting an election they felt was stolen from then-President Donald Trump. Some protestors broke the law (which is bad enough as it is), but all of them are being painted as domestic terrorists. Whether they are is a matter of debate or, in the case of Leftists, incessant screaming.

Maybe it’s me, but it seems we don’t have a firm grasp on what constitutes domestic terrorism. The same Leftists who have their collectivist panties in a wad over January 6th are the ones excusing/justifying what Ruth Sent Us did (and screaming bloody murder over the threats being sent at the members of Ruth Sent Us for being degenerate fuck-knuckles). By viewing it through a partisan lens and taking on the same “ends justify the means” mentality, groups on both sides of the political spectrum are making things worse.

And, yes, I am “both sides-ing” here because it’s true. Several studies done in the past few years show at least some Democrats and Republicans believe force is necessary sometimes to protect their interests from outside forces (namely their ideological opponents). That’s sketchy in and of itself, but when you consider how creative people can get with the rules when they lack even basic standards, we’re entering a whole new level of clusterfuckery.

One that has the potential to be deadly.

That’s the part that really scares me. I’ve had a lingering dread for the past several years that America is one major manmade tragedy away from coming apart faster than the seams of an extra-tight dress worn by Melissa McCarthy. And with the possibility/likelihood of government law enforcement agents infiltrating some groups with the express intent of getting them to act up, that incident may be coming sooner rather than later.

That’s why it’s important we understand what domestic terrorism looks like and agree upon what constitutes it. Partisanship has no business in this process because it blinds us to the facts. Whether it’s a Leftist or a Rightist, domestic terrorism is a non-starter with me and is a tacit admission you have no legitimate arguments to speak of and, thus, can be disregarded.

Now, here’s the part neither side who advocates for the use of domestic terrorism for political ends realizes. If you justify it against others, it can be justified against you on the same grounds. And if you bitch about it when it’s done to you, you become a flaming hypocrite. At least, if I have anything to say about it and access to a flamethrower.

Be glad I don’t have the time to fill out the necessary paperwork to get the flamethrower permit.

In the meantime, we should be aware of the depths some people will go to score a political or ideological ends and not succumb to the temptation to give in. If something feels wrong, it probably is, and you shouldn’t do it. Because a) it will lead you down a path you won’t like, and b) eventually I will have the time to complete the paperwork.

And you wouldn’t like me when I have a flamethrower.

Beep Beep

The January 6th Committee has experienced a few problems bringing their case before the American people on national television. I mean, aside from not having much of a case to begin with. It seems the American people don’t care about what they have to say, judging by the ratings. But there’s a much bigger blow to their credibly than having Adam Schiff be a part of the proceedings.

It started with the Committee trying to convince us it wasn’t going to be a partisan witchhunt by…telling us repeatedly how non-partisan they were. Of course, this raised more red flags than a military parade in China. First off, too many of the particulars, including the two Republicans on the Committee, have already stated their objections to former President Donald Trump prior to the Committee’s creation. And by “objections” I mean “frothing-at-the-mouth insane partisan ramblings.”

Now, if this were anything other than a political sideshow, this might be seen as poisoning the well. Since it is a political sideshow, poisoning the well is not only allowed, but actively encouraged. After all, the Committee’s role is to get to the bottom of what happened without actually looking at all of the factors. And with House Democrats actively denying the picks of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy on the notion the picks were active participants in the “insurrection,” it was always going to end up being a one-sided affair.

My expectations were low enough as they were, but fuck me with a pine cone, I never figured the Committee would figure out a way to limbo under them and still have room for beehive hairdos. Although I failed to predict the length the Committee would go to secure its place in Wasted Taxpayer Money on Stupid Shit Only a Fraction of People Care About history, there was no doubt in my mind it would happen.

I don’t mean to toot my own horn to people who thought the January 6th Committee was a bunch of fact-finders trying to make the case President Trump incited an insurrection, but…beep beep.

Should He Stay or Should He Go?

One of the most pressing political questions on people’s minds right now (aside from how much Nancy Pelosi has had to drink) is whether former President Donald Trump will run for President in 2024. That may be a closely guarded secret, even moreso than the Nancy Pelosi question. A lot of people are sure he’s going to run while others are convinced he’s either not going to run or will be in prison by 2024, thus making it a moot point.

The fact is no one knows for sure. I’m not even sure if Trump knows yet, but in the interest of whipping up more wild speculation online, I did some thinking on the subject and I think I have some points to consider. Granted, I’m not inside the former President’s head, so I can’t say for certain what you’re about to read is accurate, but I can tell you it’s bound to be a lot more accurate than any reporting done by Vox. (A low bar, sure, but hey, I gotta start somewhere.)

He’s Running

1) His base is still pretty strong – Contrary to Leftist belief, Donald Trump still remains pretty popular within Republican and conservative ranks. The fact he still polls higher than most candidates after being out of office is a testament to his staying power within the GOP. And his supporters are still on board the Trump Train, no matter what. Honestly, I’d have to go back to Ronald Reagan to find a Republican with that kind of supporter loyalty, which is a testament to Trump.

2) He’ll be running against a weak field on both sides – Let’s face it. Neither major party has a deep bench going into 2024. On the Left we have President Joe Biden, who I’m not sure knows he is President, and possibly Vice President Kamala Harris, whose word salads make Biden look like William F. Buckley. Although there may be more challengers to the left of Biden and Harris, they may not jump into the race out of fear of being Bernie Sanders-ed. On the other side of the aisle, no one seems to be jumping out as a front runner. There is talk of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis being a front-runner for the Republicans, but as of yet, there has been no confirmation he’s running. That leaves Donald Trump to fill the void.

3) Unfinished business – In recent decades, we’ve gotten used to Presidents serving two terms, which makes it easier for Presidents to postpone certain pet projects until later in his Presidency. With Joe Biden winning in 2020, that interrupts or completely scuttles Trump’s plans…or does it? If Trump feels he has more to do, he may throw his hat into the ring as a means to get things done, and with 4 more years, it will be interesting to see what he takes on and how quickly it gets done. Operation Warp Speed may get left in the dust.

4) Sticking it to the Left – If there’s one thing Donald Trump is good at, it’s tweaking the Left. If you though Leftists’ heads exploded the first time, wait until Trump runs again, even if it’s just to get a predictable response out of them. If life gave out achievements like video games do, Trump would get the Trolling Leftists achievement without even really trying.

5) New voting laws for old voter fraud – In the aftermath of the 2020 election, some Republican-lead states enacted new voting laws, much to the chagrin of the Left. In spite of their caterwauling, Republicans put together some pretty solid proposals to restrict voter fraud where possible while taking some of the Left’s concerns about access to the polls into consideration. Since Trump’s post-Presidency legacy has revolved around voter fraud, he may use this as a platform to reenter the Presidential race and whip up support for this pet project.


He’s Not Running

1) Been there, done that – Trump has already been President once, and it’s caused a lot of headaches for him and his family, due in no small part to Leftists. At this point, even he has to wonder if it was worth it the first time around. To run again and possibly win opens up old wounds, rekindles old rivalries, and creates another level of emotional strain. Being President even once isn’t wussy work, and it takes a strong resolve and a stronger family to do it twice. Since he’s been President once, there may not be a desire to do it again.

2) The DeSantis factor – I know I mentioned Ron DeSantis earlier as not being in the race yet, but the possibility of him entering the race can’t be discounted yet. Since becoming Governor, DeSantis has shown many of the positive traits Trump supporters love while mitigating some of the negative traits that hurt Trump. From a strategic standpoint, if DeSantis can deliver the Trump agenda without the drawbacks, it may be better for the former President to step aside and delegate authority.

3) He’s a known entity – One of the things that frustrated the Left in 2016 was how Trump was able to beat Hillary Clinton. Although he’s spent a lot of time in the public eye (sometimes for the wrong reasons), there were still a lot of question marks surrounding his political savvy. In 4 years, though, many of those question marks have been answered because we’ve seen how he governed. He no longer has the element of surprise he did in 2016. Without it, he is more vulnerable.

4) The Agony of Defeat – It’s no secret Donald Trump has an ego, as do most politicians. What sets him apart from most politicians is how much of his ego is wrapped up in what he’s done or able to do. It was evident from when he was dealing in real estate in the 80s, when he was starring in “The Apprentice,” and when he was sitting in the White House. As such, the 2020 election loss stung him. This sets up a conflict within himself should he run again. His ego will not accept him losing a second time, but it may force him to run again to avenge the loss. Regardless of the decision, the possibility of losing again may be a deciding factor in whether he runs in 2024.

5) Voter fraud is still a concern – In spite of the aforementioned new voting laws, Leftists still have ways to play the system, thanks to our old friend Uncle George Soros. As we saw in 2020, it’s not only important to have the votes to win, but to have people in place to certify you have the votes to win. That’s where Uncle George has placed a lot of his faith (and more than a few dollars and candidates). Even with the new laws, voter fraud may be a concern, one that Trump may not be able to overcome.

I’m sure there are some factors I’ve missed, but I think I’ve hit enough of the big ones to get people to think and offer up their own wild-ass speculations!

An Open Letter to Taylor Lorenz

Hi, Taylor! I hope this finds you well. I won’t take up too much of your time since you’re a busy little bee on Twitter.

We need to talk. Seriously.

Over the past month or so, you’ve managed to piss off a lot of people for all the wrong reasons. As a journalist, that’s not always a good thing. I mean, if you piss off people for the right reason, like exposing their corruption or dirty dealings, you’re doing it right. Well…how can I put this delicately…I know.

You’re not doing it right.

Yes, I know you’ve worked for the New York Times and the Washington Post, two major newspapers, but that doesn’t make you a journalist necessarily. Think about the personal assistants who run and get coffee. They’re not journalists, either. But as someone with a byline, you have a responsibility to the truth. Just like the personal assistants, you are expected to do the job right, but unlike the personal assistants, you open yourself up to lawsuits if you fuck up.

Just like you did in the aftermath of the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial. In reporting on the online content creators who did legal analysis, you claimed to have spoken to dozens of them. Welllll…two of those dozens exposed you as a liar, stating you didn’t reach out to them until after your hit-piece…I mean article was published. Oops.

Actually, not an “oops.” That’s a breach of journalistic ethics, if that even exists anymore. As hard as it would be for someone to overlook it, you continue to make it worse by blaming everyone else for your mistakes. Since you got called out rightly for your actions, you’ve played the victim, claiming there was “miscommunication” and a “bad faith campaign” that fueled the controversy. Even if we take your statements at face value, it doesn’t remove your responsibility since it’s your name on the byline.

The fact the Post tried to cover it up with stealth edits and nonsensical editor’s notes don’t help, either. When the Post‘s own media critic says the paper and you fucked up…ya fucked up!

The bigger problem for you is this seems to be your standard operating procedure. Whether it was the Libs of TikTok hit-piece…I mean story or the more recent clusterfuck, you’re quick to make the story about you and how you’re being attacked, thus making you a victim. You even have your talking points down. Whenever you sit down with a sympathetic ear, you talk about “bd faith campaigns” and “online harassment” from randos.

But aren’t you the technology reporter for the Post dealing with online culture?

The fact you’ve had that position at two major newspapers and yet don’t seem to understand the very subject matter you’re supposed to know about (i.e. the reason you’re drawing a paycheck) is a pretty big tell. You are the embodiment of the Peter Principle, only you suck at your job at every level. At this point, I’m not sure I’d trust you to get me a coffee, let alone write a published article. Count your blessings the Post doesn’t share my opinion, but at some point your career will reach a point of diminishing returns.

Let’s just say the fat lady is on in five.

Before you dismiss me as a “bad faith actor,” understand I studied journalism in college and actually hold a Masters Degree in it. I’ve walked beats, written articles under a deadline, and had to answer to editors for mistakes made. This isn’t a game for me; I genuinely want to see good journalism.

In looking at your background, though, I didn’t see where you took the same path. You have a degree in political science, which doesn’t disqualify you from a journalism career but doesn’t help establish even basic credentials. This isn’t me trying to be a gatekeeper, but rather me being a realist. From where I sit, you’re pretty much a blogger with an expense account.

Instead of listening to people like Brian Stelter (who is the journalistic equivalent of a potato), I hope you listen to what I’m about to say and take it to heart. You need to learn how to do your job before you do anything else. You’re young..ish, so you have time to take a journalism course or two from someone who has actually done the legwork. Granted, this might be harder than you accepting responsibility for your fuck-ups, but it will make you a better journalist.

Or at the very least, it will act like a jeweler’s cloth to expose the flaws in your current work.

Until then, please spend less time on Twitter and on making excuses and spend more time learning your craft.

Sincerely,

Thomas

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The past seven days has been rift with excitement, high hopes, and general giddiness from the Left because of one group of imbeciles…I mean Congresscritters: the January 6th Committee. After two long and expensive years, we are finally going to get to the truth about former President Donald Trump and the insurrection that brought this country to its knees!

At least, that’s what we’re being told. And we know Leftists would never lie or get people’s hopes up for no reason. That reminds me, has anyone seen Robert Mueller lately?

While we wait for the aftermath of the committee’s prime-time extravaganza, let’s see if we can’t pull off a Carnac the Magnificent performance by looking at the committee as a whole.

the January 6th Committee

What the Left thinks it means – a bipartisan effort to hold Donald Trump and his followers accountable for trying to overthrow the government

What it really means – a waste of time and money to get back at Donald Trump and his followers for winning the 2016 election

If there’s one thing the government knows how to do, it’s how to waste money (although, taking away our rights through pointless regulation is a close second). One of the ways they do this, or both for that matter, is through creating special committees to investigate one issue or another. And if it’s a hot button issue, you can bet your bottom dollar that isn’t already spoken for by the IRS that someone in Washington will say, “You know, we should form a committee to investigate why dogs lift their legs to pee.”

I didn’t say they were good hot button issues.

In the aftermath of the “insurrection” on January 6th, Leftists came up with the idea to investigate why it happened and who was responsible for it. Of course, they already “knew” Donald Trump was involved because…well, Donald Trump. So, like they do with global warming/climate change/climate catastrophes/whatever buzzword is popular with the Green New Deal crowd this microsecond, they worked backwards in the hopes they would find something that would produce the necessary linkage between Trump and the events of January 6th.

And after almost a year of public statements, committee meetings, and promises to bring people to justice, the January 6th Committee has…a TV special. Not the good kind like “A Charlie Brown Christmas” or “Frank Zappa’s Polka-Palooza,” either. We’re talking “Al Gore Reads War and Peace Live” levels of crapitude. Listen, nothing says “this is not a serious bunch of folks” like getting a TV producer to help make the message understandable and appealing to the general public. Hell, most of the public today doesn’t even watch network TV for the same reason they don’t take a drink out of the toilets at Chipotle: they’re full of shit.

Much like the politicians comprising the committee, appropriately enough. Looking at their roster there is a who-cares of political operatives, puffed up egos, and useful idiots. And that’s just Adam Schiff, the House Democrat partially responsible for the dreadful first impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Oh, and I forgot to mention he leaks more than a saggy diaper.

But he’s not the only subpar superstar here. There’s also Jamie Raskin, the House Democrat partially responsible for the even worse second impeachment trial of Donald Trump. (I’m sensing a pattern here.) The other House Democrats on board aren’t much better, ranging from the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee (not a bad get, to be fair) to someone whose main accomplishment to date has been…being friends with Nancy Pelosi.

But don’t think the Democrats are the only ones having fun picking committee members! They have two Republicans, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, to give the illusion of bipartisanship without sacrificing any of the committee’s lack of reputation and gravitas. Yes, I know most House Republicans refused to assist with this clown show…I mean committee, but that’s not without reason. For one, the members House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy suggested were shot down by House Democrats because, and I’m paraphrasing here, they didn’t want conspirators to the crime investigating it. More importantly, however, most House Republicans see what Cheney and Kinzinger didn’t: their presence was meant to be a distraction to give the impression the committee was a true bipartisan effort.

This is where I have to step in and clarify a point that often gets misunderstood by Leftists. Not all Leftists play for the blue team. Some Republicans have adopted Leftist thinking and tried to mold it into the main party by any means necessary. The problem is not every Leftist Republican is as overt as Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski. Some of them like Florida Senator Marco Rubio seem like rock-ribbed Republicans, but would be just fine with Big Daddy Government as long as they are running it. Just look up his changing positions on “common-good conservatism” and tell me he’s not willing to be an ideological switch hitter if the power grab was right.

And now, back to my rant on the January 6th Committee already in progress.

Both Kinzinger and Cheney are on the committee to a) give the illusion it’s actually bipartisan, b) give the Left some measure of cover against legitimate complaints as to the committee’s political ends, and c) stick it to Trump Republicans. But it’s this last reason that seems to be the prevailing one. As I mentioned earlier, the January 6th Committee is one big “fuck you” to Donald Trump after he beat Hillary Clinton in 2016. We can argue from now until “Firefly” gets a second season about whether it was a good idea to elect Trump, but it cannot be denied the Left has a raging hate-boner for him and the people who support him. While the committee itself has their collective hands on the table, the Department of Justice has been arresting protesters for various crimes, some legit, most bullshit, and have been keeping them in custody indefinitely. Basically, they’re being treated slightly better than suspected terrorists at Gitmo. And unlike the suspected terrorists, these protesters are American citizens with rights that are being denied by the very government investigating their actions.

All because Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton.

This isn’t to say there weren’t some idiots who took things too far because, well, there were. Their crimes should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Where I draw the line is calling what the majority of protesters did (peaceably assemble and not cause a fuss) an insurrection as a jumping off point for a mockery of justice wrapped in national security bunting. The entire premise of the January 6th Committee is predicated on the idea there was an actual threat to democracy (which we’ve never had in America) as presented by these protesters.

And that, dear readers, is bullshit.

No matter what the January 6th Committee televised special says or shows, it’s hard to overlook the numerous problems the committee has created merely by taking a bogus narrative and running with it like it was being chased by the defensive secondary of the Los Angeles Rams. But the best is yet to come. After being hyped as the end-all-and-be-all of investigations into the January 6th situation, committee aides are walking it back slightly, saying the TV special is an “opening argument” according to the Washington Post.

Oh, good. There may be more of this shit coming to TV screens near you. Yay?

The biggest problem I have with the committee (I mean aside from the laundry list I’ve already spewed for your reading pleasure) is it doesn’t seem to be serious in its stated mission. The fact Adam Schiff is allowed to get coffee for the committee, let alone have one of the seats on it, should outrage anyone with two brain cells to rub together. In other words, non-Leftists.

And with the committee’s TV special, their lack of seriousness is confirmed. Why in the hell would they need to televise what most people already know if they’ve been following the story? Why has the investigation been solely in one direction while ignoring actions from Democrat leaders that exacerbated the situation? Did members of the federal law enforcement community infiltrate the protest and attempt to incite criminal behavior, as some have shown on video? Is it really an insurrection if no one actually tried to overthrow the government?

These are the questions (among many, many others) the January 6th Committee can’t or won’t answer. This tells me they don’t want to get to the bottom of what happened; the Left needs the overblown “threat” as a weapon to give the impression Trump supporters are threats to America that are on the verge of destroying the country, overthrowing the government, and green-lighting a new “Dukes of Hazzard” series! The horror!

The biggest problem the Left faces with the January 6th Committee is the same one they faced with both impeachment trials, the Mueller Report, and everything else they thought would end the Trump Presidency: they overpromised and underdelivered. Just about everything they threw at Trump was all sizzle and no tofu, and to be fair there wasn’t that much sizzle to begin with. This is merely the latest in a long line of failures that make the “Scary Movie” franchise look good, and that’s a tall order.

Fortunately for us, the Left is more than up to the challenge of finding new ways to disappoint people!




Ignorant Meme

There is a meme going around on Social Media right now that was so poorly thought out it just makes me laugh. Of course the useful idiots are posting and re-posting it every day.

So where to begin with the flaws of this meme? It obviously a half baked idea, much like most of the Left’s so-called “thoughts.”

Well we will start at the beginning.

Its a letter to the editor of a printed newspaper. I think only the Left still reads those rags. And without Social Media anything in a newspaper doesn’t stand a chance of getting any circulation in the world these days. Not a very good start.

Nothing is less patriotic than giving up your arms to another nations military. The is the definition of surrender. I don’t think that the author of the letter even knows what patriotism is or how it works.

Not a lot of Americans, patriotic or otherwise, even OWN an assault weapon. But this shows the ignorance of both the author and the Left who continue to put out this kind of garbage. They really mean any semi-automatic rifle, which is most of them. But none of them are assault weapons by definition.

Then how does the desired outcome happen? One cannot mail weapons or ammunition through international mail. That and sending American weapons to a foreign nation, you would need to send ammunition too otherwise it would be worthless.

To have them shipped, would be an expensive and logistical undertaking. Sending weapons to a foreign nation’s military would be a violation of any number of treaties and international agreements.

Thus causing the senders to be war criminals at the least if not plunging America herself into this war and escalating the scope of the conflict.

Again, the idea is bunk to begin with and there is no way to implement the idea either. What fools are those who believe this kind of nonsense.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

After every mass shooting (except for the ones that occur nearly every weekend in Leftist utopia Chicago), Leftists bring up the need for “common sense gun control.” Of course, they never come out and say what that would look like, but, dammit, they care!

With the most recent shooting in Uvalde, Texas, though, Leftists changed tactics. Instead of calling for gun control, they’re now calling for gun safety. On the surface, that’s a move in the right direction since it seems to be an area of common ground between gun owners and gun control advocates.

If you’re expecting a “but” here, you should. There’s more to this concept than the Left wants us to know.

gun safety

What the Left thinks it means – a movement to curb gun violence as much as possible

What it really means – repackaged gun control

Advertisers love to play with phrasing to get consumers to believe a certain product is better than another or to gin up new interest in an existing product. That’s why you see “new and improved” in ads and on packaging. The idea is to get you to think a certain way that will either reinforce your current buying habits or get you to consider changing them.

The same principle is at work here. By switching from a pointed phrase (“gun control”) to one that seems more neutral (“gun safety”), the Left is hoping you will consider changing your opinion on gun control. After all, who wouldn’t be in favor of gun safety? Maybe Alec Baldwin, but he’s an outlier.

The thing is gun safety means different things to different people. Most gun owners already practice gun safety, such as not pointing guns at others and keeping guns and ammunition secured and stored in separate places. These are actions people can do themselves without having Big Brother giving us direction on how to do it. And considering the federal government has utter morons running departments, if not full branches, maybe we don’t need their help.

To Leftists, gun safety has nothing to do with what individuals can do, but rather what the government can do because they believe government is the source of all good (except if that government is run by those evil Republicans who take money from the National Rife Association to prevent meaningful and sensible gun laws from being passed). That’s why all of their solutions to the gun problem revolve around passing more laws, banning more guns, and demanding more from gun owners than they expect from the criminals who commit gun violence. But there is one common thread throughout these efforts.

Leftists don’t know shit about guns.

That fact alone should render their opinions on gun safety as irrelevant as Joe Biden’s teleprompter. Yet, with their emotional appeals whenever a shooting happens, no one stops to think whether we’ve tried some of these suggestions before. News Flash: we have. And it hasn’t stopped mass shootings at all. What it has done, however, is make the vast majority of mass shooters legal gun owners. That’s right. Most of the mass shooters (outside of Chicago, of course) have passed the background checks the Left have demanded. What’s next? More background checks to make up for the background checks we were told would stop mass shootings and didn’t? More hoops for law-abiding citizens to jump through that criminals will ignore?

The truth is the Left needs there to be more mass shootings to justify their power grabs in this case and to protect themselves from the inevitable backlash once enough gun owners get tired of being treated like potential criminals for merely wanting to own firearms. Now, if you’ve been paying attention (and I know you have), this runs counter to what the Left is saying they want now, gun safety. Banning certain guns doesn’t make them or us safer. The same with background checks, limits to ammunition purchases, or the number of bullets a gun or rifle can shoot before needing to be reloaded. In fact, nothing they’ve proposed have anything to do with safety, but everything to do with controlling people.

Just as it was intended.

There is one thing the Left can do to show their commitment to gun safety, that being offering gun safety training. Of course, they’ll have some competition from…the NRA. Yep, that same NRA that is super-duper evil and wants to kill schoolchildren so Bubba can have an AR-15 (according to the Left). Why haven’t gun safety advocates on the Left come up with something similar?

Because it’s all about getting rid of guns altogether. Oh, sure, Leftists won’t come out and say it unless they’re in friendly company, but that’s been their goal for a while now. No matter how they rebrand their approach, the endgame is always get rid of guns.

So, what do we do? Call out the newly-minted gun safety crowd and ask them what they’re going to do about actual gun safety and not the laundry list of Leftist demands that always come out after a shooting. And don’t let them get by with bullshit answers, either. Press them like they want to press gun owners to comply. Then, when they fail (and they will), point it out and tell everyone who will listen about their real agenda.

But if you want to really push for gun safety, Leftists, I have a piece of advise. Don’t arm yourselves. Leave it to the police to protect you. You know, the police you want to revamp/defund and have called racists with badges?

Have your next of kin let me know how that works out for you.

What is an AR-15?

An AR-15 Style Rifle

Most people would say an Assault Rifle, after all that’s what the AR means. And they would be wrong. AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle, the original manufacturer of the weapon.

The AR-15 has been copied by multiple manufactures over the decades since its introduction in 1956. And are commonly called an AR-15 even though they are truly an AR-15 style rifle.

The term Assault Rifle is debatable. Since “assault” is an action and thus any rifle can be used in an assault and be called an assault rifle in my book. Hell you can have an assault screwdriver if you use one in an assault.

But this is how the US Military defines an Assault Rifle:

  • It must be capable of selective fire. (that means Semi-Automatic, Fully Automatic, and Burst)
  • It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle, examples of intermediate cartridges are the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62×39mm and 5.56×45mm NATO.
  • Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.
  • It must have an effective range of at least 300 meters (330 yards).

The Colt AR-15, the most common AR-15 rifle in civilian hands, is semi-automatic-only. It is not capable of selective fire and therefore NOT an assault rifle by definition.

Semi-automatic weapons are the most common form of firearms today in both handguns and rifles and they have been around for a century. Semi-automatic means you don’t have to cock the weapon every time you fire a round. The next round loads automatically for easy firing.

The Browning BAR MK 3 is the same as any AR-15. Except it doesn’t look like a scary military weapon. Which is really why some people seem to hate the AR-15 style rifle.

A Browning BAR MK 3

Firearm enthusiasts like the AR-15 mainly due to the weapons versatility and dependability. A tried and true design that takes a lot of punishment.

So it’s not really the weapon that is the problem. We have had semi-automatic rifles and pistols for more than 100 years at this point. Although we have had mass shootings documented as far back as the 1920’s. A time period of high crime, gangsters, and fully automatic weapons. I’m guessing that mass shootings go back to the beginning of firearms.

Yes the weapon makes it easier to kill innocent people. But it shouldn’t be punished, nor should law abiding people. The weapon is necessary for a free people to remain free against an oppressive government. When a government becomes contrary to the Will of the People. Guns are the first victims.