Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Every so often, a phrase comes along that encompasses a political issue while simultaneously meaning little or nothing at all. This week, the phrase is “peaceful transfer of power.” It seems the Left has been floating an idea that if President Donald Trump doesn’t win the Presidential election this year he won’t leave office like he’s supposed to. Where they got that idea, I don’t know, but the President didn’t do himself any favors by giving a non-committal answer to the question when it was presented to him by a hack…I mean Playboy‘s correspondent in the White House Press Corps.

On second thought, I’m going to stick with hack.

The concept of a peaceful transfer of power isn’t a new one, but since it’s 2020, it might as well be the latest source of outrage within the Left. And a Leftist Lexicon entry to boot!

peaceful transfer of power

What the Left thinks it means – a President leaving the White House with dignity and respect for the outcome of an election

What it really means – the outgoing President acting like an adult instead of a whiny bitch

The concept of a peaceful transition of power has been tradition from George Washington on up to modern times. Then, Leftists had to go and upturn the Presidential apple cart in 2000 after George W. Bush beat Al Gore by actually winning the Electoral College vote. Instead of going the route of a graceful loser, they decided it would be a good idea to wreck a few things in the White House before W had a chance to fill out a change of address card. Granted, it was only $15,000 of damage, but it’s not the only thing that was damaged.

After George W. Bush left office, there were no allegations of damage to the White House or sabotage or even a cross word between the outgoing and incoming Administration. And this after W was accused of being Hitler. Hmmm…maybe it’s not just trash the Left believes in recycling. Nah, it’s still trash.

Before Barack Obama left office, members of the FBI (which falls under the Executive Branch in the hierarchy) started to take action against then-candidate Trump in an attempt to undercut his campaign. One debunked dossier, a few million taxpayer dollars spent on a Special Prosecutor, a farce of an impeachment trial, and a billion talking points later, the Left still hasn’t accepted the results of the 2016 election and are hell-bent on making it impossible for there to be a peaceful transfer of power.

Now, some Leftists are going to imply since there was no violence, there was a peaceful transfer of power. Coming from the side that says both silence and a lack of using the correct pronouns is violence, they should take a few seats. Like, say, all of them at Soldier Field. The point is there wasn’t a peaceful transfer of power because there was and still is active resistance to the transfer. From Lisa Page and Peter Strzok playing hide the salami while looking for an “insurance policy” that you can’t get from an agent to James Comey having a weird sense that destroying evidence necessary in an FBI investigation wasn’t that big of a deal to Sally Yates actively defying an Executive Order because she didn’t agree with it, there is no doubt in my mind the transferal of power from Obama to Trump was as peaceful as ANTIFA, and twice as mature.

Right now, there are threats of riots and violence if Trump wins. Somehow, I get the feeling there will be riots and violence even if he doesn’t win. Call it a hunch based on what ANTIFA/BLM/white Leftists LARPing as revolutionaries have said, but it’s clear there isn’t going to be peace in the midst of a transfer of power should Joe Biden stays awake enough to win the November election. This begs the question of whether the Left actually wants a peaceful transfer of power or if it’s just a convenient partisan excuse to create a self-fulfilling prophecy they have been in control of since 2016.

Guess which one I’m going with.

And, for once, with good reason. The Left believes the ends justify the means and they have a number of people at their disposal to get their hands dirty with the means so the leadership can keep theirs clean. That’s why the Left has been floating the idea of escalating violence leading up to Election Day; to drive up fear of voting for President Trump, which turns into support for Joe Biden or at least a suppression of the vote for Trump. (See, when the Left does it, voter suppression is okay.) Now, consider the Left’s tendency to expect the opposition knuckle-under their demands, even when the Left’s demands are as nonsensical as a spy thriller written by your average TikTok user. They don’t want their ideological enemies to agree to their terms. They want to rub the opposition’s noses in it. (See President Obama’s “I won” comment to Congressional Republicans for evidence.)

Good thing nothing bad ever happens when one side seeks to utterly embarrass the other side after a victory. Nothing like a world war or anything…

The Left clearly doesn’t want there to be a peaceful transfer of power because it plays into the seeds they’ve been sowing since 2016. But they will demand the Trump Administration play by the rules the Left has been pissing on for 20 years when they lose the Presidency. Just like when they oppose seating a Supreme Court Justice now after expecting it in 2016, it’s all about the end result.

Which is why we should take their outrage over President Trump not committing to a peaceful transfer of power with a Great Salt Lake. But it’s also important not to give the Left any ammunition (figuratively, not literally) by reacting to their violence, vitriol, and general jackassery. Consider the notion the Left needs people like us to look, sound, or be violent to “prove” them right about us, and unfortunately there are more than enough people out there who are more than happy to oblige.

However, that doesn’t mean we should be silent when we see the Left saying one thing and doing another. Call them out when you can and if you feel safe doing so, but don’t let the threat of what may come affect your judgment. The Left will not accept a peaceful transfer of power because it’s no longer in their nature. If they win, they will be sore winners, and if they lose, they will be violent losers. Vote for who you want and be mature about it, and the Left will have no hold over you.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled this week to exclude the Green Party and Kanye West on absentee ballots. Kanye, I can understand, but I have to admit I’m a little perplexed by the exclusion of the Green Party. You know who isn’t confused and is pretty happy at this turn of events?

Leftists.

And I’m sure there will be some on the Right happy at this decision because it gives them the ability to exclude other third parties that have the potential to drain Republican votes in upcoming elections. As someone who doesn’t subscribe to the two-parties-and-two-parties-only mindset, I’ve heard a lot of chatter leading up to this year’s Presidential election about how I’m “throwing away my vote” and “need to vote for a winner.” And I’m going to tell you the funny part after the introduction of this week’s Leftist Lexicon entry.

third parties

What the Left thinks it means – fringe kook parties that deprive Democrats of votes

What the Right things it means – fringe kook parties that deprive Republicans of votes

What it really means -parties that deprive Democrats and Republicans of votes because the choices suck

Did you notice the funny part? If not, it’s the fact both the Left and the Right use the same argument to try to persuade people like me to vote for their candidates. Once you decide not to root for the Red Team or the Blue Team, you hear these arguments almost constantly, and they all revolve around the same concerns. “If you don’t vote for X, then Y will win and horrible things will happen! Radicals will get selected for the US Supreme Court! Things you value will be under attack! Nickelback will put out a new CD! It will be Hell on Earth!”

As bad as a new Nickelback CD will be, it’s not a good enough reason for me to overrule my principles to pull the lever for Democrats or Republicans. I’m one of those weirdos who actually wants to vote for someone or something instead of voting against someone or something. This may come off as selfish to some, like a Leftist I interacted with on Facebook. To him, if I didn’t vote for Joe Biden, I was a) selfish, b) a Russian bot, c) not taking the 2020 election seriously, d) voting for Donald “Hitler-Satan” Trump, e) wasn’t being honest, and f) not intelligent. I will cop to that last one, but not the others.

The thing that scares the Left and the Right about third parties is it has the tendency to show how flawed the current two-party system has been for, oh, the past few decades. When your choices are a dog turd sandwich and a cow turd sandwich, at some point you get tired of eating turds and want to order something else off the menu. Granted, some of the third parties aren’t much better, but the result is the same: voters taking their votes to candidates and platforms they endorse more than the Democrats or the Republicans.

That’s why the Left and the Right use fear and shame to get potential voters to stick with the current status quo. Like with the example with the Leftist I mentioned above, he tried throwing out insults, threats (not against me, I have to say), and generally talking down to me like I was Cardi B trying to understand the Electoral College. Maybe she should have gone to the Electoral Junior College first, but that’s just my suggestion. Either way, when people can’t break through with their completely partisan arguments, they hunker down and double down on the very tactics that didn’t work the first time. And as failure after failure mount, the rhetoric gets more and more heated, and the insults break out.

Not a great way to win voters and influence policy.

For me the best argument in favor of third parties is we’ve let Democrats and Republicans run the government for decades and things aren’t getting any better. The national debt is more out of control than a daycare center run by Charlie Sheen. The partisan divide is getting wider by the day. The only way things get done in Congress anymore is with more riders than 2-for-1 days at the Moonlight Bunny Ranch, and even then it’s usually for advancing an agenda that has nothing to do with the original bill, only to have it turned against political opponents if they don’t vote in favor of some of the good things in the bill.

It’s been said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result. Guess what, kids? The current two-party system is the best example of insanity we have going. Voters are tired of the same-old-same-old that occurs every 4 years like a quadrennial STD and want something different. Why not give third parties a try? If they suck as much as Democrats and Republicans, they can be voted out in 4 years (except for some third parties who either want anarchy or Democratic Socialism). No harm, no foul.

But that would require Democrats and Republicans to give up power, and we know that’s about as likely as Ben Shapiro putting out a gangsta rap CD. Until the day they decide to grow up and share their toys we can only keep eating dung sandwiches and pretend they’re roast beef.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

In case you’ve been living under a rock (and, given the way 2020 has gone, I don’t blame you if you have), President Donald Trump has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. Twice.

That sound you hear is the sound of Leftists screaming in horror and their heads exploding.

I have written about this subject previously, but in the light of the Left’s screeching hissyfit over the President being nominated for it, I figured it wouldn’t hurt to take another look.

Nobel Peace Prize

What the Left thinks it means – a prestigious award given to those who advance global peace

What it really means – a once-prestigious award rarely given to truly deserving candidates anymore

Being nominated for a Nobel Prize, especially the Peace Prize, used to be a monumental honor because it showed you were a champion of world peace. In recent years, however, you could get a Cracker Jack box and receive a better prize with more of an impact to world peace. Especially those temporary tattoos! Those things are sweet!

But the question on the table is why the Nobel Peace Prize means as much as getting valedictorian of summer school. This can be explained by looking at two areas: the recent recipients, and the Nobel Committee itself.

Let’s start with the recent recipients. To put it mildly, the list reads like a Who’s Who of Who Not to Emulate. Sure, you have the Dalai Lama and Mother Teresa, but you also have Amnesty International, The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and Al Gore. To put it mildly, if the Peace Prize winners leaned any further left, they would be parallel with the ground.

And let’s not forget the aforementioned organizations have a track record of failure. Oh, they make great promises and have a vision few people would disagree with, but where are the results? I know, I know, societal change takes time, but at some point you have to ask whether the lofty vision and promises are resulting in actual change or are merely a front to score the change in people’s pockets.

Oh, and Amnesty International backs noted Philadelphia cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal, claiming he didn’t have a fair trial under “international standards.” Granted, they were given the Nobel Peace Prize before they stumped for a cop-killer, but hey. Leftists are going to Leftist.

So, who nominates these heads of knuckle for the Peace Prize? Why, that would be the Nobel Committee, of course! Although there are some areas where ideology can’t trump accomplishment, the Peace Prize has become an ideological award more than an award for accomplishments.

Like when former President Barack Obama won the Peace Prize in 2009.

At the time of the nomination, President Obama was lauded by the Nobel Committee for having the potential to bring world peace. Not that he brought it; he had the potential to do it. And this is after his main accomplishment was getting elected President of the United States by beating a weak Republican candidate. That’s like me being awarded the MVP of the Super Bowl because I have the potential to complete a pass against the Cleveland Browns. (To be fair, though, my elderly grandmother could complete a pass against the Cleveland Browns and she’s been dead for 2 years.)

This fact alone is an indictment of the Nobel Committee, or should be if we lived in a just and intelligent world. Given the fact it’s taken until this year for “Keeping Up with the Kardashians” to end, it’s pretty clear our world is neither just nor intelligent.

Even so, the Nobel Committee has the same problem the Left does: ideological blindness. By putting an ideology above picking the best candidate, the Nobel Committee might as well call themselves the Committee to Hand Out Undeserved Praise to Leftists Because Shut Up. And the kicker is by catering to the Left, the significance of the Nobel Peace Prize has gotten, well, less significant. Instead of picking candidates who might have actually done something to advance world peace, they’re picking people who haven’t done anything, but have the right position on issues.

Although President Trump has been nominated twice for the Nobel Peace Prize, I’m not sure I would be keen on accepting it if he wins. Just the company of those who also won the award would be damning enough.  

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The big news of the week was a story by The Atlantic alleging President Donald Trump disparaged veterans and Vietnam veterans specifically as “total losers.” And everyone from Fox News to former Vice President and current Democrat Presidential candidate Joe Biden has run with it like they stole it. Whether you believe it or not depends on something we haven’t really had a chance to discuss in detail for a while.

Unnamed sources.

As it turns out, The Atlantic‘s story relied heavily on unnamed sources, which can be a positive and a negative in journalistic circles. And, thanks to your humble correspondent, you will see why.

unnamed sources

What the Left thinks it means – valuable sources of information that get to the heart of most stories

What it really means – questionable sources of information at best

As a former journalism student, I can tell you unnamed sources can be a mixed bag because their credibility is completely reliant upon how much the reporter believes them. In the past, journalists could sense when there was the ring of truth to what a source said and when it was bullshit. Today, most journalists have a bullshit meter more broken than Matt Hardy. (If you get that reference, that would be DELIGHTFUL, yaaaaaaaaaas.)

Now, imagine a journalist who is predisposed to believe anything negative about President Trump, no matter how absurd it is. Guess what, kids? He/she is going to believe the negative stuff without so much as a first thought (because expecting them to have a second thought would be way above his/her pay grade).

This is where things get sticky. Under normal circumstances, anyone in the media who gets tricked by false information would get called out and discredited to the point not even the local Super Shopper would hire them. In the current media environment, though, that only happens if you’re not in league with the bulk of the media, which might as well be stenographers for the DNC. Even when getting caught time and time again falling for bad information, Leftists don’t lose any credibility. Compare the Left’s treatment of James O’Keefe and Rachel Maddow if you question this.

What does this have to do with unnamed sources? Regardless of the veracity of said sources, the Left has nothing to lose by believing them and reporting what they say. Meanwhile, the Right could get God to certify their statements and the Left wouldn’t believe it.

You know what beats unnamed sources, though? Named sources. With The Atlantic story, they have four unnamed sources. The number of named source? Zero, the same number of delegates Kamala Harris got. On the other side, the Trump Administration noted zero unnamed source, but ten named sources (including people who were there when the President allegedly made the statements attributed to him). Now, I’m no math major, but I’m pretty sure 10 is larger than 0, and that’s not even counting the fact the 10 are named sources.

That’s the double-edged Sword of Damocles when dealing with unnamed sources. Their truthfulness can’t be measured because we don’t know who they are, but the journalists do. That’s one level away from the source, which opens the journalist to scrutiny and questions of bias. And by questions, I mean certitudes. By protecting their sources by keeping them anonymous, they take on the criticism, often willingly, but even though the Left overlooks it, they lose the Credibility Olympics against named sources who come forward because there is no degree of separation from the original source with the latter.

Plus, there’s another thing to consider. There is a known and generally accepted practice of making up sources and/or quotes as needed. When you work a beat, you won’t always get the information you want or need for a story. If you’re being honest, you either find a way to get the information or try to write around it. If you’re a journalist today, you make it up. You know who uses similar practices? The National Enquirer.

Actually, I take that back. The Enquirer has standards.

To be honest, I don’t know who to believe when it comes to The Atlantic‘s piece, but I do know you can’t discount the fact a piece reliant solely on unnamed sources has fewer legs to stand on than Captain Ahab after his prosthetic leg was stolen.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

With the Republican National Convention finally over, Democrats and Republicans can start discussing issues that the American people really care about.

Who am I kidding? They’re discussing the Hatch Act.

President Donald Trump delivered some of his convention speeches from the White House, which the Left says is against the law. And now they’re complaining the President is getting away with it because no one believes in their latest screed to make him look like an authoritarian dictator unaccountable because of those evil Republicans.

If for no other reason than to get some mileage out of this controversy, let’s all drink some coffee and take some truck stop speed because things are about to get boring.

The Hatch Act

What the Left thinks it means – a law that prohibits federal officials from campaigning while serving the President

What it really means – an anachronistic law that no one enforces because of its potential for abuse

The Hatch Act of 1939 is a law designed to limit the political activities of federal employees working in the Executive Branch with some exceptions. Remember the last four words of the previous sentence because they will be important to understand later. Although this was done primarily to undercut political and monetary interests in policy decisions, it was also designed to ensure only qualified candidates obtained federal positions.

Yeah, that worked out as well as any of Joe Biden’s foreign policy ideas.

As politics, money, and special interest groups have become as inseparable as Bill Clinton and promiscuity, the Hatch Act seems to have lost its bite, if it ever had one to begin with. The key to the act’s power lies in two areas: personal responsibility in selecting Executive Branch officers, and enforcement of the act when violated. Without both parts in place, they’re just words on a page.

Which brings us back to the present day. The Left have their collectivist boxers in a bunch because they feel President Trump violated the Hatch Act by having RNC events at the White House. And, they would be right if only they looked a little harder at the Hatch Act.

Remember when I mentioned the exceptions earlier? Two of the people exempt from it are…the President and Vice President. Oops. Reading is fundamental, Leftists.

And it doesn’t take a lot of effort to understand why, but I’ll explain it anyway for any Leftists out there reading this. With every election cycle, the President and Vice President have the ability to lend their political might behind any number of candidates they choose, as well as campaigning for their own reelection. Applying the Hatch Act as the Left wants us to believe it must be applied means any sitting President and Vice President can’t campaign at all. Granted, this may not seem to be a bad thing on the surface, but it would give the other party (or other parties) free shots at the President and Vice President without giving them the power to defend themselves. Not only is that decidedly unfair, but it would be a gross violation of the First Amendment because the law as passed by Congress would be limiting a person’s freedom of speech.

Well, at least the Left is consistent with its contempt for free speech when the speech doesn’t agree with them, right?

Like it or not, Leftists, but President Trump didn’t violate the Hatch Act in any way by holding RNC events at the White House. Besides, aren’t we supposed to be staying in our homes due to COVID-19? After all, you did tell us lockdowns were effective in slowing it down…well, except if you’re a senior citizen living in New York State, California, or Michigan, that is. Regardless, the point remains the same: you don’t have a leg to stand on here. Either you deny the President freedom of speech or you open the door for future proceedings against the next Democrat President, or even previous ones. Much like the Biden/Harris ticket, either way it’s a lose-lose situation.

It’s also time we take a look at removing the Hatch Act altogether because it’s not working anymore. Both major parties have abandoned the accountability and enforcement elements of the law, and neither one really wants to be held to task on them. A law that goes unenforced is useless and shouldn’t be on the books anymore.

But let’s say you want to keep the Hatch Act in place. The only way I can see to salvage it is to amend it to the point it spells out every last detail of what the Executive Branch can and cannot do and forces Congress to act when it’s been violated. The drawback to that is it would create more bureaucracy and more ways for legally-minded scumbags…I mean Representatives to find and create loopholes so the other side can’t get away with doing what their side can. Essentially, it’s a wash, except for those who make money building immovable monuments to government sloth.

Of course, I have another solution. My idea would require politicians and candidates to undergo mental health evaluations for every stupid or impractical idea they come up with. After enough trips to take the test, they would be forced to retire and would no longer gain access to their government pensions, any positions that require a security clearance, and be deemed mentally unfit for any role with a PAC or special interest group and, thus, unemployable by said groups.

I call it the Booby Hatch Act, and I get the feeling it’s going to be very popular…

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

If 2020 wasn’t nuttier than squirrel scat right now, we have a new hot-button issue in the 2020 Presidential election: the United States Postal Service. And it all revolves around mail-in ballots. The Left believes (or at least purports to believe) President Donald Trump is purposely sabotaging the USPS so people can’t submit ballots through the mail. They say it’s because he knows he’ll lose, so he’s trying to curtail mail-in ballots that would be against him.

The Trump Administration has tried pushing back, citing changes that were requested back in 2016, and advising of the dwindling use of mail as justification for the actions taken. Even when the Postmaster General announced it would delay the implementation of changes, the Left wasn’t satisfied because, well, they’re never satisfied.

As you might expect, there’s a bit more to the issue than the Left wants you to know.

the USPS

What the Left thinks it means – a vital service that needs to be protected from the Trump Administration’s attempts to undercut it

What it really means – an exercise in mismanagement

To give a bit of perspective, we need to figure out exactly what the USPS is. Depending on who you ask, it’s either a federal agency, a private entity, or a hybrid of the two. Sybil had a better grasp on who she was than the USPS does. At any (postal) rate, it’s supposed to be revenue-neutral, which is a fancy term for not running a profit or a deficit. In other words, something the federal government can’t seem to do.

This was made more difficult due to the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, which required the USPS to change the way it handled health and retirement benefits for its employees. Prior to the law, the USPS used a “pay-as-you-go” method, but after 2006, it was required to fund several decades worth of both upfront. Since then, they ran up the kind of losses that you typically see a drunk oil tycoon in Vegas racking up while playing Keno (partially because of the alcohol, mostly because no one knows how to play Keno).

Since its inception, post offices got closed, sorting machines got decommissioned, and nobody was the wiser. Then, with the 2020 election and the Left’s obsession with ousting Trump, any actions that continued with these trends became controversial and an emergency. Of course, there’s another reason for this reaction from the Left. Earlier this month, the National Association of Letter Carriers endorsed…Joe Biden. I know! I was as shocked as you are!

I’ve written a bit about this in a previous blog post (that I can’t find anymore) as to why mail-in voting may not be that great an idea, and a lot comes down to how far a carrier might go to allow certain votes to get to their final destinations. If you don’t believe me (and I know you Leftists don’t), there have been a number of cases in the past few years where postal carriers have dumped campaign materials from candidates, altering votes, or even let mail go undelivered. Of course, all of this could be explained away, except for the fact the first two circumstances affected Republicans. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but when things seem to break in one way, it’s hard to dismiss it as an oopsie.

On top of that, the federal Election Assistance Commission determined over 28 million mail-in ballots cast were/are unaccounted for between 2012 and 2018. Even if you discount the notion I just floated above, that’s a pretty big chunk of uncounted votes. And when you consider the amount of lost or undelivered mail on top of that, it’s hard to make an argument the USPS is doing a good job. Of course, the Left will still try…

For me, the issue isn’t with the biases or possible ineptitude of the USPS, but rather how it’s being used as a political football to justify the biases and possible ineptitude. The Left didn’t give one tenth of a dang about it during the years they had control of the White House and both houses of Congress. They were too busy passing Obamacare, which made the Hindenburg disaster look like a Zippo lighter turned up too high. Now, when they need the votes to fulfill their 4 year long obsession, they’re coming around and pretending like they care. Granted, politicians do this more frequently than they change their underwear, but it bears noting that even after the initial “I’ll save you, Nell!” gets traction, the first ones to skip town are the politicians and nothing gets done.

But, hey, they got your votes and donations, so…win-win?

This is the part of the weekly Lexicon entry that I try to impart some wisdom and potential solutions to the problem, and it just so happens I have a few suggestions. First, repeal the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act so the USPS can get back to doing what they’re supposed to do: deliver mail to the wrong boxes. Seriously, why should they have to prefund health insurance and retirement benefits when there’s no way to tell how much of either postal employees will need?

At the same time, the USPS has to come down off the fence and clarify whether it wants to be a government or private entity. I’m guessing they’ll want to remain public because it gives them access to more funds and less accountability than being a private entity. Plus, it will postpone the need to modernize, which is another suggestion I would make. Let’s face it, the days of sending a letter to anyone are all but gone, leaving only junk mail and the occasional Publishers Clearing House mailer to deliver. Maybe a package now and then, but not much more than that. It’s time for the USPS to adapt to a new dynamic and learn new ways to fulfill its duties.

And, yes, that means revamped leadership, as well. The reason we’re having these issues is in large part to the fact the USPS hasn’t had solid leadership in place to address the changing environment of the modern day. The most forward-thinking thing they’ve done is create the Forever Stamp, and that’s only marginally better than sliced bread. Fix the leadership, and you’ll fix a lot of the problems.

Finally, and this is a big one, punish those who cannot or will not do their jobs without ideological biases. There is no excuse for a postal worker to infringe upon the rights of voters just because he or she doesn’t like a candidate. If voting by mail is so important, then make this a priority and clean house.

And I’m sure no Leftists would object, right? I mean, this is the issue you’re passionate about, right?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Remember when racism was bad? I do, and I still think that way. When someone like Steve King says something racist and stupid, there is near universal condemnation. When someone like Joe Biden says something racist and stupid, there is…much less condemnation.

See, even though the former Vice President has been making comments that would make David Duke tell you to cut it out, Joe Biden has a Get Out of Cancel Culture Free card: he’s evolved from his previous racism and reformed his views. How much he has evolved is in question, but the Left says the fact he’s changed is enough to excuse past behavior.

And as you’re about to see, this concept is as bogus as Joe Biden writing his own Tweets.

evolved

What the Left thinks it means – when someone renounced his or her past beliefs in favor of more progressive ideas

What it really means – when a Leftist says something bad and the Left wants to make people believe it’s no longer what the Leftist thinks, even when it is

First, a little peak behind the curtain. The inspiration for this week’s Lexicon entry came from a discussion I had with some Leftist friends of mine on Facebook. Another poster listed several times from Biden’s past where he was a racist, but the Leftists discarded the criticism by invoking the “he’s evolved” card. That might have explained some of his comments from the 1970s, where bad choices were as commonplace as they are today, but not his more recent statements about blacks. Remember his “you ain’t black” comment? Or how about his clumsy attempt to praise the Hispanic community’s diversity by suggesting the black community isn’t?

Yeah, he’s about as evolved as a can of Campbell’s Cream of Primordial Soup, but I’m sure he’s going to “evolve” again by the time he says something else racist. In other words, any second now.

The concept of Joe Biden “evolving” on race isn’t borne out by what he continues to do. The Left, however, can’t drop him from the 2020 Presidential ticket just yet because they think he’s the one who can beat President Donald Trump in November. Right now, they’re trying to use him as a jeweler’s cloth to expose the President’s faults, especially on race because they think Trump is weak on race relations and can be brought down by accusations of racism.

Of course, the Left never gives anyone outside of their ideological village the opportunity to “evolve.” Once you say something or do something or have a situation spun to make it look racist, you’re a racist for life. Doesn’t matter what you’ve done to atone for your past, no matter what you’ve said to denounce racism, if you’re on the Right, you’re a racist by default and can never evolve. Unless, of course, you become a complete sell-out like David “I’m a Paranoid Coke Fiend and All I Got Was This Lousy Website” Brock and start attacking the Right. Then, you are allowed to evolve and your past sins are washed away. I would say this is an example of the Leftist White Jesus Complex, but there’s nothing complex about it. It’s a simplistic way to try to memory-hole a Leftist’s racist, sexist, whatever-ist past the Left thinks people have to atone for, even when they act the same way later on down the line.

Make no mistake, I believe people can and do change, but the fact the Left allows only their allies to evolve on issues makes no sense. If they believe as I do, why tack on an ideological requirement to get the benefit of the doubt? It’s simple, really. The Left believes they are the most moral people on the planet, so in order for anyone to be forgiven for the past, he or she has to get the Left’s blessing.

Can you say “cult,” boys and girls? I knew you could.

The odd thing about the Left’s concept of “evolution” in this case is it doesn’t focus much on actions, which can be tracked and verified, so much as it focuses on ideas and assumptions, which can be faulty or dishonest. You can look back at what Joe Biden has said and supported during his time on Capitol Hill (although he would rather you not because it would be a “distraction”) to get a fix on what he truly believes. Ideas are harder to nail down because there isn’t always concrete evidence that supports them. People change their minds for all sorts of reasons, some of which defy reason. In order to show a change of heart, though, there has to be more to it than just ether.

And I have a great example of this: the late Senator from South Carolina, Strom Thurmond. He was a racist in his early years (which, I believe, were somewhere in the Stone Age) and even ran for President on a segregationist platform in 1948. The Left still invoke his name as proof of the Republicans’ racism, in spite of the fact he was a Democrat for a good chunk of his time. Also, he switched parties in the 1960s, which the Left use as proof of a party switch in the 1960s, but that’s a Leftist Lexicon post for another time.

Now, here’s the M. Night Shyamalan twist ending few people know about. It turns out Thurmond wasn’t as much of a racist as the Left wants you to believe. Whether it was seeking justice for criminals who lynched a man, advocating for black membership at Augusta National, or sleeping with black women (okay, so that last one may not be as admirable, but work with me here), Thurmond’s actions prove he has more of a claim to be considered evolved than Joe Biden has. Thurmond may not have fully renounced his past, but he didn’t shy away from it, nor did he seek forgiveness. He was who he was, warts and all.

Meanwhile, Joe Biden is getting forgiveness for his past, and present I might add, in spite of not doing anything but be a Democrat. This shows the ultimate absurdity of the Left’s concept of evolution: ideas and words mean more than deeds, even when the ideas and words don’t show any substantive change.

If that’s what they’re going with, the Left may be writing their own unhappy ending in November.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

I know this is going to come as a shock to many of you, but I have a confession. I…am a white man.

And I’ll bet a number of you reading this may also be white. With that skin color comes a lot of baggage according to the Left. We have privilege (although I’m still waiting for some of that privilege to kick in because I want a Dodge Charger), but we’re also pretty protective of that privilege and our egos. The Left has a general term for the various aspects of being white: whiteness.

Better grab a lunch, folks, because this one is going to take a while to unpack…

whiteness

What the Left thinks it means – the condition white people have that makes them hypersensitive to legitimate criticisms about their socioeconomic status

What it really means – the oversimplification of white culture to justify racism against whites

The Left accuses America of being a racist country, and there is merit to that position. The problem is the racism isn’t solely going in the direction the Left wants us to think. When you really look at this country objectively, there seems to be one group of people who can always be seen as racist, but never be seen as the victim of racism. That group is whites, or as I prefer to be called Honkey-Americans.

Look at the application of hate crime laws, for example. In case after case, there is reluctance to apply these laws when whites are the victims, even when Stevie Wonder could see the crimes were racially-motivated. But when the criminal is white, law enforcement immediately looks for racial motivations.

Of course, Leftists will brush this criticism off as “white fragility” or justified by pointing out white criminals who have gotten more lenient punishments than others, but it’s deeper than that. The same Leftists who decry the lack of “all people are created equal” when it pertains to justice for people of color want to make some people more equal than others. In a related story, the George Orwell estate is suing the Left for copyright infringement.

It should be pointed out, however, the Left has its own issues with whiteness, but in a different way. Instead of being overly sensitive of their privilege, they exercise it to the point of absurdity. The Wall of Moms in Portland (or as I call it San Francisco North) has found itself in the center of controversy, not because they’re grown women trying to defend spoiled brats throwing the worst temper tantrum in history, but because they’re a) primarily white, and b) taking over a movement started by Black Lives Matter. And this isn’t some white male outsider’s position; the blacks on the ground in Portland are saying it.

To borrow a phrase from that great philosopher Tom Jones, it’s not unusual for Leftists to do this. They see themselves as virtuous souls taking up for the causes of people of color, all while saying they want to get more people of color into positions of leadership. (I wonder how many of these Leftists supported Mia Love or Tim Scott because it would be really inconvenient if they chose not to support people of color for leadership positions on the basis of partisanship. But we know that never happens, right?) These folks see themselves as literal and figurative white knights, but the problem is they’re not helping anyone but themselves. Ditto with those on the other side of the equation who are prostrating themselves to blacks to show how “woke” they are and to apologize for being white. Nothing is gained by either speaking for blacks or bowing down to blacks except making white Leftists feel better. They see their skin color as a curse, but not so much of a curse as to prevent them from taking their self-righteous place as heroes and spokespeople for blacks.

Which, not surprisingly, is racist as fuck on multiple levels.

Which, also not surprisingly, makes them not that different from white supremacists, who are also racist as fuck on multiple levels.

Maybe it’s me, but I don’t see why a person’s skin color is a reason for pride or shame. You can be any color under the cultural rainbow and still be an asshole (See: Rev. Al Sharpton and the late Fred Phelps). Contrary to what Rachel Dolezal, Michael Jackson, and Shaun King tell you, you can’t choose the color of your skin. What makes someone worthy of praise or contempt is what he or she does. White Leftists are at cross purposes with their race, which makes their contempt of whiteness all the more humorous to me and frustrating for blacks in particular.

The Left wants everyone to be ashamed to be white because most of them feel ashamed and they feel anyone who is proud to be white is racist. (Of course, they already believe anyone who doesn’t think the way they do is racist, so it’s not much of a stretch for them.) The way to counter this is to focus on personal elements that have nothing to do with skin color. Be the best person you can be and you’ll never have to bother with the Left’s attempts to make you feel inferior. Remember, the Left wants to make everyone as miserable as they are, so if you take their comments with a grain of salt the size of, oh, the Great Salt Lake, you can rebuff their advances.

Better yet, you’ll confuse and annoy Leftists, which is fun in and of itself.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

As the situation in Portland continues to cement the idea of how gonzo the Left has gotten, the media are doing their parts to minimize the PR damage being done. Who knew trying to set a federal courthouse on fire and leaving trash everywhere would be bad for the image of a movement? Right now there are two narratives being expressed. One is based on on-the-ground videos of rioterrrrr…I mean protesters doing what is being attributed to them. The other is based on trying to downplay the situation to give the impression what we’re seeing isn’t what’s really going on.

Guess which one the media are running with.

As the Left tries to contain the blowback, they’ve come up with a turn of a phrase: mostly peaceful. Seems nice, doesn’t it? Well, I’m about to be the black fly in your Chardonnay if you believe that.

And no, I’m not being ironic, and yeah I really do think.

mostly peaceful

What the Left thinks it means – the best way to describe what’s going on in Portland well before Donald Trump sent his government stormtroopers to cause problems

What it really means –  a phrase designed to make you think what you’re seeing play out on live video isn’t what is happening on live video

To better understand the Left’s narrative, we need to figure out why it seems plausible. Since the rioterrrr…I mean protesters aren’t keen on letting people know who they are and what their motivations are (Spoiler Alert: it’s most likely socialism), it’s hard to pin down whether their motives are peaceful or violent. While this would be a problem for normal people, it’s actually a boon for the Left because it’s impossible to discern who is the second coming of Gandhi and who is the second coming of Guy Fawkes. With this uncertainty of motives, it’s plausible to say it’s only a handful of people committing the crimes, leaving the others’ hands clean.

On a larger scale, too, the Left’s narrative makes sense. The vast majority of Portland isn’t Beirut with better coffee shops. In fact, most of the chaos is contained within an approximately six block area that just so happens to be located in the same neighborhood as a federal courthouse. So, in all actuality to the Left, Portland is mostly peaceful.

If you’re expecting a “but” out of me, you know it’s about to drop.

Let’s take the “handful of criminals” aspect first. Appropriately enough, the Left’s own rhetoric against the police department destroys this idea. One of the Left’s favorite slogans during this flaming fiasco and others of a similar vein is “Silence Is Violence.” In essence, if you remain silent when there is a crime against another person being committed, you are condoning it. (Granted, these are some of the same nozzleheads who also say words are violence, but that’s a blog post for another time.) Now, let’s apply that same thought process to Portland. If you see bad actors using your platform to cause harm to someone or something else, shouldn’t you be considered someone who condones the actions being taken? Wouldn’t your silence be violence, in this case literally?

As far as the larger Portland area is concerned, it’s true there’s only a limited area negatively impacted at the moment. However, when you have the Mayor and Governor giving silent consent for the anarchy going on, the fact it’s been contained to that six block area is a miracle in and of itself. What happens when that good fortune runs out and that six block area gets wider? Based on riots…I mean protests in other cities, it’s only a matter of time before the downtown folks decide to head to the suburbs (provided, of course, they don’t already live there in Mommy and Daddy’s basement). Then, the permissiveness granted previously might not survive much beyond the first incident between the protesters and the private security guard at the gate.

Even if I buy the notion Portland is mostly peaceful because the criminal activity is limited, it’s hard to argue with the video coverage. And, yes, you can claim these videos are out of context, but until you provide a viable alternate context, I have to go with what I see, and what I see is a less-than-peaceful protest. No matter how many shields you make and show off, no matter how many moms (or alleged moms) show up to form a wall, no matter how many veterans (or alleged veterans) supply support, no matter how many fathers (or alleged fathers) show up with leaf blowers, we have to believe what we’re seeing.

The Left can’t have that, though, so they’re trying to get us to disbelieve what we’re seeing. It’s a mild form of gaslighting, which is a grossly overused term these days to describe when someone tries to get another people or group of people to doubt themselves through psychological means. The Left’s tactics here are subtle, but evident and need to be called out for what it is: an attempt to downplay criminal behavior by ideological allies because the Left think it helps them against President Donald Trump in the upcoming Presidential election. In order for this to be successful, however, they have to lie repeatedly. Some are small, some are large, but all of them are lies.

That’s why their gaslighting attempts won’t work. We can see what the rioterrrr…I mean protesters are doing in the videos and livestreams. Spin it all you want, Leftists, but it’s clear these activities aren’t remotely peaceful, let alone mostly peaceful. The more you try to make it look and sound otherwise, the more foolish you look.

Then again, your partners in crime are LARPing as revolutionaries, so maybe you’re used to it by now. 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Just when you thought the rioting…I mean protesting in Portland couldn’t get much weirder, the federal government stepped in to show the Mayor of Portland how to really fuck things up. With the introduction of contractors working on behalf of the government, allegations of government overreach started flinging like poop in the monkey house.

And speaking of poop, that brings us to the Left. In recent days, they dusted off their copy of the Bill of Rights and found a concept they hope will turn the rhetorical tide in their favor: states’ rights. They argue the state and local governments are the ones who should be handling the situation because, well, they’ve done a bang-up job of it so far.

But do they have a point, aside from the ones atop their craniums? Let’s dive into this topic a bit more.

states’ rights

What the Left thinks it means – a Constitutionally guaranteed right to prevent the federal government from overstepping its bounds

What it really means – a concept the Left usually hates

The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution reads as follows:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

To put it in layman’s terms, if the Constitution says the federal government can’t do it, the States and/or the people take the reins. Granted, that’s like letting Kanye West run for President (but thankfully that will never happen right?), but it’s there and we abide by it.

Well, all except for the Left. Although they’re big fans of states’ rights now, they have a pretty long track record of “forgetting” the concept when it suits their needs. Gay marriage, sanctuary cities, and abortion all come to mind as examples of issues where the Left has told states to shove it because the federal government knows best. So, why the sudden 180?

President Donald Trump.

As much as the Left hates any power denied the federal government, they hate Trump more. Even after Portland Mayor Ted “I’m Not a Real Mayor, But I Stayed At a Holiday Inn Express Last Night” Wheeler bent over backwards for the protestors like a Cirque du Soleil performer at a yoga class, the protestors still hate his guts and want him to resign. Pro Tip for ya Teddy: these are not your friends, nor will they ever be. Yet, who’s leading the parade to defend the protestors? Ted Wheeler, because he hates Trump more than he hates being a target for a bunch of whiny children LARPing as badasses.

The Left loves to use the federal government, but hates when it’s used against their aims. Fortunately for them, there are enough Leftists in the federal bureaucracy to choke a Clydesdale. Unfortunately for them, most of that bureaucracy isn’t in the departments currently handling the Portland situation. That’s why it’s funny to me that they whip out the states’ rights card right now. Normally, the Left would be the ones in the SWAT gear tramping down the rights of the states (and, yes, I mean that metaphorically because I doubt they could pick up a check, let alone a helmet with a face plate).

More to the point, the Left may have one (a point, that is) depending on what is actually happening in Portland. One of the justifications for sending in the federal government was that protestors were trying to destroy federal property. If the boots on the ground are protecting said property, arresting the perps, and nothing else, the states’ rights argument goes out the window. Where things get tricky is if/when the federal government goes beyond protecting and arresting. If the contractors are just picking up random people on the streets without probable cause, then it opens up a whole new can of legal worms, but it has nothing to do with states’ rights. The rules of evidence and the rights of the accused are addressed at…the federal level. Oops.

And it’s this fundamental misunderstanding or purposeful distortion of such a simple concept that makes my weekly Leftist Lexicon missives necessary and somewhat entertaining. The Left manipulates words to evoke emotions so people don’t take a moment to realize they’re full of it. Once your brain kicks in, the Left doesn’t stand a chance.

Although I’m not a fan of sending in the federal government to handle domestic issues like we’re seeing in Portland, it’s hard to see where states’ rights has a role in it except for the Left to use it to provide cover for the assholes making Portland into San Francisco North. When the kids start going after federal property, the federal government has the authority to step in. I would hope it wouldn’t exercise it, but given the failures at the state and local levels, it was only a matter of time before President Trump acted.

The saddest part of all of this is the reason for the protests/riots has been lost. Right now, the Portland protests have zero to do with the death of George Floyd or holding police accountable for bad actions. It now has everything to do with advancing Leftist ideology at the expense of a city. George Floyd has become a footnote to a group of people who use his name and their hatred of the current President to justify bad behavior and even worse leadership.

But, please. Tell us all how destroying federal property helps. I’m sure your explanation will be as full of shit as some of Portland’s streets have become.