In the aftermath of recent Supreme Court decisions that Leftists didn’t like, they’ve adopted a new plan of attack: undermining the credibility of the High Court by any means necessary. It’s even gotten to the point a Georgetown law professor tweeted out a missive calling the Supreme Court “actively rogue.”
Hoo boy. It’s one thing for a lay Leftist to tweet out something this stupid, but when it’s someone teaching future attorneys, the stupid actually hurts.
First off, Leftists need to drop the “rogue court” bullshit because, well, it’s bovine scat. Regardless of how you feel about it, the fact remains each current Supreme Court Justice went through the same process with only minor deviations from the set script. The opposing party tries to sink the nomination through stupid “gotcha” questions asked by politicians who wouldn’t know habeas corpus from a hole in the ground, while the supporting party chucks more softballs than an explosion at a Nerf ball factory. Granted, it’s supposed to be more substantive than this, but this is the Senate we’re talking about here. You’re more likely to find a virgin on a porn set than you are a smart Senator.
One of the reasons the Left is committed to the “rogue Supreme Court” line is they got played by Mitch McConnell with an assist from Chuck Schumer. To try to get some of President Barack Obama’s judicial nominees through the confirmation process, Schumer set the precedent that a simple majority was good enough to approve the nominees. Well, McConnell applied that precedent to Supreme Court nominees, even after warning Senate Democrats of what could be coming if they went ahead with the Schumer strategy.
Then, there’s the Merrick Garland situation. Due to a vacancy on the High Court, President Obama had the opportunity to nominate a Justice, but McConnell again relied on precedent to block Garland’s nomination from going forward due to the vacancy occurring during a Presidential election year. As a result, Garland went from ineffective Supreme Court nominee to ineffective Attorney General, Donald Trump got three picks, and Leftists got their panties in a bunch because they got played by a Republican, and a Southern Republican at that!
That blow to the collectivist ego is what I think is driving the “rogue court” sentiment right now. The recent decisions going against the Left’s wishes add fuel to the fires of hatred, but it’s the agony of defeat that was the spark that set the kindling ablaze in the first place. And that’s what we have to fight right now. The Supreme Court isn’t acting on its own against the Constitution, as can be seen by, oh I don’t know, reading the fucking decisions before throwing a temper tantrum?
The thing is the Left doesn’t mind courts going rogue if the end result is what they wanted in the first place. Like Roe v. Wade, for example. The reason it’s been so controversial is because its legal and constitutional standing are shakier than Jello on the San Andreas Fault during a 4.8 on the Richter Scale. Or that analogy, even. Anyway, the point is the Roe decision was eventually going to come to a head and the foundation of balsa wood and wet tissue paper it was sitting on would crumble. If Leftists wanted to avoid this problem, they would have codified legal abortion through the legislative process. However, they didn’t because a) they’re short-sighted, b) they’re dumbasses, and c) they ironically relied too heavily on the conservative nature of the Supreme Court.
Now, I’m not talking politically conservative here. What I mean is the High Court’s tendency not to undo lower court rulings unless there’s a Constitutional means to do it. As much judicial activism as there is in this country, the USSC isn’t a hotbed for it. In many cases, the rulings are based on legal scholarship, understanding of Constitutional principles, and a dispassionate approach. With abortion, however, that last one goes right out the window with Justices playing to their respective crowds. That turns any confirmation hearings into a political Kabuki theater where a lot gets said, but little of substance is found. You know, like a Kamala Harris speech.
Since the advent of “Borking” judicial nominees, politicians from both sides have figured out the art of the “gotcha” question, most of which with nothing to do with the job duties. Whether it’s asking a nominee whether Roe v. Wade is “settled law” or what a woman is, we should be collectively asking “What the actual fuck?” It’s not to develop a full picture of a nominee’s legal philosophy; it’s to try to draw rhetorical and metaphorical blood.
And now it’s being used to demand three current Justices (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett) be impeached for, get this, perjury when they said Roe was “settled law” when they were under oath at their confirmation hearings. Since most Senators have the intellectual prowess of kale, they fail to understand the fact any judicial candidates can only speak to the condition of the Roe decision at the time of the hearing because…they haven’t had a chance to rule on cases brought before the Supreme Court yet.
You know, I take back what I said about most Senators. Kale understands chronology better.
If you’re basing your entire belief of a “rogue court” on the idea current Justices lied under oath about “settled law” before they got to be Justices, you’re missing the point completely. We’re not asking the High Court to be prognosticators. Their job is to interpret and apply the Constitution to cases brought before them. And with Roe, the “settled law” was on unsettled ground.
And while we’re here, let’s get something crystal clear: “settled law” is not a thing, especially these days when lawyers find all sorts of new ways to fuck up the language in defense of an idea, let alone a client. It may be a rare occurrence, but the Supreme Court does change its mind on legal matters (and not because some evil right wing cabal with deep pockets is secretly paying them under the robes). Some of the most recent examples of “settled law” being tossed out like Charlie Sheen at an AA meeting involve gun control. After decades of rulings that have allowed strict gun control laws in cities and states to stand, the Supreme Court has changed course and overturned previous decisions based on the Second Amendment, and it looks like those more recent rulings are going to stick, at least for now.
Even if you discount that example, there’s another example that you might have heard of where “settled law” got nuked. It’s called Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, a decision that reversed the “separate but equal” ruling from Plessy v. Ferguson.
Any Leftists want to call out that “rogue Supreme Court” for undoing “settled law”?
Although a lot of the hatred is being directed at Justice Clarence Thomas, there is additional vitriol being spewed at the aforementioned Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett. Although the Left wants to make it about alleged perjury, the actual reason may be a lot more basic. And I mean that as in “simple” and “crude.” What do these three Justices have in common, aside from sticking in Leftist craws? They were all appointed under Donald Trump. Even though Leftists managed to beat Trump in the 2020 election, he still manages to find a way to live rent free in their collectivist heads and still have space for all of Trump’s stuff, an Olympic size swimming pool, the Taj Mahal, and at least 3 football fields (NFL, Canadian, and Arena Football).
The fact Trump’s appointees have foiled the Left repeatedly pisses them off to no end, so instead of taking their lumps and figuring out how to govern, they use the “rogue court” defense. After all, they can’t be legitimate because Trump appointed them, right! And they still maintain Trump was never a legitimate President (although voters in Wisconsin might disagree). If they can’t win, they claim chicanery. Like when they claim Senators get into office because of gerrymandering.
Yes, kids. They are just that stupid.
The Left also has a Constitutional problem when it comes to “settled law,” namely their contrary position on the Constitution itself. Remember, the Left loves to say the Constitution is a “living document,” meaning they can make up what they want to be in there and get a court to agree with them. But wait…if the Constitution can be fluid, why are some Supreme Court decisions based on interpretations of it unable to be just as flexible? Or it is only decisions Leftists agree with that are set in stone?
Things that make you go hmmmm…
To put a nice tidy bow on this piece, we need to consider Leftists are now trying to figure out how to “discipline” the Supreme Court for going rogue (at least to Leftists). All because the High Court didn’t rule the way they wanted. For all their faults, the Right understands the rules and found a way to get a long-desired goal by working within the system. They didn’t bitch and moan about how the Supreme Court was horrible and needed to be punished. They got Justices appointed, crafted legislation and legal arguments to achieve the goal, and got it done without too much drama. Calling a branch of the government “rogue” doesn’t move the needle for anyone but those who already think that way, and it doesn’t help make the argument for anyone outside of the hivemind.
Ultimately, though, it is nothing but sound and fury, representing nothing but a hissy fit from people who didn’t think they would ever have to play within the rules to get what they wanted. Now that the Supreme Court has ended that judicial gravy train for the Left, they’re left complaining, maligning, and utterly missing the point. The Right plays the long game, while the Left plays the short-sighted game, and the Left keeps losing with this strategy. Do you honestly think calling the Supreme Court “rogue” or looking for ways to neutralize, circumvent, or vaguely threaten the High Court will work?
Spoiler Alert: it won’t. And it won’t help you look any less lawless.
Category: Humor
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With Leftists adding words to the English language more often than Cher announcing retirement tour dates, it can be hard to keep up with their approved terms for people, places, and ideas. During the heyday of political correctness, you could go from being PC to a right wing evil meanie-head if you didn’t use the preferred term of the nanosecond. And, really, nothing’s changed.
Enter one of the latest terms, Latinx. What sounds like a new prescription drug from Mexico is actually the latest way to describe people of Latin origins. And it’s catching on like…well, the opposite of wildfire. But not from a lack of trying! It’s because of this trying to make Latinx a thing that warrants a closer look.
Latinx
What the Left thinks it means – an inclusive term for all people of Latin American origins
What it really means – a term that tested well with white Leftists, but not with the people it’s designed to describe
It wasn’t that long ago that terms like Latino and Latina were the preference, including with a certain Supreme Court Justice who described herself as a “wise Latina.” (Her rulings call that self-labeling into question, but that’s a blog post for another time.) Then, Leftists decided the terms weren’t inclusive enough because…they didn’t take non-binary people into consideration. So, instead of telling the non-binary people to pick a gender and stick with it for longer than a TikTok video, Leftists created Latinx to remove the gender designation.
To better understand the impact this change has, we have to take a slight side trip into the world of languages. I promise I won’t take too long and soon you can go back to being bored out of your minds by my usual insights.
Latin languages, especially Spanish, have distinct word forms depending on whether the person, place, or idea is considered to be masculine or feminine. Granted, this isn’t unique to Spanish, but it is essential to understanding the situation. For example, the word “baño” (Spanish for bathroom) is maculine, while “biblioteca” (Spanish for library) is feminine. The way you can tell which gender is being used is by looking at the last letter. Thus, any word ending with an O is masculine and any word ending with an A is feminine.
But it goes beyond just a word or two in a blog post, kids. Spanish even has specific terms to be used with the gendered words, mainly the word for “the.” For masculine words, the corresponding word for “the” is “el,” while “la” is used for feminine words. Put simply, the entirety of the Spanish language relies on gender.
Which would pose a problem for people who want us to believe there are 948,236 genders (as of the writing of this sentence). If Leftists were to accept the linguistic rules Spanish has, they couldn’t turn around and then say there were more than 2 genders. Okay, they could, but they’d look like hypocritical morons, or worse yet…the non-woke! Thus, they dropped the O and A and replaced it with an X and everybody was happy.
Not so much.
According to polling done by the Pew Research Center, only 23% of Hispanic Americans surveyed have heard of the term, with only 3% using it. Now, if we were to use global climate change logic, that would mean the science is settled, but using normal people logic, that means it’s not that popular. Just from the linguistic part alone as documented above, I can understand why.
Beyond that, though, there is a cultural element to consider. Once you dilute or strip a culture of anything that makes it unique or special, you drive a dagger into that culture’s heart. Now I’m going to go out on a limb here, but I think that might piss off a few people in that culture. Normally, this might cause a political rift between Leftist voting blocs were it not for a trend that even Stevie Wonder could have seen coming.
For a long time, Leftists have counted on immigration to court Hispanic-American voters, mainly because they’re more willing to support extending every public service under the sun in exchange for votes. For the most part, it’s worked, but at a cost. When you look at what Hispanic-Americans believe and the other issues they feel passionately about, they tend to lean more Right than Left. At some point, there isn’t enough money to make someone sell his or her soul and that person walk away. Just ask freshly minted Representative Mayra Flores.
Flores is one of an increasing number of Hispanic-Americans who are leaving the Left because of actions like trying to make Latinx a thing. Sure, there is still a significant number of people willing to vote with the Left on the basis of immigration alone, but with the shift to the right comes political consequences. California will still be safe for Leftists to try out bad ideas, but what about states like Florida and Texas, and to a lesser extent states like Arizona and New Mexico? They all have significant Hispanic populations and they tend to vote. Try turning Texas blue and keeping Arizona bluish when you piss off enough people by erasing their cultural identity.
But here’s the really funny part. There is a potential for Leftists to lose more Hispanic voters over this Latinx shit than they gain from non-binary voters. According to a study done by the UCLA Latino Policy and Politics Initiative, 16.6 million Latinos voted in the 2020 election. A separate study done by the Williams Institute stated 1.2 million Americans identify as non-binary. Now, I’m no math wizard, but last time I checked 16.6 million was a lot more than 1.2 million. Even if the Right manages to get 10% of the Hispanic vote from 2020 in 2024, that’s still more than the potential non-binary voters if they voted 100% for Leftists.
Now, consider Donald Trump got more Latino votes in 2020 than he did in 2016 and one of the potential candidates is the current Governor of Florida, which has a significant Latino population and remains pretty popular in spite of the Left’s attempts to make him look like Donald Trump with larger hands.
That’s a recipe for a fuck-up, kids. On top of the other fuck-ups in America right now, Leftists have a lot of ‘splainin’ to do.
The fact Leftists thought Latinx was a suitable alternative to Latino/Latina shows how tone-deaf they are when it comes to people who aren’t white Leftists. In spite of the fact the Left has cobbled together a patchwork coalition of voting blocs, these blocs constantly have to jockey for position to gain power, money, and representation with white Leftists. And right now, white Leftists care more about pleasing people who can’t pick a gender from a list of a whole 2 than they do about making sure a significant voting bloc’s concerns are heard and respected.
And remember, kids, Leftists are smarter than we are. Just ask them.
Leftists are known for making bad decisions, but pushing for Latinx is up there with letting two people not known for being able to string together coherent sentences be President and Vice President. Whether it will be a serious blow to the Left has yet to be seen, but if there’s anyone who could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, it’s the Left.
#pyhrricvictory
After a long, hard battle, Elon Musk has decided not to try to buy the online cesspool that is Twitter. In reaction, the Board of Directors (i.e. the Twits in Charge) are taking him to court to force him to buy Twitter. While this is being used as fuel for the anti-Musk forces to mock and criticize him, there’s a bit more to it than they care to admit.
Now, I’m no businessman, but if you have someone willing to purchase your company for a significant sum of money that would rival the GDP of some small countries, there should be a built-in incentive to make the process as painless as possible. But since we’re dealing with Twitter here, we’re not dealing with smart people making decisions.
First, they took the firm stand they would not sell Twitter to Musk because they disagreed with his vision and ideology. (In other words, they were afraid he would overturn the virtual apple cart and reverse the bans of certain users the Left hated.) Because of this stance, they threw up more roadblocks than a road crew working straight commission. One of those roadblocks was not providing accurate information to Musk, which ultimately lead to him pulling out of the deal.
Now, the Twits in Charge are taking Musk to court…where this potential breach of contract can be litigated, i.e. exposed, and make it easier for him to get out of the deal. Yes, the discovery process goes both ways, as Twitter will be able to ask for information that will help their case, but given how badly the Twits in Charge have fucked up the deal so far, I have no doubt their lawyers might be as incompetent as the Twits in Charge are. I mean, they work for Twitter, for fuck’s sake!
Then, there’s the potential financial fallout to consider. If the court rules in Musk’s favor, Twitter loses out on a shit-ton (or for our Canadian readers, a metric shit-ton) of money not just from Musk, but from others. The reputational risk alone would be enough to tank Twitter’s future earnings, and it’s not like the Leftists who dominate it are going to be able to pony up enough money to keep it afloat.
If Twitter wins, the risks can be spread out to both parties, but it will be much harder sledding for them. After all, would you like to try to explain why they had to force someone to buy your company? Talk about your bad temp jobs!
While the Twits in Charge try to figure out how to get out of their personal Kobayashi Maru, I would avoid investing in Twitter for the time being. The platform is more toxic than a Super Fund clean-up site (albeit a lot less expensive) and the business model doesn’t seem to be all that stable due to the Board of Directors’ lack of vision and inconsistent/irrational decision-making. However, I do have something you can invest in while watching this train wreck of a flaming dumpster fire.
Popcorn.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Over the July 4th weekend, there was another mass shooting, this one in Highland Park, Illinois. The shooter (who will remain nameless because he’s a piece of shit) opened fire on a parade, killing seven and injuring several more. Although many people on both sides of the aisle expressed sympathy and some used it to advance the need for stricter gun control, some Leftists asked an unexpected question.
Where was Kyle Rittenhouse?
An odd flex, to be sure, but one not without a purpose.
Kyle Rittenhouse
What the Left thinks it means – a murderer who is the poster child for mass shooters everywhere
What it really means – a young man who beat long odds against Leftist disinformation
To gain the necessary context for the current discussion, we have to go waaaaaaaaaaay back to…2020. During the mostly peaceful rioting…I mean protesting in Kenosha, Wisconsin, Kyle Rittenhouse went to offer help. Armed with a medical kit and an AR-15, he waded into the middle of a devolving situation and attempted to prevent a flaming dumpster fire from causing property damage, both literally and figuratively.
After that, the rioters…I mean protesters started chasing him, some with the intent of using his head for a pinata. When it became evident the people chasing him weren’t going to ask if he wanted smores, but instead wanted to do him bodily harm, Rittenhouse shot and killed 2 people and injured a third in self defense. The subsequent trial acquitted him of any wrong-doing and Rittenhouse left the courtroom a free man.
Of course, that’s not how the Left tells the tale.
From the outset, Leftists attempted to paint Rittenhouse as a trigger-happy kid looking to get in the middle of the protest and start trouble. They went so far as to say not only was he guilty of murder, but he did so by crossing state lines with a gun he obtained illegally and with the sole intent of killing blacks. No amount of evidence, testimony, and a little thing the kids call common sense could sway them. To Leftists, Rittenhouse was worse than Adolf Hitler, Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, and Nickelback put together!
Naturally, when Rittenhouse was acquitted because a) the evidence, testimony, and common sense were on his side, and b) the prosecution lawyers were 20th degree black belts in dumbassery, Leftists couldn’t take it. After all the time and energy they spent to make him look guilty as hell, he walked. I’ve seen little league parents take losses better than Leftists.
If that were the end of the story, we wouldn’t still be talking about Rittenhouse and this would be one of my shortest Leftist Lexicon entries in history. But the Left has this core flaw: they hold a grudge. If you beat them in spite of their best efforts, they will never let you live it down, and everything they say and do to oppose you is justified in their minds. Just ask Clarence Thomas about his experiences being a Leftist target for close to 40 years.
With Rittenhouse, the Left have a ready-made whipping boy (as opposed to a Ready-Whip made boy) to bring up whenever there’s a shooting, no matter how tangential and strenuous the connection is. Given enough time, Leftists might connect Rittenhouse to another shooting because they both wear pants.
Note to Leftists: that was a joke, not a suggestion.
Since they’re already conditioned to believe the worst in Rittenhouse, Leftists have no problem extending their caricature to any situation they can use to perpetuate the myth. And each time the myth gets repeated, the truth gets further out of reach for everyone except those who have this stubborn belief the facts might actually matter when it means the difference between character affirmation and character assassination.
The thing that really pisses me off about the Left’s treatment of Rittenhouse is how dehumanizing they are towards him. Whether you agree with his decision to shoot three people, there is still a young man behind the rhetoric coming from both sides, a young man who made a difficult decision and has to deal with the consequences of his actions even if the legal consequences are a moot point. I don’t know him personally, so you can take my observations with a Great Salt Lake of salt, but the vibe I get from him isn’t one of a heartless killing machine full of rage and hatred. What I see is someone who has been through Hell and lived to tell the tale. No matter what, his actions have a psychological toll only worsened by misinformed judgmental assholes whose knowledge of the facts is scarcer than baby formula right now. Besides, I have the market for judgmental assholes cornered.
I know it’s dirt simple for Leftists to get hate clicks by taking as-subtle-as-King-Kong-in-a-neon-jumpsuit jabs at Kyle Rittenhouse, but it serves no substantive purpose. At best, you are only perpetuating the echo chamber. At worst, you are setting a young man up to fail so you can point and say “See? We were right all along!” when he inevitably fails. The difference is Rittenhouse isn’t a guy like George Zimmerman who was a fuck-up of a person before he got famous or infamous as the case may be. He’s a young man who tried to do the right thing in the midst of people actively doing the wrong thing. Of course, if he turns out to be Zimmerman 2.0 later in life, I will happily retract my statement because I’m not afraid to admit when I’m wrong. That’s more than you’ll get from any Leftist.
For now, though, linking him to every mass shooting is low-hanging fruit and intellectually lazy thinking, even in jest. Of course, if you’re serious, do us a favor and get some scissors with the rounded ends so you don’t hurt somebody, ‘kay?
America the Pretty Nifty, Revisited
Many years ago before I became a part-time blogger and a full-time pain in the ass, I wrote a piece called “America the Pretty Nifty” where I extolled the virtues of this great country of ours. Times and opinions change, so on our nation’s “birthday,” I figured I’d take another look at the topic and see where it takes us.
In spite of all its faults, I still think America is one of the greatest countries in the world, if not the greatest. And I don’t say that because I’m a geopolitical homer. When I look at what we have to be proud of, I’m hard-pressed to find a better country anywhere else. Here are a few examples of what I mean.
The races tend to get along. – If you look at media coverage (and, at this point with their blatant and frequent dishonesty, why would you), you would think we’re on the verge of a race war. In truth, we’re nowhere near that point. As with any relationship, there are areas to work on, but overall our melting pot is pretty, well, melty.
America is still a land of innovation. – If you have a dream and the means to follow it, you can make it. After all, it was an American who decided to create a machine that cuts hair using the suction power of a vacuum cleaner. Take that, China! If you want/need a more recent example, just look to Elon Musk. He started out as a South African kid with a weird name and a dream and created a successful electric car company, a company trying to make space travel more accessible, and a way to trigger Leftists on Twitter merely by existing. If that’s not great, I don’t know what is.
We can still have robust intellectual discussions on most topics. – Although I haven’t found a space yet where this is happening, the law of averages says it has to exist somewhere. If you happen to find where it is, please let me know.
We survived a pandemic. – Whether it’s because or in spite of our medical science and political leadership, we came out of the COVID-19 outbreak better than we thought we might. (Observation may not be applicable to the elderly in New York State.) While we still quibble over the effectiveness of mask mandates, the “Fauci Ouchie,” and mandated lockdowns, the fact we have as many Americans as we do able to quibble is a testament to Americans. And speaking of the pandemic…
The pandemic helped people get creative. – When you can’t go outside, you have to figure out how to pass the time. To put it more mildly than salsa in Utah, the pandemic lead to a creative explosion that we are still seeing the ripples of today. Thanks to sites like Etsy and RedBubble, people with the creative bug not only showed off their wares, but were able to make decent money catering to the forced shut-in crowd. There’s even pandemic porn on the Internet (and I’m not talking about the kind pushed by the Fauci-ites, kids).
America is still the shining city on the hill. – Ronald Reagan popularized this image of America as a land of opportunity for people from around the world, and it still holds true today. There are millions upon millions of people who want to come here and start a new life. Granted, we don’t know for sure if it’s because we have opportunities or because Leftists have extended the largess of our tax dollars to make it difficult to resist, but the point is the same. People still want to be Americans.
We have a wealth of global entertainment options. – Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Broadway, Nashville, and many other American cities and locations are hotbeds of entertainment of all kinds. Art, music, theater, books, television, movies, podcasts, internet porn, it doesn’t matter. If you want it, America has it or can direct you to where you can get it. We have such a surplus of entertainment options, producers and directors are trying to recycle ideas that worked in the past, thus guaranteeing work for C-list and below actors if the “Sharknado” series has taught us anything.
Women are still free here. – Contrary to Leftist caterwauling about the recent Supreme Court decision that “overturned” Roe v Wade, women enjoy far more freedom here than their sisters globally. We might have been dragged kicking and screaming towards this point, but we got here and we continue to make strides to keep moving forward. Just remember, for a brief time, a piece of shit named Amber Heard was one of the most talked-about people in the world. Thanks, America!
The really bad/incompetent players haven’t fucked up everything yet. – Over the past few decades, we’ve had some real losers winning elections and getting political power. After all, the most powerful woman in the world not named Oprah or Lady Gaga got as many delegates in the 2020 Presidential race as I did and I didn’t even run. Yet, in spite of the Peter Principle being the rule of thumb in Washington, DC, nobody has done anything so devastating that it can’t be undone later. There have been a few close calls, I grant you, but even then America’s still standing.
We still value freedom. – The fact we fight like the Hatfields and McCoys on a PCP binge whenever there’s a debate over personal freedom is an indication of just how much we love freedom, even after all this time. Some of this is self-serving or done for political/ideological ends, but the passion is still there. Deep down inside, I think most Americans want everyone to be free to live their lives on their own terms, not the terms of others.
I still see America as a fix-er-upper, but one that is worth keeping working at to restore its past beauty and glory. And as long as there are people willing to put on their tool belts and put in the work, America will remain pretty nifty.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
The Leftist losing streak at the US Supreme Court continued last week, much to the consternation of Leftists used to getting their way through judicial fiat. In a 6-3 decision, the High Court ruled the government (and any extensions of it under current, and quite wrong, interpretations) could not prevent an individual from personal prayer. To anyone who can read the First Amendment, this was a simple case to decide.
To the Left, it was a violation of the Constitution, more specifically the separation of church and state. Granted, we may have covered this topic before, but the fact the Left continues to bring it up tells me they didn’t learn the first time. So, strap in, kids. We’ve gotta take another swing at this.
separation of church and state
What the Left thinks it means – religious matters have no business in government matters
What it really means – the government can’t establish an official religion
For as smart as the Left claims to be, they consistently get the Establishment Clause wrong even though it’s pretty clear. Here goes:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
There’s more to the First Amendment, but the purposes of this sketch, this section is the relevant part. Notice the first four words, “Congress shall make no law.” Those four words put the Establishment Clause into a specific framework, one where, well, Congress is prohibited from passing a law that meets the specific criterion outlined in the First Amendment.
At least, that’s the way it was until Leftists told us what James Madison wrote isn’t really what he meant. Thanks to groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, the Establishment Clause has been expanded to include any entity that gets federal funds, such as public schools. Although I have yet to see Mrs. Miller’s first grade class draft legislation, I’m willing to entertain this line of logic.
But with one caveat the Left doesn’t want to grant: using the entire Establishment Clause. Remember, under the Left’s thinking, a public school is an extension of the federal government, so praying in schools would be a violation of the First Amendment. However, the Establishment Clause also states the government can’t stop someone from exercising his or her religious beliefs, which means public schools aren’t allowed to stop someone from praying.
Checkmate, bitches.
What’s worse, the entire concept of the separation of church and state doesn’t even exist verbatim in the Constitution. Oh, it exists as a concept, but nowhere in there will you find “separation of church and state.” That turn of a phrase came from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote and, surprise surprise, the Left used to extrapolate a simple concept into a gross misapplication.
And even then, the Left doesn’t apply their own standards equally. I know, I was shocked when I realized this, too! Anyway, the Left has used the separation of church and state primarily against Christians to curtail their religious expressions. These restrictions go from the ridiculous to…well, the more ridiculous. But when it comes to, say, Muslims, those restrictions aren’t even considered. If anything, Leftists will tie themselves into rhetorical pretzels to state teaching about Islam in public schools isn’t a violation of the separation of church and state because it’s being done purely as an educational exercise.
But a high school coach quietly praying after a football game without requiring anyone else to join in is a Golden Gate Bridge too far?
No matter how far you follow the Left’s thinking on separation of church and state, it will eventually lead to an intellectual dead end. You know, like “The View.” It’s not without reason, though, and that reason (oddly enough) is an appeal to emotion. The Left wants us to believe any outward show of Christian faith is forcing religion down people’s throats which creates a victim, albeit often an unwitting one. Thanks to the ACLU, people putting up a Nativity scene in a public square is an affront to all religions, so communities either have to dump the Christian imagery (their unstated preference) or allow all religions to put up holiday decorations (a nightmare for city maintenance workers). Because the latter is so labor-intensive (and the ACLU is more sue-happy than an injury lawyer working straight commission), communities opt to forego any religious icons on public property.
And remember, kids, this is all based on an idea that’s not actually in the Constitution itself.
Although the separation of church and state is a no-brainer for Leftists, it actually creates a series of problems. Imagine that! Leftists not thinking ahead! Anyway, if the Left really wants there to be no intermingling of church and state under any circumstances, we’re going to have to remove some laws from the books. Granted, they’re not major crimes like murder or theft, but…oh, wait. Yes they are! It’s hard to deny the religious influence on some of the laws we have, but that doesn’t stop Leftists from doing it or outright ignoring the issue altogether.
Then, there’s the matter of representation. Sure, instituting pure separation of church and state will get rid of Christians, but it will also get rid of…many members of “The Squad.” After all, Islam is a religion, right? So, buh-bye Ilhan Omar! So long Rashida Tlaib! Oh, and let’s not forget government officials who believe in the Jewish faith. Shuffle off to Buffalo, Chuck Schumer! Bid farewell to Bernie Sanders! It would get to the point only atheists would be in office, and given some of the hardcore atheists I’ve seen online, we might be better off governing ourselves.
Even if Leftists aren’t listening to reason, we should encourage them to really push for separation of church and state at every level. You know, just to see their faces as Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden will have to resign. In the meantime, the best thing you can do is to know your rights. That makes it easier to fight for them when the time comes and to know when others are trying to undercut them.
And this last part is really fun, too. Leftists expect Christians to shy away from letting other religions celebrate on public grounds. To be fair, there are some Christians like that, but most of us tend to be pretty open to letting other faiths have their time in the sun (especially sun worshipers) because we realize freedom of religion is a two-way street instead of a cul de sac (which is French for “sac of the cul). It doesn’t have to be either-or. In fact, I have four words for any Leftist who demands all religions get equal time in public schools.
Your terms are acceptable.
Nostradamus They Ain’t
With the recent US Supreme Court decision that referred abortion rights back to the states, Leftists went nuts (more than usual), suggesting the end of the world as they know it. After all, without a federal mandate that allows for Leftists to kill babies, they might actually have to…get people to support their view of abortion rights! The horror!
As Leftists explain it, the Supreme Court decision will create a horror show of back alley abortions, dead mothers in the streets, and a society straight out of The Handmaid’s Tale. (On a side note, between this and the Harry Potter novels, I swear the Left’s reading lists are shorter than an earthworm’s inseam.) And all of this is going to happen because Roe v. Wade was overturned. Just listen and believe, people!
Of course, the Left has been predicting this under every Republican President since Ronald Reagan, but we’re not supposed to know that.
In fact, the Left doesn’t want us to know about the numerous wrong predictions they’ve made regarding Roe because it makes them look like hyperventilating ninnyhammers. Granted, they are, but they don’t like to look like that because it undercuts the gravitas of their ideology. And by undercuts, I mean completely fucking destroys it. Of course, that works out great for me because I can mock it mercilessly.
Guess what I’m about to do, kids!
The Left loves to make grand predictions about the fall of civilization, but these predictions rarely, if ever, come true. Put another way, their track record makes local TV meteorologists look like Nostradamus.
Of course, the reason the Left makes these predictions in the first place is to instill fear in the minds of the unsuspecting. Look at what they’ve done with global warming/climate change/climate catastrophes/extreme weather/climate disruptions/whatever term they want to use this minute. For decades, they’ve been predicting sea levels rising, temperatures shooting higher than Snoop Dogg and Willie Nelson on 4/20, massive droughts, more powerful and dangerous weather patterns, and so on. Yet, none of this actually happened. Sure, you might be able to pick out one or two times when the exception proves the Leftist rule, but it should be noted these are exceptions. Meaning, they don’t happen all the time.
The same is true of the post-Roe America the Left tells us is coming. It’s been a week since the decision that sent the abortion issue back to the states and…nothing has happened. Red states haven’t turned into Gilead overnight. The bodies of women killed by back-alley abortions aren’t piling up in the streets. At least for now, everything is as fucked up as it was before the recent Supreme Court decision.
And the funny thing is…the Left still didn’t get it right completely. Abortion rights haven’t been stripped away from millions of women; they’ve just been sent back to the states to let the voters decision instead of 9 Supreme Court Justices. And if people are as pro-choice as Leftists tell us they are, this shouldn’t be a problem. Voters should be more than happy to support abortion initiatives at the state level, right?
Not so much. There are quite a few Democrat voting blocs that aren’t as keen on abortion as Leftists are, namely in the black and Hispanic communities. If abortion is put up by itself, there’s a chance it could get voted down, meaning the Left would lose power, money, and influence. That means the Left would have to work harder to elect more pro-choice candidates or persuade voters to agree with them that killing babies in the womb and possibly using them for spare parts is a good thing. Good luck with that.
Not surprisingly, though, Leftists have misread the room on this issue, among many others. By being so strident in their beliefs, they have turned off voters who might be willing to compromise if the Left put up a convincing argument. Now, with abortion rights being a state issue instead of a federal one, they don’t have the “well, it’s settled law” card to fall back on. And let’s just say they’ve been riding that like a roller coaster for decades, so they’re a little bit rusty on the whole making a convincing argument thing.
This brings us back to ginning up fear. Fear can be a powerful motivator, but a piss-poor argument when reason is brought into the picture. Once you alleviate the fear, the Left’s arguments don’t have a leg to stand on, but maybe Planned Parenthood can lend them a couple.
However, I could be wrong on this and red states are getting the red robes and white bonnets from the dry cleaners as we speak. I’m willing to admit I’m wrong when it happens. But you have to ask yourselves whether the Left has ever done the same with abortion rights, climate change, or anything else they’ve predicted. It’s more likely they’ll double down more than a blackjack player who keeps getting 11 than admit they were wrong. Again.
And again.
And again.
And a…well, you get the idea.
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.