Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The election is days away as of this blog post (check local listings for further details), so it’s getting to be crunch time for both the Trump/Pence and Biden/Harris campaigns. As you may expect, voter turnout is going to be more important than knowing when the cut off Joe Biden during a live speech. That’s why both Democrats and Republicans have Get Out the Vote, or GOTV, efforts. On their faces, it makes sense.

And if you’re expecting a “But” here, you are correct. The efforts may be rooted in good strategy, but in practice…well, let’s just say there is a history of abuse from people of a certain ideology who think the ends justify the means. But let’s give it a fair hearing.

And by fair, I mean let’s rip on the Left for a while.

GOTV

What the Left thinks it means – efforts to ensure as many people as possible vote

What it really means – efforts to ensure as many people as possible vote for Leftists

Yes, I know Democrats and Republicans have GOTV campaigns. Where the two parties diverge is how far they’re willing to go to get votes. In recent years, we have seen Democrats use the following tactics

– voter intimidation
– bribery in the form of a sweepstakes
– paying people to vote for Democrats
– giving people free meals
– having campaign helpers go into nursing homes to fill out ballots for them
– attempting to register people for absentee ballots who didn’t even live in the area

Not to be outdone, here is the lowdown, dirty things Republicans did with their GOTV efforts:

– told voters to vote

Those monsters!

If you noticed, there seems to be a lot more dishonesty on the part of the Left when it comes to GOTV, which says a lot about their character, none of it good. Why would they have to resort to underhanded tactics if they have the votes to win? After all, don’t they say “When we vote, we win”?

They’re hedging their bets.

The Left lost its collectivist mind when Donald Trump won in 2016 because he was able to overcome the tactics referenced above, as well as a behind-the-scenes effort by our friend Uncle George Soros to put Leftists into state-level positions responsible for counting the votes cast. Now, with the push for voting by mail being amplified by Facebook, ads from jeans companies, and other entities, it creates an environment where GOTV efforts can sway the election in favor of the Left.

Then, the Democrats nominated Joe Biden, who has been gafferrific leading up to Election Day. That decision alone isn’t enough to hand the Left another well-deserved defeat, but it puts extra importance on the GOTV efforts. If they can get enough people to vote, they may be able to overwhelm the number of Trump voters to pull off a victory, and with the other safeguards they have in place, it is a real possibility.

But therein lies the flaw in their strategy. One of the traits I’ve found in Trump voters is their loyalty. All Trump needs to do is tell people to vote (which he has) and they will turn out in droves. His rallies are as well-attended as an all you can eat buffet on the way to a Weight Watchers meeting, and they are unapologetic in their support for the President. Add to that the number of people outside of the GOP willing to vote for Trump, and you have the Achilles heel of the Left’s GOTV strategy. You can’t win an election if you don’t have the votes.

And as we’ve seen in Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and other places across the country, the Left have no problem suppressing some votes and manufacturing others. But that’s a whole different blog post altogether.

The point is GOTV efforts are great at energizing the base to vote, but they can be weaponized by those willing to break a few election laws to get a Leftist into office. But I’m totally not saying Leftists would do that. To accuse Leftists of cheating, lying, and manipulating potential voters like utter scumbags is the last thing on my mind. In fact, let me go on the record as saying I will not even consider the idea the Left would stoop to dishonest tactics to try to save face after Donald Trump whupped their collectivist asses in 2016.

I won’t consider it because it’s pretty much true.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Out of the three Presidential shitshows…I mean debates, the last one was the best, partially because of the quality of the questions asked, and mostly because of the answers the candidates gave in response to said questions. One of the most intriguing questions surrounded energy policy, specifically oil. Joe Biden’s flip flops on whether he wanted to get rid of the oil industry as a whole made for must-miss television.

For the past few decades, the Left has had its sights on the oil industry and attempted to make it seem like Hitler, but less cuddly. Whether it’s blaming them for global warming/cooling/climate change/whatever it’s called this week or painting them as soulless money grubbers more cartoonish than a Captain Planet villain, the Left is all-in for getting rid of oil if at all possible. And, to be fair, oil companies haven’t always been worthy of protection from bad PR, but are they as bad as they seem? Let’s find out!

the oil industry

What the Left believes it means – an industry that pollutes and destroys the environment for profit, needs to be eliminated as a source of energy

What it really means – an industry that has become more indispensable than we realize

What do you think of when someone mentions oil? I’m guessing it’s either fuel or oil in general. Well, surprise surprise, that’s what the Left thinks of, too! Although it’s not wrong, it’s not the whole picture. Those evil petroleum barons make everything from plastics to Plexiglass. You know, just like the barriers used at the last Presidential debate?

But it goes beyond that. There are industries that are currently oil-dependent for their survival. Farming, transport, construction, these and many more require an oil industry presence for them to do anything. And last time I checked, we kinda need food to survive.

“Well, then we’ll use alternate fuel sources,” Leftists say. In fact, that’s their solution for everything. Replace fossil fuels, like oil, with wind or solar or other alternative energy sources. I’d like to see them put a windmill on a tractor for the sheer comedy value, but it belies the issue with the Left’s position on oil: they don’t understand enough about it to make an informed decision.

Shocking, I know.

In their rush to do a cut and paste energy policy, the Left overlooks the fact machinery requires lubrication and fuel. Right now, the bulk of the machinery uses oil-based products to make them move. It would like millions of dollars to retool existing or new equipment to meet the Left’s standards, but without some form of lubrication, the equipment makes nice paperweights, albeit expensive ones. You could try to use plant-based oils, but you will wind up smelling like you bathe in fry medium. Granted, this might make Leftists more appealing to fast food connoisseurs, but only because they think you might be able to score them some free food.

On the fuel front, the fossil fuel and even the biofuel versions have an advantage over solar and wind in that they can work in any type of weather. Let’s say you have a semi-truck that works on a rechargeable solar battery. It works great when there’s sunlight, right? What happens overnight? With current solar battery life, there are going to be more than a few stranded drivers waiting until the dawn, thus slowing down deliveries of everything from food to supplies. Prices will skyrocket, there will be shortages that can’t be addressed in a timely manner, and it might turn Main Street into one big CHAD/CHOP compound.

But…lower carbon footprint?

Let’s be honest here. Oil isn’t going away anytime soon, and no amount of Leftist wishful thinking will make it happen any sooner without massive infrastructure and technological changes we haven’t tried to make yet and the Left hasn’t figured out we need. The “Party of Science” everybody! Put simply, we need the oil industry to function until we can find a replacement, so the Left is putting the cart before the horse, literally.

Aside from that, the oil industry is a Leftist target because it’s playing the same game the Left has been playing by putting out research to support its position on global warming/cooling/climate disaster/whatever they’re calling it this paragraph. Granted, this is as fucked up as letting Jeffrey Dahmer give you food prep tips, but considering the oil industry’s science is as unbiased as the Left’s, it’s pretty much a wash.

However, it’s not the science that offends the Left in this case; it’s the fact the oil industry isn’t backing down from Leftist pressure. They are combating science with science, as junky as the science may be, and not apologizing for what they do. The Left have to be bullies to get their way, so when someone tells them to go piss up a rope, they don’t take it well. In fact, they work towards destroying anyone and anything that defies them.

You know, like what they’ve been doing for the past few decades?

As badly as the oil industry has screwed up (the Exxon Valdez and BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico come immediately to mind), they are a hell of a lot more useful than the Left is. That doesn’t mean we can’t hold them to task for screw-ups, nor does it mean we shouldn’t be looking for ways to improve our energy policy or find new ways to use the resources we currently use. What it does mean is the Left hasn’t done enough homework to justify completely weaning the country from oil right now.

Maybe that’s why Joe Biden’s position on the oil industry is so disjointed. Naaaaaaaaaah!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

This past week saw the Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearing devolve into a monkey dung fight with better suits, but one concept that kept being introduced in between the handfuls of crap being flung was originalist. The Left came up with their own unique (i.e. utterly insane) interpretations of the idea, often pointing to the way women were treated when the Constitution was ratified. In short, the Left wanted ACB to get back in the kitchen, but it’s not sexist when they do it.

Yet with all of the talk on the Left about originalist thinking, few have actually nailed it down. And by few I mean it’s rarer than a Nosferatu burger that a Leftist got it right. So, consider this a teachable moment for the Left.

originalist

What the Left thinks it means – a backwards way of applying the Constitution to legal cases because of cultural changes and the passage of time

What it really means – applying the Constitution as written to legal cases

With the exception of a few Amendments, the Constitution is pretty straightforward as to what the government can and cannot do. As a result, Leftists try to muddy the waters so it’s not as simple as it looks, and since Leftists think they’re the smartest people in the room, they volunteer their expertise to interpret the Constitution (as they interpret it, of course). If someone were to come along and point out the simple concepts the Left tries to misconstrue, that person becomes a threat.

You know, like Amy Coney Barrett.

Whenever the Left sees a threat to their self-imposed intellectual supremacy, they calmly and maturely state their case as to why originalist thinking is dangerous. And if you believe that, I have swamp land in the Gobi Desert I’d like to sell you. I’ll even throw in a free Gobi Dessert with a purchase!

What the Left does with originalists is portray them as out-of-touch, uber-conservative types who don’t understand society changes, so our interpretation of the Constitution has to change. Remember, the Left believes the Constitution is ever-changing, always in flux, and means different things at different times. As much as our personal interpretations of the Constitution can change with time and social perspectives, that doesn’t change what is actually written.

Take one of my personal favorite Amendments, the First Amendment. When making decisions on everything from whether online speech should be regulated to whether a community can have Christmas decorations in public parks, people often overlook the key five words at the very beginning of the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law. Thanks to our friends on the Left and their allies in the ACLU, anything that gets government funding is subject to the limitation placed specifically on Congress, and if you disagree or resist, they will sue you. Call me crazy (and I’m sure some of you already do), but I’m curious how a Christmas decoration in a public park equates to an act of our legislative body. Although I’m curious how my mayor voted on Obamacare…

Now, imagine an originalist taking a look at all of the lawsuits and threats of lawsuits from the ACLU and dismissing them because Congress didn’t act. (So far, it hasn’t happened, but a boy can dream.) Not only would it make the ACLU look like idiots (which happens on any day that ends with “day”), but it would remove the power the Left has to suppress the free expression of religion through subversion of the First Amendment. (Oh, and by ignoring the whole “nor prohibit the free exercise thereof” part of the First.)

Even with something as vital and impactful as a Supreme Court decision, the Left is playing political games, mainly because they know they can’t win people’s hearts and minds and need the courts to enact the Left’s agenda via judicial fiat. Of course, the easiest way to win hearts and minds is to…oh, I don’t know…come up with ideas that don’t suck. The originalist nukes this tactic from orbit because he or she understands the limits of the judiciary and will most likely toss out the bad decisions for legislative bodies or, Heaven forbid, the people to decide.

Therein lies the key difference between Leftists and originalists. The Left uses the Constitution as a Swiss Army knife, a tool for every idea developed by and for tools. Originalists use the Constitution as a map to guide an outcome so no one gets screwed in the end. (Unless, of course, you’re into that kind of thing.) This has a lot to do with how well each side understands the Constitution and to what ends. The Leftists have a workable understanding of the letter of the law, but only enough to find or create loopholes. Originalists have a deeper understanding of the words in and concepts behind the Constitution so they can understand the spirit of the law, not just the letter. This knowledge of context makes it easier for the originalists to pick out the wheat from the chaff in the Left’s Constitutional arguments.

Which pisses off the Left to no end.

Although the Left’s opposition to Amy Coney Barrett appears to be based on abortion rights or dismantling the Affordable Care Act, underneath is a deep contempt for her originalist stance and a fear she won’t take any of their monkey dung masquerading as legal and Constitutional concepts. And given some of the questions/rants provided by the Senate Democrats, monkey dung might have been the most substantive things they had against her.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

There’s an old Chinese curse, “May you live in interesting times.” With a wild Presidential election year and 2020 being, well, 2020, we are indeed living in interesting times. And that has lead to some interesting prospects coming up sooner than we think.

For the past couple of months, the Left has floated the idea of adding more Justices to the Supreme Court, a practice known as “packing the court.” It’s been done, or at least threatened, in the past with varying degrees of success. Now, in the shadow of Ruth Bader Ginsburg passing away and Amy Coney Barrett possibly becoming the newest Supreme Court Justice, the Left wants there to be more chairs that need to be filled.

Looks like Norm Abrams might need to start a show called This Old House of Justice. And maybe he could make some new chairs on the Olde Yankee Woodshop.

Meanwhile, let’s unpack this packing the court business, shall we?

packing the court

What the Left thinks it means – adding more Supreme Court Justices to balance the diversity of the High Court and the ideas being discussed

What it really means – adding more Supreme Court Justices so the Left can circumvent making an argument to the American people

Let’s be frank. This whole “packing the court” idea wouldn’t have become an issue if President Donald Trump lost and if the Senate were under Democrat control. With Hillary Clinton as President, the Left could have counted on her to find a nominee who was far enough Left that he/she/zer could make Lyndon LaRoche look like Rush Limbaugh. And with a Democrat-controlled Senate, the advise and consent could be done via TikTok, or possibly through emojis.

Even that might be too complex for some of the Senators, but that’s another story.

Once Trump won, the Left’s plans went up in smoke like Denver, Colorado, on 4/20. Then, when the Democrats failed to win back the Senate with their can’t-miss slogan “Orange Man Bad,” they were left with trying to impeach the President for crimes that weren’t actually crimes, per se, so much as they were the delusional rantings of a group of Leftists whose knowledge of the Constitution begins and ends with spelling “Constitution.” When that succeeded and Trump wasn’t removed from office for, well, not doing anything illegal, the Left’s focus became adding seats to the Supreme Court to counteract the President’s agenda.

Before I go further, let me point out the Left aren’t known for good long-term strategy. Their strategy is in-the-moment and assumes the best possible outcome. So, when their ideas crash and burn like the Hindenburg but with more government spending attached to it, they don’t know how to react. To them, their plans were and are perfect and it must be because of dirty tricks by the Republicans that the plans didn’t come to fruition. Case in point: Russiagate. At this point, they would be happy to prosecute a Trump surrogate who likes White Russians or had a salad with Russian dressing once, if only to “prove” Trump got help from Russia to win the Presidency. It couldn’t have been something else, like Hillary Clinton being the worst candidate in recent history (and that includes Michael Dukakis, John Kerry, and Mitt Romney, kids).

Meanwhile, back in the original point I was making, the Left hasn’t thought out this packing the court idea very well for the reasons I mentioned above. They are assuming Joe “I Lost Twice in Previous Presidential Candidacies and I Still Got the Nomination” Biden will win because…say it with me, friends…”Orange Man Bad.” In order for this plan to work, Democrats need to retake the Senate, and this year is just crazy enough that it could happen. Having said that, it’s not a lock by any stretch of the imagination. Even less than 30 days before the election, something crazy can happen that will upset the checkerboard.

Like, maybe…avoiding answering the question about whether Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are in favor of packing the court.

Oh, and the continuing chaos in Portland and other cities across the country.

Or the poor performances of Biden and Harris in the debates.

Or Hunter Biden being indicted for financial crimes aided by his father.

You know, any of the usual things that can trip up a candidate this close to Election Day.

The point is packing the court relies upon Joe Biden winning and Democrats getting control of the Senate again. If one of those prospects doesn’t pan out, it’s game over. But there’s another aspect the Left hasn’t through about: President Trump might pack the court before Leftists get a chance. You think Amy Coney Barrett is a dangerous candidate? Imagine repeating that process with men and women just like her.

That popping noise you hear right now is the exploding of Leftists’ heads as they realize the President could do just that.

Which will not only make the Left mad, but that much more motivated to win the Senate in 2022 and the Presidency in 2024 so they could get more Justices on the Supreme Court…which will motivate the Right to do the same. And before we know it, the Supreme Court will need to meet at FedEx Field. On the plus side, the Washington Football Team (or as I call them, the Artists Formerly Known as the Washington Redskins) aren’t using it for much right now, so I’m sure sharing won’t be an issue.

The bigger issue, however, is it creates a situation where the legal system gets bogged down to the point of working even more slowly than it does now. The more Justices you add, the more people have to touch the case and the slower the resolution will be, unless the Supreme Court wants to do a superficial job which increases the chance of poor rulings from the bench. I’m talking Plessy v. Ferguson level bad here. Plus, with civil and human rights cases, a speedy and fair resolution are essential because of the impact such cases have on society and the legal system immediately and years down the road. The Left likes to say “Justice delayed is justice denied.” And now they want to make justice even slower because of a President they didn’t think could win and a Senate they thought they couldn’t lose. What happens when the wheels of justice don’t move?

That silence you hear is the Left not being able to come up with an answer consistent with their idea to pack the court.

Regardless, packing the court is going to be more of a problem than it’s worth (which is zilch). The fact it hasn’t been thought out enough yet to be persuasive to anyone outside of the Leftist hivemind should be enough of a red flag to keep yourselves far away from adopting the idea. But if not, think about the lines at your local government institution, whether it be the post office, the DMV, or a county-level office. In some cases, things run smoothly, while in others, they run at the speed of inert.

Guess which option packing the court will achieve.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

During the first Presidential freakshow…I mean debate, moderator Chris Wallace asked Presidential Donald Trump about his stance to discontinue federal racial sensitivity training using Critical Race Theory. You would have thought the President decided to throw kittens and puppies against a brick wall by the way Wallace and the Left reacted to the President taking action on this.

As you might expect, the Left loves Critical Race Theory and hates anyone that would curtail its use. But what exactly is it? An academic exercise? A sociological theory? A combination shampoo and conditioner that prevents dandruff while keeping your hair bouncy and manageable? Well, allow me to be your tour guide on this bus tour of the latest Leftist Lexicon entry. And remember to bring your hip waders because it’s going to get pretty deep here.

Critical Race Theory

What the Left thinks it means – an important concept necessary to address systemic racism and create an even playing field for all

What it really means – a crackpot idea that perpetuates racism as a means to gain financial, political, and social power

Granted, I might have a bit of a slanted view on Critical Race Theory because, well, I’m applying common sense and logic to it. Darn my logical mind! Let me try to explain it concisely and without my biases getting in the way. Critical Race Theory has two facets. The first is white supremacy has obtained and maintained a monopoly of power through various systems, including the law. The second is these systems can and should be dismantled and transformed to balance the scales, as it were.

On second thought, let’s go with what I originally typed.

The first tenet of Critical Race Theory sounds a lot like what the Left thinks today about whites, or as I prefer to be called Honkey-Americans. There is an article of faith on the Left (which is weird given their stance on religion generally) that there are power structures all over the place controlled by whites. You can’t swing a dead voter’s stack of absentee ballots without hitting one! If you question it, the Left doesn’t provide proof. Instead, they call you ignorant, backwards, or worst of all…a Trump supporter!

The funny thing is the lack of proof the Left provides is the proof of the lack of racist power structures. Even though there are still predominantly white positions of power, there are people of all colors making strides into said positions. Do we have a point of equity yet? Nope, but we have a point where race is not a factor in determining qualifications for a position. If anything, hiring practices may be moving in a direction where being white is a hindrance.

Then, let’s take a look at college enrollment and pre-enrollment activities, like the SATs. As far back as the 1990s, the SATs have been adjusting their scoring based on the race of the student taking the test. It’s like handicapping a horse race, but with scores. If student A is of a certain race, he or she will get points added to the final score. If student B is of a different race, he or she will get deducted points from the final score. Based on research done on these scoring practices, the ones getting the points added tend to be black, while the ones getting points deducted tend to be white and Asian. When these students enroll in college, blacks get higher acceptance rates than whites or Asians with similar or superior qualifications.

Feel superior yet, my fellow Honkey-Americans?

The second tenet of Critical Race Theory looks good on the surface, but underneath lies, well, lies. Even if you replace all of the white people in power (which would be incredibly sexist) and replace them with people of color, it’s not going to change the system itself. All it will do is change who is in charge of it. And if you do destroy the allegedly racist system and rebuild it in your image, what would that look like? I think I do.

Maybe there are some white farmers in South Africa right now willing to help educate the Critical Race Theory fans about what their ideas might lead to if allowed to come to fruition. Provided they’re not murdered for being white, that is.

The real damage from Critical Race Theory isn’t limited to the perceived systems of power. It’s also affected education, the legal system, and of all things freedom of speech, just to name a few. But it’s in those few areas where the bulk of the damage can be done because each area I just mentioned affects us personally, even if we’re not people of color. We have at least a generation or more of college students who have been taught on various aspects of Critical Race Theory in numerous academic disciplines who then apply that information in other sections. And before you can say “Put on a mask,” it’s spread far and wide.

On second thought, you might need a hazmat suit because Critical Race Theory is as toxic as 1987 Chernobyl.

One of the big questions I have for Critical Race Theory advocates is what happens if you can’t persuade people to adopt it. It’s going to be a hard sell for a lot of people, so there is going to be pushback, and based on what I’ve seen on the topic, it’s not well-developed beyond “white people suck.” And if this is about holding people accountable, who will keep you accountable should your idea go the way of South Africa, circa…oh, today?

As Bill Clinton would say, “There’s the rub.” Wait, that was “Rub me there.” Either way, the basic concept of Critical Race Theory lacks the kind of specificity that would make it persuasive and actionable. Then, there’s the prospect the idea could spread to other minorities and be used against the ones currently pushing for Critical Race Theory. For example, what if Critical Race Theory was used to say African-Americans have institutions of power that have been used to oppress Asian-Americans? Or black conservatives using it to suggest black Leftists have institutional power used against them? And don’t get me started on the power structures that have oppressed albino Eskimo tap-dancers who self identify as Cher!

From where I sit (which is usually in my living room), Critical Race Theory has the potential to be abused to the point of absurdity, further diving people and making the current situation worse. To put it another way, Critical Race Theory is the academic equivalent of 2020: you don’t know what’s going to happen next, but you know it’s going to suck.

Here’s my solution. Ignore race and treat each other like human beings. Sure, it’s not good for the Leftist outrage machine, but it has a track record of working multiple times a day in our neighborhoods, workplaces, and social interactions. Look at where you live, work, and play. Even in my neck of flyover country, people of all races and beliefs get along, and without needing or wanting Critical Race Theory. If anything, we have Critical We Don’t Care About Race Because It’s A Superficial Reason To Hate Each Other Theory. It may not roll off the tongue easily, but it makes a heck of a lot more sense than the alternative.

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…