Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The latest battleground for the fight over illegal immigration is a lot further north than you might expect. I’m talking about the Leftist haven, Martha’s Vineyard. It turns out Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Florida Governor Ron DeSantis decided to fly several immigrants to Martha’s Vineyard to show them a better life. You know, Leftist utopias where everyone is super educated and live incredibly well? Away from conservative hellholes where racism, sexism, xenophobia, and homophobia are rampant and the people are uneducated rubes?

Well, let’s just say Leftists aren’t greeting their new immigrant neighbors with open arms. In fact, Leftists are circulating the idea the aforementioned Governors with brass balls the size of, say, Pluto are guilty of human trafficking. And by circulating, I mean repeating the same squawking points with steadily increasing volume and frequency. As we’re about to find out, the squawking point has a deeper origin than even the Left has considered.

human trafficking

What the Left thinks it means – Republican Governors sending asylum seekers to other parts of the country against their will

What it really means – Leftists not understanding the issue, like, at all

Illegal immigration has a number of facets that often get glossed over in the debate on what to do with the immigrants we catch, and human trafficking is one such facet. And it’s not a once-in-a-while problem, either. The 2021 numbers show a stark picture of the scope of the human trafficking problem, but those are just the cases we know about. Government agencies from ICE to Customs and Border Protection and non-government organizations like the ACLU are sounding the alarm and efforts to reach as many people as possible are evident to anyone who’s used a convenience store bathroom can tell.

Good thing Leftists aren’t trying to demonize and/or eliminate ICE and the Border Patrol, right? Oh, wait…

So, what exactly is human trafficking? There are a number of definitions floating around there, but the general consensus involves the exploitation of people for sex, work, or services through coercion, deception, or force. For the purposes of this discussion, though, I want to use the definition provided by the United Nations:

Human trafficking involves the recruitment, movement or harbouring of people for the purpose of exploitation – such as sexual exploitation, forced labour, slavery or organ removal. Victims can be children or adults, boys, girls, men or women, and are trafficked by the use of improper means such as the threat or use of force, fraudulent schemes, deception, or abuse of power. It can occur within a country or across borders. Human trafficking is therefore characterized by an act (recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring, or receipt of people), specific means (threats or use of force, deception, fraud, abuse of power, or abusing someone’s vulnerable condition) for the purpose of exploitation (for example sexual exploitation, forced labour, slavery or organ removal).

To the Left, what DeSantis and Abbott are doing fits the UN’s definition of human trafficking perfectly because, as they frame it, they are exploiting the immigrants for political points. And since they’re being flown to different parts of the country, it’s a slam dunk, right?

Not so much. One of the aspects of the UN’s definition is recruitment. Both Abbott and DeSantis have been vocal in their efforts to try to stem the tide of illegal immigration, with Abbott taking specific action to enforce immigration law which the federal government doesn’t seem to want to do. And considering Florida and Texas are two of the top 3 states of reported human trafficking cases, I’m thinking DeSantis and Abbott might just have a vested interest in not encouraging any activity that would make those numbers worse.

In fact, it’s not Republicans who are rolling out the red carpet for illegal immigration. It’s the Democrats. By framing every immigrant as either escaping horrible conditions or wanting to make a better life here, they have done to illegal immigration what Glamour Shots did for housewives in the 80s and 90s: using tricks to hide or soften the imperfections and give a beautiful, albeit distorted, view of the subject.

Now, consider what impact that has on human trafficking. The Left makes no distinction between Raul who crosses the border illegally to find work and Pedro who crosses the border illegally to make money by exploiting people of all ages to fill the needs and wants of his clients. Maybe it’s me, but I think there’s a huge fucking difference here. Both are breaking the law, but only one of them drags other people with him into exploitation.

No wonder the Left wants people to think DeSantis and Abbott are the evil ones here. Well, that, and the fact they’re both Republicans who aren’t afraid of Leftists not liking them. If Leftists admit there are bad actors (and I’m not talking about Brie Larson) mixed in with the “good guys” coming across the border…illegally, it would not only ruin the rosy picture they’ve been painting for decades, but it would lend credence to what DeSantis and Abbott have been saying. And Lord knows Leftists hate to admit they were wrong.

There’s another reason the Left is freaking out about illegal immigrants heading to Martha’s Vineyard: DeSantis and Abbott are forcing Leftists to live by their own ideas. Remember when Leftist communities were fighting each other to get attention for being “sanctuary cities”? Well, it’s easy to make such proclamations when you aren’t dealing with a steady influx of illegal immigrants. You know, like Martha’s Vineyard? Once the immigrants start arriving, the Leftist welcome mats start disappearing, along with the signs saying “No person is illegal.”

The late comedian George Carlin made an observation about homelessness that has some application here in the form of the abbreviation NIMBY, which means Not In My Back Yard. Leftists talk a great game when it comes to helping people (usually in the form of more government), but they don’t always walk the walk when presented with the opportunity, as the citizens of Martha’s Vineyard have now.

Annnnnnnd they decided to ship their new neighbors to a military complex because…reasons?

Your compassion is underwhelming, Leftists.

When it comes to human trafficking, though, we need much more than words and stickers on bathroom mirrors. Yet, I’m not sure America is quite ready for the discussion and action needed to make real change. Both sides of the political spectrum have a vested interest in keeping the illegal immigration and subsequently the human trafficking issues alive to retain power over their respective voting blocs. But we’re dealing with human lives here, and there shouldn’t be an ideological divide. Yet, here we are.

And the Left isn’t helping matters any by throwing around accusations of human trafficking against two of the Republican Governors who have given the the most fits in the past few years. At the rate it’s going now, Leftists are going to wear out the “human trafficking” label like they’ve worn out the “fascist” label by overusing it to the point of irrelevance.

Then again, if you had as horrible a record on human trafficking as the Left does, you’d want to bring everyone else down to your level, too.

So, How’s That Sanctuary City Thing Working Out?

Remember when Leftists were all about setting up “sanctuary cities” to let illegal immigrants know they would be safe there? It became a race to see which communities would be the next to proudly proclaim “We don’t care if you broke the law to come here because we won’t enforce the law!” And for a while, it worked. It was a quick way to earn woke points and to use a souped-up Wagner Power Painter to paint anyone who disagreed with it as racist, xenophobic, insensitive, kid-haters who wanted these poor souls to die.

That worked pretty well for communities that were pretty far away from the US/Mexican border, but Texas Governor Greg Abbott had an idea: help the illegal immigrants get to the sanctuary cities. In a pure “fuck around and find out” move, Abbott started busing migrants to Washington, DC, and New York City. I mean, since those two cities are known sanctuary cities, Leftists should be thrilled that Abbott was adding to their diversity!

Not so much.

DC Mayor Muriel Bowser was the first to feel the brunt of the move, resulting in her requesting assistance from the National Guard to deal with the influx. And in a completely expected move, the Department of Defense denied her request.

Then there’s New York Mayor Eric Adams. Apparently he’s not too happy at Abbott busing immigrants to his sanctuary city. Even Leftists are calling out Adams’ reaction to the situation, albeit while spitting venom at Abbott and Arizona Governor Doug Ducey for sending immigrants to sanctuary cities.

Which is odd, given how Leftists have rolled out the red carpet for illegal immigrants. You would think they would be thrilled to live up to their word. Ahhhh, that’s the problem. Leftists love setting up rules for themselves and different rules for everyone else. While January 6th protesters get the Library of Congress thrown at them for trespassing, illegal immigrants get treated with kid gloves for doing pretty much the same thing, albeit with fewer federal agents…I mean “concerned citizens.”

Although the potential overwhelming of sanctuary cities was enough to get Leftists to get pissed, there is an underlying cause I don’t think even they want to admit. And it all stems from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Although a few of his ideas would apply here, the one I find is the crux of the Leftist freakout is Rule 4: Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. This not only exposes the hypocrisy of the opposing entity, but it opens up opportunities for ridicule and criticism that the entity cannot legitimately counter.

Guess what Abbott did, kids.

By sending immigrants to sanctuary cities, Abbott has effectively showing the Left’s commitment to the concept to be a light year long and a micron deep, which to be honest was always the case. Leftists don’t want actual solutions to the illegal immigration problem since they benefit too much from the problem’s existence. But they can’t really come out and say that because doing so would expose the scam they’ve been running for decades. The advent of sanctuary cities is just the new selling point to get people to circumvent federal law and live off the generosity of American taxpayers.

And before you Leftists say “but they pay taxes, too,” there’s a bit of a difference between paying sales tax and income tax, namely the enforcement arm of the latter being a lot less nice about those who don’t pay up. Oh, and the fact they could be packing heat. More on that another time.

Say what you will about Greg Abbott (and, believe me, Leftists have), but you have to admit his solution to the illegal immigration problem was clever on a political level. Although his intended purpose was to alleviate the real border issues he faces on a daily basis, the impact of exposing Leftists as massive hypocrites, the utter destruction of the myth of sanctuary cities, and allowing cities too far away from the epicenter to get a taste of what Texas deals with was a calculated risk, one that is still paying dividends in the form of Leftist heads exploding.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

If you think you’ve had a hectic week, just think of the week former President Donald Trump had. His social calendar (if not his Truth Social account) were a bit on the busy side, what with the FBI raiding…I mean visiting Mar-a-Lago looking for classified documents allegedly on the premises. Granted, I’m not sure who would want to hurt a Lago, let alone mar one, but that’s neither here nor there.

To say the Federal Bureau of Investigation has been in hot water in recent years is like saying President Joe Biden has a small problem with plagiarism: it’s accurate, but not nearly to the right magnitude. Now with the FBI under scrutiny again after their Mar-a-Lago visit, it’s as good a time as any to take a closer look at the agency.

the FBI

What the Left thinks it means – the most powerful law enforcement agency in America, full of hard working men and women upholding our laws and trying to stop criminals

What it really means – Barney Fife with less supervision

It wasn’t that long ago the FBI had a good reputation. In between J. Edgar Hoover’s trips to Victoria’s Secret, they managed to bring down criminals, keep the country relatively safe, and inspire young and old alike to be good citizens. But as all good things do, the image got some tarnish on it with some highly questionable decisions, like investigating and working against Martin Luther King, Jr. because Hoover thought he had Communist ties. (No word on if MLK had the matching suspenders.)

One could say the FBI’s image as beacons of law started to erode when Americans’ trust in government did. Watergate opened up the floodgates (if you’ll pardon the pun, and even if you don’t) as well as more than a few eyes to see the Emperor wasn’t wearing anything and Hoover himself was wearing a lace teddy and stiletto heels.

Okay, I’ve officially creeped myself out there.

From there, the agency could only watch as fewer and fewer people trusted the FBI. Of course, a history of domestic spying might make people a little paranoid…

Oddly enough, it was Leftists for the longest time who cried out the most about the FBI’s abuse of power, and with good reason. What the FBI did in the name of justice made a mockery of it in the worst way and caused serious damage to our nation for spurious reasons. But somewhere between then and now, the Left decided the FBI wasn’t so bad after all. And I think it started when Leftists ditched the love beads and Nehru jackets and put on suits and dress shoes to start working within the system they rallied against for so long. Either that or someone developed a strain of pot that made people want to join the FBI.

Saaaaaay…I might be onto something there!

Either way, when Leftists found their ways into positions of power, they did what they do best: fuck it all up through politics. Over time, the FBI has replaced actual justice with social justice and became tools of not the powerful, but the power-hungry. And thanks to the FBI, they ate very well, figuratively and literally.

As you might expect, the FBI found out it had a taste for power, too. I mean, when you are the most powerful law enforcement agency in the country and people can’t Karen their way into getting a supervisor, you tend to feel invulnerable. Oh, and did I mention they practically have unlimited funds thanks to the generosity of our Congresscritters? With that kind of power and money, you would hope the agency would work effectively.

And you’d be wrong. Here is a brief list of notable failures over the FBI’s recent history.

– ignoring red flags that Nikolas Cruz was likely to commit a crime, which lead to the Parkland, Florida, school shootings (Making David Hogg a national figure should be grounds to defund the FBI.)

– not following up on sexual abuse allegations against gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar, resulting in high-profile gymnasts making the issue public to get attention on the allegations and the agency’s failures

– playing a game of cyber chicken with Apple trying to force/coerce them into unlocking an iPhone belonging to one of the San Bernardino shooters and exposing proprietary technology

– the disastrous events of Waco and Ruby Ridge

– the bungled investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails

Ranker lists 10 more beyond these, and Wikipedia has tons more, but you see the point. Our top cops make the Uvalde Police Department look like the cops on any of the 428 “CSI” programs on CBS right now. (I’m particularly a fan of “CSI: Nome.” Not a lot of cases, but the ones they get are intense!)

Of course with all of the negative attention around the FBI in recent years, FBI agents have hurt fee-fees. No matter what they do or what successes they have, people still like used car salesmen more than the FBI. First off, welcome to adulthood. Second, people might have a higher opinion of you if you didn’t constantly fuck up.

Which brings us to the raid on Mar-a-Lago. Although the Left ate up that red meat like a hungry lion (or Ron Swanson wanting a light snack), there are some serious questions to be answered, and our good friends at the FBI aren’t quick on providing them. More superficially, however, it just doesn’t look good. The more we discover about how the warrant was issued, the worse it gets for the FBI. Seriously, the only way it could have looked any more anti-Trump would be if Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were running it with James Comey riding shotgun.

And that’s a major issue for me. Politics and law enforcement don’t mix very well because at some point the former will hinder the latter. There is a reason Justice is blind, and it’s not so bribes can be taken under the table. It’s so every person is considered equal under the law, whether you’re Nancy Pelosi’s husband or Joe Sixpack. Unfortunately, though, our justice system is full of ideologically-driven people looking to recreate the law in their own images.

Guess which federal law enforcement agency with a three-letter abbreviation has that problem right now.

For the Left, that’s the perfect breeding ground. Almost unlimited funding, almost unlimited power, the intimidation factor, and a well-documented movement to reform law enforcement to make it more Leftist-friendly. No wonder the Left has been so quick to defend the FBI lately: it’s on their side. Just remember, Leftists were the ones who came to Strzok and Page’s defense, saying their text message on phones that belonged to the government (i.e. us) were private and shouldn’t be made public.

Even though these text exposed them as being anti-Trump and overtly willing to undermine his election.

Oh, well. I’m sure the FBI will get right on that investigation as soon as they charge more January 6 protestors for crimes that would normally get a slap on the wrist instead of years in jail awaiting sentencing.

Right now, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is Fucked Beyond Infinity because it’s lost sight of what it’s job and duties actually are. Nothing short of a wholesale refurbish would solve the problems the FBI has right now, but as long as the Left has its tentacles in it, nothing like that will occur. Unless it’s to get rid of conservative FBI agents, of course. They’re super-duper-dangerous, what with their belief in the Constitution and following the laws as written.

In the meantime, the best advice I can give is to not catch a federal charge. If you do, be prepared to enter a world of pain unlike anything you’ve seen since the last Pauly Shore standup show.









No One Is Above the Law…Except Us

After Donald Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago had the FBI visit and look for alleged classified documents in his possession, the Left had a field day. Between jokes at the former President’s expense, memes recounting times when Trump made statements that now applied to him, and hoping this would finally be the thing that landed Trump in prison, Leftists were full of more hope than a Barack Obama rally.

There was also a common theme among the talking heads in the media and politics: no one is above the law. Although I’m happy to see Leftists embracing law and order for a change, let’s just say I’m not convinced they’re genuine and/or consistent in that sentiment.

Leftists being hypocrites? Heaven forbid!

Now, what I’m about to go over will likely get dismissed as “whataboutism” and there’s certainly an element of that in play. Having said that, these examples are necessary to lay out the groundwork for my argument.

For as close to an apples-to-apples comparison as I can get, we need to go back to May 2002 when former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger took classified documents out of the National Archive in his pants. (And I wish I were kidding about that last part.) After calling it an “honest mistake,” he eventually plead guilty in 2005. His punishment? Two years of probation, surrendering his law license, a loss of his security clearance for 3 years, and a promise to cooperate with investigators.

No FBI raids on his home. No wall-to-wall media coverage detailing every sorted detail of his crimes on a 25/8 continuous loop (because 24/7 isn’t enough, or because Common Core math took over telling time). Just an acknowledgement of the sentence, a hand-wave of the severity of the crime, and glowing obituaries upon the event of his passing.

Granted, Donald Trump hasn’t gone to the Great Mar-a-Lago in the Sky yet, but there is a decided difference in how the Berger and Trump document situations are being handled. Aside from a handful of balanced analyses from pundits like Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley, the rule has been to assume Trump is guilty and deserves the treatment he’s gotten. Some even point to the Berger situation as precedent in the court of public opinion as a means to condemn Trump.

But there’s a bit more at play here outside of the “whataboutism.” Leftists believe in their superiority (just ask them), and try to shape the world to affirm it. When someone on the Left violates the law or acts inappropriately, it’s circle the wagons time! Only after it’s a done deal will Leftists acknowledge the actual crime, and usually as a means to dismiss it as old news.

That is if Leftists admit there was wrong-doing in the first place. Anyone remember Lois Lerner? If not, she was one of the people behind the IRS targeting political groups with connections to the TEA Party. After blaming the scandal on “low level employees,” the Department of Justice closed their investigation without Lerner being charged. Oh, sure, the DOJ report references mismanagement at all levels, but they allegedly didn’t find any laws being broken.

Unfortunately for them, there were. Lerner admitted to singling out applications for tax exempt status with the words “TEA Party” or “Patriot,” but argued those actions weren’t politically motivated. Yeah, and I’m the first Lutheran Pope. Where the legal violations come into play is when she turned over tax documents from the aforementioned groups to the DOJ.

Yeah. That’s illegal, not to mention unconstitutional. Remember, kids, Leftists say Roe v. Wade was based on a Constitutional right to privacy (that really isn’t in the Constitution, but play along with me here for a minute). That means the IRS violated the right to privacy of TEA Party groups. Oops.

But did the Leftists cheering the raid on Mar-a-Lago say much of anything about Lerner’s criminal and Constitutional missteps? Nope. They went along with the “low level employees” line, which was bullshit from the word go.

With Berger, Lerner, and any number of other Leftists (I’m looking at you, Eric Swalwell), no crime is too grave to excuse, or in most cases ignore, because they’re on the right side. And by “right side” I mean Left side. Bill and Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Hunter Biden, and the whole Hee Haw Gang on the Left are a handful of examples of people who get to be above the law by virtue of being Leftists and having media Leftists (a redundancy, I know) cover for them by not covering them committing crimes.

Republicans, conservatives, and anyone else who falls outside the Leftist hivemind don’t get that treatment. If anything, they’re more heavily scrutinized to find every micron of dirt they can find to make the target of scorn look even more like Al Capone, only less honest. Speaking personally, I’m afraid opposition research will find I had an overdue library book in elementary school, which would certainly derail any hopes I had of becoming President. Or even County Supervisor of Creating Busy Work for Government Employees So They Don’t Actually Try to Do Real Work.

Why…it’s almost as if the Left’s version of law and order only goes one way!

Which, of course, to them it does. Since they are superior to us plebs, they write their own rules and excuse their own mistakes. But that’s not really justice; it’s rigging the system to one’s own benefit. Leftists will argue (without irony) this has been going on for quite some time and only through their efforts will everyone get a fair shake in the legal system. Yet, their efforts to give everyone a fair shake only reinforce the existing power structure where some people are treated better than others.

That’s called a self-own, kids.

Regardless of how you feel about Donald Trump, he was absolutely right about ideology trumping (see what I did there) justice. As more details come about about the Mar-a-Lago raid, I think we’ll see the former President proven right yet again.

And without having to lie to the FISA court, no less!

Watching the Detectives

For those who haven’t already been bored to tears by it, the 1/6 Commission will be having more hearings in September because, as they say, more evidence is coming out. The fact it’s so close to midterms is a complete coincidence, I’m sure! And with each passing day, Leftists are salivating at the findings and testimony so far. Of course, a lot of both have been utter bullshit to date, but hey…

It’s time we had a serious conversation about government-run investigations because I’m not sure we’re getting our money’s worth, and I do mean our money. Even though it helps overall because it keeps some Beltway busybodies occupied for a time and, thus, prevents them from doing real harm, it’s getting to the point where the price tag no longer justifies the results.

Now, before you Leftists get your collectivist panties in a bunch, this isn’t something I’ve just discovered because of the 1/6 Clownshow…I mean Commission. In my lifetime alone, there have been untold number of investigations into just about every conceivable political scandal from Iran/Contra to 1/6, and not one of them has resulted in any tangible benefit to us. So far, the 1/6 Clownshow…I mean Commission is following the same playbook.

The heart of the problem is these investigations aren’t honest from the jump. Oh, you’ll hear supporters say they want to “uncover the truth,” but they don’t want to uncover all of it; just the parts that will help their political allies in the near future. These investigations are designed to uncover their truth, not the truth. And there is a big difference between the two. For one, the former has two more letters.

When you start off an investigation with a bias for or against one of the involved parties, the results are going to be tainted. It’s like the old computer term GIGO, or Garbage In, Garbage Out. You can’t expect a good outcome from bad faith. And with all of the blue ribbon commissions and Congressional investigations I’ve seen, bad faith is the coin of the realm.

Take the Benghazi hearings, for example. As much time and money as we spent on trying to get to the bottom of the deaths of four Americans due to the Obama Administration’s foreign policy leaders being dumber than a bag of hammers, nobody was held accountable. Nobody got fired, arrested, or thrown in Gitmo. One of the major players, Hillary Clinton, walked away without a scratch and managed to convince enough people she would be a great President in spite of the fact she already lost once before to Barack Obama, who was George Washington compared to the Hilldog. And no matter what happened, it is still considered to be a partisan witch hunt by the Left.

Therein lies the next problem with these types of investigations and commissions: it’s near-impossible to remove the ideological bent from the process. There could be a Congressional investigation into the best flavor of snow cone and someone could turn it into a political issue. (Of course, those people are secretly working for Big Cherry or Big Grape, but you didn’t hear that from me.) A big reason for this is that in Washington, everything is political, from the shoes you wear to where you get a tuna melt on rye. When everything can be turned into a political football, truth becomes a casualty.

The funniest part of these investigations to me is how the people behind them go out of their way to try to appear bipartisan by getting people allegedly from both sides of the aisle to participate. Think of it like Affirmative Action, but for less qualified people. It doesn’t matter if the participants hang with the Donkeys or ride with the Elephants if they all have a vested interest in achieving a common goal, which usually is to deflect blame from institutional fuck-ups and find acceptable scapegoats. This results in findings that are more watered down than mixed drinks in Amish strip clubs.

Anyone remember the 9/11 Commission? If you don’t, it’s no big deal. Their findings so laughable and obvious, they were akin to “Don’t stick your fork in the toaster.” And it was done precisely to avoid dealing with the real problems, such as the FBI and CIA not talking to each other on important matters like, oh I don’t know, international terrorists plotting to take over airplanes and crash them into government buildings. In fact, I think one of the 9/11 Commission’s findings was “Don’t let terrorists take over planes and crash them into buildings.”

Yet, with all of their sage advice, are we any safer flying? Sure, the TSA can still give us complementary rectal exams with each flight, but aside from finding the occasional polyp, the answer is a resounding no. So, this begs the question of why we spent all this money and time on what was a waste of both. And the answer is simple: because Congress wanted to give some political buddies the cushiest temp job ever. No results expected, no quality checks provided. Just show up, rustle around some papers, hold a hearing or two, and collect a fat paycheck in between media appearances to talk about how important the work of the commission is and how hard the members are working.

This does a disservice to all Americans. We trust our leaders to represent our best interests, and that trust gets abused more than Ike abused Tina. Yet, whenever there’s a new scandal that gains enough momentum to inspire politicians to do something, we play the same game over and over again and get the same results.

I know Leftists really want the 1/6 Commission to be different, but it won’t be. They’re already a laughingstock in a country that helped make Rebecca Black a music star, and it’s safe to say their results are going to be vastly disappointing to the hardcore “Arrest Trump” crowd. Nothing of significance will come of it because it’s not supposed to happen. All it does is give people with more axes to grind than a lumber camp a chance to get time in the spotlight, collect a paycheck, and look good to people who are already on their side in the first place.

Then, when the inevitable happens, people who put so much faith in the outcome will be pissed off and rant about how the guilty are going unpunished because [insert partisan squawking point here]. That makes for great Twitter engagement, but it’s piss-poor when it comes to actually accomplishing something.

Going forward, I would love to see Congressional investigations outsourced to independent investigators. Maybe someone like Columbo or Sam Spade with no real agenda aside from figuring out the guilty parties and bringing them to justice. Sure, they’re both fictional characters, but after seeing how real Congresscritters do things, we could do a hell of a lot worse than letting fictional characters run things.

The Rule of Law(less)

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.

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?

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.

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

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

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

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

the January 6th Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All because Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton.

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

And that, dear readers, is bullshit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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