Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

There are a lot of things I could say about the recent storming of the Capitol Building, but not a lot of them are flattering. Even so, my criticisms would be a mixture of legitimate concern and more than a little mockery as Donald Trump supporters tried LARPing as Antifa for a few hours. But, I’m not sure I would go as far as the Left has in how they’ve presented the protest-turned-plundering and selfie expedition. Instead, the Left has made the entire affair into a breach of our country’s laws.

Yep, our Leftists friends found a new word in their 365 Reasons To Complain Calendar: insurrection. As you might expect, there are differing opinions on whether what happened at the Capitol rises to that level, but the Left has pretty much decided it did. And if you disagree with them, you’re obviously supporting insurrection against the country and, thus, are just as guilty. If the Left is correct on this, prison overcrowding is going to get a lot worse.

Are they right? Let’s find out!

insurrection

What the Left thinks it means – trying to overthrow a government through violent and destructive means, mainly by Trump supporters

What it really means – anything that the Left sees as threatening to their power base

I did a little digging online to make sure I had a workable definition of the word, and merriam-webster.com came through for me. Their definition of insurrection is as follows:

an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

Keep this in mind for later because it’s going to be relevant. Unlike the rest of my writing.

Insurrection is a violation of federal law, so it’s a pretty serious charge and shouldn’t be thrown around lightly unless you have reason to do it. And, no, merely being a Trump supporter isn’t a good enough reason. Still, this might be considered a semantic argument rather than anything based on the law. It won’t satisfy the Left, but here is the legal definition as found on legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com:

A rising or rebellion of citizens against their government, usually manifested by acts of violence

Oooh. Might be in a little trouble there, folks.

Well, to paraphrase a former President, it all depends on what your definition of rebellion is. At the heart of both of the definitions posted above is the concept of rebelling against the government. And it’s in how the Left views the government where things get stickier than an explosion at a cotton candy convention.

The Left believes government is the be-all and end-all of everything, from paying for pet projects involving the mating habits of the rare Argentinian albino fourteen-toed tree sloth to promoting values that advance the Left’s agenda. If you disagree with that notion, even if it’s because there is no such thing as an Argentinian albino fourteen-toed tree sloth, the Left sees that as a threat to the government as a whole and, by extension, themselves.

Except, of course, unless it’s people on their side of the political spectrum, like Black Lives Matter and Antifa. When they take over a federal building, cause destruction, and advocate overthrowing the entire government, it’s cheeky and fun, not evil and seditious like when the MAGA crowd does it! It’s totes cool! And, unfortunately for them, it’s also the very definition of insurrection, albeit taken to a much larger extreme.

Where Trump supporters might have some wiggle room is the actual purpose of the protests at the Capitol Building. To them, Donald Trump is the government (among other things). Everyone else is either an ally or part of the “Deep State.” In order for the legal definition of insurrection to be met, it would have to be against the government, and since the protests were in support of Donald Trump, they could argue (please check local listings for likelihood this will work) they were protesting the Deep State and their actions are consistent with that. Granted, this is a bit of a stretch, but it can’t be dismissed out of hand.

Along the same lines (and with equal stretching) is the argument the protestors weren’t trying to overthrow the government, but rather a specific function of the government. In this case, it’s the certification of the Electoral College vote. Although there is likely to be at least one pocket of protestors who might be stupid enough to admit they were trying to overthrow the government, most of the people there weren’t.

Wait a minute…I’ve heard that same argument before…something about Antifa/BLM…but I’m sure the people who advanced that argument with them are right there defen…nevermind.

The Left and the Right are guilty of guilt by association here, so their current positions are as valid as a homemade PowerBall ticket. From where I sit, there are very few Trump supporters who can and should be charged with insurrection, but there are also very few BLM and Antifa members who can and should also be charged along with the Trump supporters. The issue is ideological blinders prevent both the Left and the Right from being honest about who should get charged. As you might have guessed by now, I have no problem charging the guilty, even if/when I agree with them. That’s because the law isn’t supposed to be ideologically tinted. Lady Justice has a blindfold on because that’s how justice is meted, or at least should be. If we hold our allies to one standard and our opponents to another, that’s not justice; that’s favoritism.

I’m not going to hold my breath for the Left to catch up on this, but I will continue to hold the only standard that needs to be held in this case: if you do the crime, you do the time.

Oh, and keep your eye on the sparrow.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Yep, this is another Election 2020-related blog post.

The latest news out of the Election That Won’t Die revolves around 126 Republican Congresscritters who supported a lawsuit brought by President Donald Trump’s election team against four states due to election irregularities (you know, like…throwing away military votes for the President). This has the Left up in arms. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said these Republicans have “brought dishonor to the House.”

But that’s not good enough for Leftists. Leftist Twitter (but I repeat myself) exploded with claims these House Republicans are guilty of sedition. Probably not the best week to invoke this, given Rep. Eric Swalwell sleeping with a Chinese spy while he was running for the House, but let’s go with it. Do they have a point this time? Let’s delve deeper into sedition, hopefully without contributing to it.

sedition

What the Left thinks it means – advocating for revolting against and toppling the established order

What it really means – another example of how the Left doesn’t understand irony

For the past 4 years, Democrats and Leftists have been calling President Trump illegitimate and demanding he be removed from office because he didn’t win the popular vote and/or various crimes he and his family are alleged to have committed. They “know” Trump had help from Russia to steal the 2016 elections. In fact, they went so far as to hold protests across the country delegitimizing the Trump Presidency, up to and including violent overthrow of the government or blowing up the White House.

Yeah. These are the folks I trust when it comes to sedition.

On the plus side, Leftists are concerned with people who want to overthrow our government. On the down side, they’re going after the wrong folks. I’ll be the first one to tell you I thought the lawsuit was dumber than letting Jeffrey Epstein babysit, but does it rise to the level the Left wants you think it does? The short answer is no. The longer answer is still no, but has a lot more words connected to it.

The President’s lawsuit, although ill-advised, isn’t an attempt to overthrow the government or its rightful leadership. Neither is the support from House Republicans because…and this is the part the Left keeps forgetting…Trump is still President until January 20, 2021. This little detail makes the sedition charges harder to stick. After all, why would the support for the President’s lawsuit be seditious when the person bringing the lawsuit itself is the President? No violence called for. No threats against the President’s life or the lives of government leaders. Just support for a lawsuit.

Can you say “overkill”? I knew you could.

Even if you expand the focus to the lawsuit and its supporters hurting the government, it falls flat because of the forum used to address the President’s concerns: the courts. You know, the courts…that are established in the Constitution? If President Trump is trying to get people to rebel against the government, he’s doing a crappy job of it. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say the Left is reaching more than Reed Richards.

The funny thing (at least to me) is how quickly the Left is adopting conservative ideas. Since it’s their ideology that stands to gain or lose the most over the outcome of the lawsuit, they want to preserve the status quo of a Biden victory over Trump. If the courts agree with the Trump campaign (which, to date, they haven’t, making them the second most losing team in history behind the Cleveland Browns, but work with me here), that overturns everything the Left wants to accomplish. No Green New Deal, no tax hikes on the wealthy, no free health care and tuition, just four more years of Trump’s Tweets and Leftist meltdowns. Don’t worry, though. Leftists will still have their meltdowns because that’s what they do in lieu of gainful employment.

Once you get past the hyperbole, the Left’s concept of sedition in this case is frightfully strong in words, but frightfully weak in application. In a few short years, they’ve gone from “Dissent is patriotic” to “Dissent is treason.” Yet, the First Amendment gives people the right to not only criticize the government, but to redress grievances with the government. Under Republican Presidents, the Left uses, if not abuses, both concepts demanding they be heard. Under Democrat Presidents, however, they seem to “forget” these parts of the First Amendment exist. Funny how that works out, isn’t it?

This is by design, of course. Leftists believe anyone who doesn’t stay in line like a Rockette is intellectually and morally inferior, which justifies their actions (at least in their minds). To extend this thinking a bit further, anything a non-Leftist does is anti-American and dangerous to the country. And when that non-Leftist is connected to Trump in any way, it becomes an imperative to discredit them, if not outright punish them for not thinking the right way.

George Orwell called. He wanted to let you Leftists know “1984” wasn’t an instruction manual.

Regardless of my feelings on the Trump campaign’s lawsuit regarding the 2020 election, there is no way it rises to the level of sedition, even if you water the definition down like a drink at a strip club. It’s more of the Left conflating objections to their ideology with objections to the country. After seeing some of the Left over the past four years, it’s safe to say the two are mutually exclusive.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett may not have had a chance to figure out what other Justices wear under their robes, she has shown she can sway a decision in short order. By a 5-4 verdict, the Supreme Court struck down New York State’s restriction on religious services due to COVID-19. And as you might expect, the Left took it as well as they usually do: by using Twitter to call her “Amy Covid Barrett.”

The reason for the Left’s latest bout of Loser-itis, aside from resting on the laurels of two previous decisions in their favor, is a gross misunderstanding of the First Amendment’s “Establishment Clause.” Many Leftists on Twitter felt the ruling violated the Establishment Clause because…well, I’m still trying to figure that out, but it might have something to do with Justice Barrett’s faith.

The heart of the case involves faith, and not just Justice Barrett’s. Thanks to New York Governor Andrew “Fredo’s Smarter Brother” Cuomo’s edicts, the question of religious freedom during a pandemic came front and center. And for this week’s Lexicon, let’s take a look at the larger concept of religious freedom.

religious freedom

What the Left thinks it means -the right to worship as you see fit, unless you’re a Christian

What it really means – a vital freedom the Left feels it has to destroy or undercut

The Left’s approach to organized religion is much like their ethical standards; a lot depends on the situation. Much like their world view, Leftists approach religion in terms of a power dynamic, with Christians (used interchangeably with the term “evangelicals”) seen as the most powerful. As a result, Leftists want to hinder Christianity while elevating other religions, namely Islam. That means Muslims get the benefit of the doubt whenever one of theirs does something minor like, say, killing coworkers at a Christmas party, but Christians don’t when they do something major, like…putting a Nativity scene in a public park.

Thanks, ACLU.

And really that’s how the Left has made their religious animosity into law: through the judicial system. Whenever a Christian makes a move in accordance with his/her faith, the Left runs to Big Daddy Government to get their way. Through legal wrangling, identifying loopholes that are either in the original text or an Oktoberfest-pretzel-making frenzy of legal arguing, and a Supreme Court case that made any public school action subject to the “Congress shall make no law” section of the First Amendment, you’re more likely to find a non-violent ANTIFA member than you are to find a Leftist willing to let Christians celebrate without issue.

Although Fox News and others have called such a notion this time of year “The War on Christmas,” the real issue isn’t so specific. Any time a Leftist strikes a blow against Christianity, it affects all religions because the same rules can, may, and eventually will be used against them all. Need proof? Governor Cuomo’s edict that brought about this Supreme Court decision affected any religious gathering. In response, members of the Catholic Church and Jewish faith brought the suit that ultimately ended up in the Supreme Court’s lap.

And because Justice Barrett wasn’t shy about her faith during her confirmation hearing, the Left pinned the decision on her. But the reality is…the Left sucks at reading the Constitution. Although they’re familiar with the Establishment Clause, they overlook the second half which prevents Congress from making any laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. Using Leftist logic, that means Governor Cuomo did his brother Fredo proud…in the bad decisions department.

And if there’s one thing Leftists hate, it’s using their own tactics against them. Well, except if you take into consideration the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg upheld similar restrictions in two previous cases, and her replacement turned the tide. Regardless, there was a clear violation of religious freedom in each case, but only the most recent decision recognized it and brought it to the forefront where it should have been in the first place.

That’s the problem, though. The Left has made it easy to ignore or overlook religious freedom because they have successfully lobbied society to adopt an “all or nothing” approach to religion. Essentially, the Left says religious freedom is only applicable if all religions are represented. Otherwise, the only fair thing to is to have no religions represented. Using people’s feelings to get what they want. That’s the Leftist way!

This is going to be a controversial statement for some and it’s not meant to offend. If you want religious freedom for all, you are going to have to get along with people of different creeds. That means not trying to convert non-believers and leaving them alone to worship as they see fit. The expectation, though, is they will do the same. To put it in the Lutheran vernacular, it’s one big potluck where everyone will bring a little something to pass, and no matter how bad the Jello is, you put it aside and focus on the Little Smokies. There is strength in numbers, and when it comes to religious freedom, there is no time to let theological disagreements get between us.

So, break bread with a Baptist! Go to brunch with a Buddhist! Get lunch with a Lutheran! Grab a coffee with a Catholic! Share a snack with a member of the Church of Shatner (and, yes, this is a real thing)! Dine with a deist! And round out your night with s’mores with Satanists! As that great philosopher Red Green says, we’re all in this together.



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.

Keeping the Faithless

The US Supreme Court has a long history of getting court cases right, but an equally long history of getting cases wrong. For every Brown v Board of Education, there seems to be a Plessey v Ferguson.

And now, we have the most 2020 USSC decision ever. Today, the High Court ruled “faithless electors” who defied the popular vote count of the state in which they are electors could be punished for not voting for the winner of the state popular vote. Two states, Washington and Colorado, successfully defended this stance due to the notion the popular vote should determine who wins the Presidency. I’ll get back to that in a bit, but it’s important to note what has happened since the decision.

The Left is overjoyed because this decision is another step closer to eliminating the Electoral College. To them, the Electoral College is outdated and unfairly allows states with less population to affect the outcome of Presidential elections more than the more populous states. (Of course, these same folks see nothing wrong with California getting more Representatives than, say, Montana, and that representation affecting national laws more than less populous states, but that’s neither here nor there.) In response, the Right is arguing in favor of the Electoral College for the right reason: it prevents larger states (namely California and New York) from overruling smaller states in Presidential elections.

Although the Left may ultimately be right…errr correct on this point, the argument is about the wrong topic. The issue isn’t the viability of the Electoral College; it’s whether electors have the option to vote for who they want. And, surprise surprise, the Left wants to deprive electors their choice when it suits their needs. Remember who brought the matter before the USSC: Washington and Colorado. Both are currently bluer than a choking victim at Ice Station Zebra, so the chances are any faithless elector would be voting against the winner of the popular vote. In other words, the ruling makes it possible for Leftists to punish people for voting against the Left’s candidate. Granted, the punishment may be monetary and easily paid for by the people who get to become electors in the first place. Having said that, it is a step in the wrong direction that can (and knowing Leftists, will) go far worse down the road.

The thing to remember about Leftists is they are more concerned with short term victories than long term consequences. This USSC decision will give them power to coerce electors into voting “the right way.” However, this doesn’t take into consideration the nature of current politics. As we’ve seen in our lifetimes, the balance of power changes from time to time so the party/ideology in power today becomes the Tamaguchi of politics tomorrow. And with each swing of the pendulum, the victories of today becomes the cudgels of tomorrow because, well, politics. Just ask former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid about the “nuclear option” for judicial nominees.

This USSC decision has all the makings of a Harry Reid-esque blunder because it doesn’t account for the current drift within the Left towards being more radical. Even kooks like Nancy Pelosi are being portrayed as sell-outs by the Socialist Socialite Squad because, now get this, Pelosi isn’t Leftist enough. It’s the same argument Leftists have used against Dianne Feinstein for years, all while holding their noses and voting for her because “she’s not as bad as a Republican.”

What makes this decision even more screwed up than a Joe Biden monologue is it underscores a fundamental lack of understanding of how the Electoral College works. The Left keep banging on about every vote counting (well, except if those votes are for Republicans) which is their fundamental argument against the Electoral College. The problem? The slate of electors who gets to vote for the President is determined by…wait for it…the popular vote. Granted, there are some states who apportion the electors based on the percentages each candidate wins, but for most states it’s winner-take-all. Yet, in either case, people still cast one vote, which in the Left’s own logic, means the current system is… exactly what they say they want.

Since each state has the power under the Constitution to choose how electors are chosen, I say we do away with the winner-takes-all approach and switch to a proportional system as to allow each candidate running a chance to have a say in the final Electoral College vote. Heck, this would also open up the possibility of third parties getting to the table for a chance, which means my candidate Pat Paulsen might actually get a vote for President. Sure, he’s dead, but if you’ve seen some of the people who ran for President in 2020, we could have done worse.

In either case, we are going to see the aftermath of this USSC decision sooner rather than later and, unfortunately, our leaders and media folks aren’t going to see it until much later.