If you heard a loud cheer this past week, it was the sound of airline passengers cheering as they found out the federal mandate on wearing masks on airplanes and other forms of public transportation got lifted. Afterwards, however, you heard the sound of Leftists heads exploding as they tried to explain why it was a bad thing to let people choose whether to wear masks.
And they found out the judge in question was a Trump appointee who had been ranked as “not qualified” by the American Bar Association. That, along with the gross mischaracterization of the ruling a “a judge with no medical experience ruling on a medical matter,” became the talking point to discredit the ruling without actually taking the time to, you know, read it. But it does open up an interesting question: why would the ABA’s rating of this judge matter? Turns out, it matters a lot… and not at all.
American Bar Association
What the Left thinks it means – an important group whose ranking of judges is essential to determining their fitness for office
What it really means – a group whose reputation carries more weight than its actual rankings
For as long as I can remember, the ABA was the gold standard when it came to all things judicial. Their opinions could make or break a judge’s career, and often did. Then, over time, their opinions started to lean further left than a runner trying to avoid getting picked off on first. As a result, let’s just say only a handful of people take their rankings seriously, and oddly enough, it’s the same people who consider Paul Krugman a credible economist.
Let’s take the ABA’s ranking of the judge in the federal mask mandate case, Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle. They took the bold step of ranking her as not qualified because…they felt she hadn’t spent enough time on the bench. Of course, she has the experience of, you know, actually doing the job, so the lack of time on the bench shouldn’t be a disqualifier…except for the ABA and the Leftists who still listen to them.
By contrast, the newest Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson earned a “Well Qualified” rating by the ABA. And that was in spite of Justice Brown Jackson not knowing what a woman is because, “I’m not a biologist.”
Granted, we’re dealing with two different levels of judicial positions, but before Leftists can convince you this will excuse the difference, let me point out the fact the standards seem to be higher for the lower courts if the ABA’s analysis is to be taken seriously.
Which, at this point, we really shouldn’t.
Their rating system categorizes each judge as “Well Qualified”, “Qualified,” or “Not Qualified” under the auspices of a 15-member panel. (Don’t let the fact the Ninth Circus…I mean Circuit Court has 2 votes on this panel sway you.) A simple majority is all that is needed for a judge to get one of the three designations, with a super majority of 2/3 needed to add extra prestige to the designation. Nothing like that new judge smell.
Ah, but that’s where the ABA has gone astray. As the link I shared above shows, the ABA’s leftward tilt has created a system where even the most qualified judge with conservative leanings could be left out in the “Not Qualified” hinterlands while unqualified Leftist judges could get a “Well Qualified” rating with little more than a wave of the hand. As you might expect, this has watered down the ABA’s sway over federal judicial nominations more than a mixed drink at a low-end strip club…not that I know anything about that, mind you.
Adding insult to injury, the past two Republican Presidents, George W. Bush and Donald Trump, made the move away from relying on the ABA’s ratings as a determining factor for federal judicial appointments. This was met by Leftists with one part derision, one part hypochondria, and one part partisan screeching. Or as the rest of us call it, Tuesday. Even before Bush and Trump, it was becoming clear the ABA’s blessing meant jack shit to whether a judge would be appointed. That was bound to happen when your ratings are as questionable as roadside sushi stands in Death Valley.
When President Joe Biden made the move back to elevating the ABA to the judge of judges, it was quite the tell, but it was also an inadvertent admission of how its reputation has been sullied by, well, acting like a bunch of dishonest lawyers. (Yes, I know I kinda repeated myself, but still.) Of course, Leftists will blame Trump for the erosion of faith, but it’s a self-inflicted wound; Trump only poured salt, habanero juice, lemon juice, and pure grain alcohol into it.
And the ABA isn’t getting the hint. With a more critical eye towards actual qualifications instead of arbitrary benchmarks, we will get better judicial nominees and appointees instead of “check the box” style candidates whose external “qualifications” hold more weight than their curricula vitae. (That’s Latin for “boring shit academics put on resumes instead of saying they worked as a night stocker at Piggly Wiggly to get through law college.” Didn’t know ancient Rome even had a Piggly Wiggly, did ya?) That’s why I think the ABA needs a procedural tune-up.
First, we need stricter guidelines for the three designation levels. Just because a judge wins a popularity contest doesn’t mean his or her rulings aren’t shit. Here are my suggestions.
– “Not Qualified” should be only for those cases where the judge couldn’t follow basic jurisprudence with a highlighter and the spirit of Earl Warren helping them. In fact, this ranking should be reserved for those who shouldn’t even be allowed in court to defend themselves in a criminal case. Like Congresscritters.
– “Qualified” should mean the nominee has a firm grasp on the law and how it and the Constitution are interpreted. This should not mean he or she would rule a certain way because all the other judges are doing it. The judge has to show his/her work. Doesn’t have to be anything flashy or profound. Just competent, and God knows we need more competent judges on the bench.
– “Well Qualified” should be reserved for the truly exceptional judges, ones who craft well-reasoned decisions and/or showed scholarly traits that helped to advance our understanding of the law and/or Constitution. I’m talking the best of the best. This designation should be rarer than how Count Dracula orders his steak, and it should be backed up with evidence so we know the judge is truly worthy of the designation.
Next, I would make the ABA members who vote on the designations present their cases arguing solely on the merit (or lack thereof) of the candidates themselves. That means they are going to have to do their homework (or have their clerks or interns do it). I feel this can be done through a blind test where a judge’s ruling is laid out, minus any identifying details that would like him or her to the ruling. After study and deliberation, the ABA can then vote for the candidate’s designation. Oh, and if it’s determined one of the members voted purely upon ideological or political grounds instead of the merits, they gone and their vote nullified.
And one final reform. Until the American Bar Association can get its act together and start acting in a non-partisan manner, their opinions should be taken with a grain of salt. And I’m talking a grain of salt so big it will be open for skiing and snowboarding. Maybe attract mountain climbers and sherpa. That big.
Category: Justice
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Last week the Biden Administration finally took action on an issue that consumed our nation’s attention. And I, for one, want to give the President credit due him for taking a bold stand against…ghost guns.
Confused? You should be. This was a new one for me, considering the only ghost guns I knew of came from the Ghostbusters and they were fictional characters. However, the Left wants us to believe ghost guns are a real threat to society, which obviously means it is…to Leftists.
ghost guns
What the Left thinks it means – a dangerous variant on the already escalating gun problem in America
What it really means – the inevitable result of gun control laws
To put an actual concept to the term, ghost guns are firearm kits or weapons that can be purchased online without a background check. What makes them so concerning to Leftists is the fact they are untraceable and lack a serial number, so they can’t be traced back to an individual. Although the Left wants to frame this as a public safety issue, there’s a more obvious explanation of why Leftists are freaking out about ghost guns.
Ghost guns avoid Leftist gun control laws and the licensing fees connected to them.
Whenever you come across a Leftist issue like this that doesn’t seem to make much sense to introduce at a particular time (so, basically, any Leftist issue), most likely it’s being brought up because of money, power, or both, since these are the motivating factors behind anything the Left does. Altruism doesn’t enter into the picture unless it’s spending other people’s money to accomplish it. They’re in it for purely prurient reasons.
Case in point: gun control laws.
Have you noticed the number of gun-related deaths in cities and areas with strict gun control laws? Why, it’s almost as though…criminals don’t follow laws or something! But instead of packing it in and realizing they are walking definitions of insanity, Leftists double down (or would it be double-barrel down) on more gun laws, knowing they don’t work as well as they want us to believe. But they do work in generating income and creating a power dynamic that allows the government to dictate to peons…I mean citizens. In some places, a cat can haz cheezburger before even law-abiding citizens can get a gun permit, and it’s even worse in “may issue” states where you can be denied a permit even if you jump through the legal hoops to get one simply because the government says so.
But remember, kids, Republicans are the ones who want to dictate to us how to live our lives because Leftists say so.
It is said necessity is the mother of invention, but being able to piss off Leftists is a pretty good motivator, too. Instead of knuckling under to Leftist demands, people have been figuring out ways to make working firearms and making money off it and keeping the Leftists out of the process altogether. It’s the American Dream as written by the NRA!
By making it more difficult to own firearms, making moves to make it harder and more expensive to get ammunition (which, by the way, is also a DIY project), and doing next to nothing about the proliferation of violent crime, Leftists laid the groundwork for ghost guns to be a thing. Nothing like a self-own to make a Leftist idea go up in flames like the Hindenburg.
Which brings us to another reason the Left introduced the ghost guns issue right now: the Biden Administration has been the political equivalent of a flaming bag of dog shit put on America’s front porch while Kamala Harris rings the doorbell. Between the never-ending Hunter Biden scandals and the numerous bouts of political, economic, and foreign policy incompetence, Joe Biden needed a win. Unfortunately for him, this ain’t it. Most people don’t know even know what a ghost gun is, but the President decided to make it the focal point of a Rose Garden event. It’s like letting Hannah Gadsby headline a comedy show, or the opening of a Blockbuster Video for that matter: those who know are already going to go, but most people won’t and there’s not enough interest to attract them.
I know this is going to be a risky prediction to make, but dammit I really think this one’s going to pan out. Any laws or regulations concerning ghost guns is going to fail. I’m no Nostradamus, but given the track record of gun control laws and their failure to address gun violence in any meaningful way, I’m confident this will end the same way and for the same reason: Leftists don’t think far enough ahead to see the fatal flaws of their ideas. Which makes it better for us because a) it lays the groundwork for those ideas to be challenged and eventually defeated, b) it gives us ongoing topics for blog posts, and c) it provides endless opportunities for humor!
Unlike Hannah Gadsby.
Leftist Lexicon W0rd of the Week
If you want to make a simple concept more complex than it needs to be, leave if to the Left. This past week saw an example of this fall in our respective laps, and it involves a woman. Or, more specifically, what a woman is. Now, most people can figure it out, but that hasn’t stopped the Left from trying to cast doubt on the answer.
Whether it’s a NCAA woman’s swimming champion sporting a penis, proclamations about trans women getting pregnant in spite of lacking the necessary parts, or a Supreme Court nominee who seems to think you need a biologist to know what a woman is (while being a woman herself), the Left has made being a woman a lot more difficult.
woman
What the Left thinks it means – anybody who identifies as a woman
What it really means – an adult biological female
Now, the Left will tell us my definition doesn’t include trans women and, thus, I’m a transphobe. Of course, if they knew me, they would know a) I don’t hate trans people, b) I don’t fucking care what they call me because c) I trust week-old convenience store sushi more than the Left’s ability to accurately judge a situation. And, to put it mildly, they’ve completely misread the situation with women.
For decades, women flocked to the Left for various reasons, including their desire to kill unborn children at will. And that worked well…until the Left got invested in trans rights. Now, Leftists are showing how much they actually cared about women’s issues: not a hell of a lot.
The Left believe the ends justify the means. If that means they have to lie, cheat, and steal to achieve a goal, they’ll do it, and they’ve done it with women’s issues. They’ll throw out vague threats (Republicans are going to outlaw abortions if they get back into power), nice-sounding but ultimately meaningless slogans (childcare is infrastructure), and ideas with no basis in reality (the gender pay gap) to keep women voting for Leftists. Yet, in spite of promising to fight the patriarchy, nothing of substance gets done. Part of this is because Leftists are mostly incompetent, but the main reason is because they need problems to continue for them to keep votes coming in for Leftist candidates. Blather, rinse, repeat.
Then, trans women came into the scene. Although most are predisposed to vote for Leftists, the Left doesn’t want to take any chances. So, they played around with the language and came up with the idea to consider trans women as actual women. On the surface, it doesn’t seem to be that troubling, but then trans women started to get involved in women’s sports. And not just succeeding here and there, kids. Absolutely dominating them.
Congratulations, ladies. You lost the War of the Sexes to men, thanks to Leftists.
What’s worse is the Left doesn’t even want to consider the fact their overly gracious definition of women is wrong. They’re the smartest people in the room (just ask them). Well, there are a couple of key points these “smart” people have overlooked and to much hilarity.
First off is science. Now, the “party of science” doesn’t want you to consider basic biology to realize there really are two genders, male and female. While the Left pushes the bullshit idea that gender is a social construct put upon babies upon birth, the actual science says just the opposite. In order to be born female, a baby has to have two x chromosomes. Once that happens, nature takes its course and the girl develops as girls tend to do, no doctors designations needed.
Then, there is the numbers game. Right now women make up a little over half of the population. Meanwhile, 1.4 million adults identify as transgender. Out of a US population of 329.5 million people, that makes a whopping…0.004%. So, Leftists are gambling on pissing off over half of the population just to appease a group that was already inclined to vote with the Left in the first place.
So, how does that ass-fucking feel, ladies? It gets worse, though.
Thanks to the Left’s love of trans women, there are going to have to be new interpretations of existing rules, laws, and regulations. If you’re upset over Lia Thomas dominating NCAA women’s swimming, just consider the implications for Title IX. For those of you playing along at home, Title IX is designed to prevent sex discrimination at any educational institution that gets federal funding. That’s right, kids. Soon men will be allowed to get Title IX protection merely by identifying as women. They don’t even have to get their…well, hot dogs…removed.
If you’re sensing a pattern here, it’s because there is one. For all of the “progress” being made with trans women, it’s at the expense of women who were born women. Say, isn’t there a term the Left uses for power systems that favor men? Isn’t it called…the Patriarchy? Why, yes, yes it is! Am I saying the Left’s supporting the Patriarchy by going so overboard with the trans woman issue? Why, yes, yes I am!
Maybe it’s me, but sometimes the irony tastes like steak. This is one of those times.
To put it simply, trans women aren’t women. I don’t say this to be mean or hateful; I say it because it’s the truth. There is a lot more about being a woman than just slapping on a skirt and make-up. As conservative commentator and all around good egg Tammy Bruce explained it, women are the sum total of their unique experiences, experiences men don’t have and, thus, can’t shape their lives like these experiences do for women. Although, I do think of the day my mom got me my first bra…unschweiger. Yeah, that’s it!
Anyway, the important thing to keep in mind here is women are different than men. Always have been and always will be. And that’s a good thing! What isn’t so good is the notion women have to take a back seat to trans women in the name of equality, diversity, and tolerance. You ladies have worked far too hard for far too long to gain equal, and in some cases superior, footing in society just to let Leftists toss it all aside for the Lia Thomases of the world. Stand up for yourselves and let the Left know how you feel. Sure, you’ll get pushback and even some harsh rhetoric thrown your way, but it doesn’t matter because of one little detail the Left can’t refute.
You are smarter than a Supreme Court nominee because you don’t even need to be a biologist to know what a woman is!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With everything going on in the world today, it’s a good bet someone is going to get upset about something. And if that person is motivated enough, he or she may decide to whip up support by protesting that thing.
For Leftists, it happens on a day ending in, well, “day.”
Yet, for all of the protesting the Left does, they don’t always support protesting, as we’ll see in a bit. But first, a little housekeeping in the form of a definition.
protest
What the Left thinks it means – exercising a First Amendment right to express an opinion
What it really means – exercising a First Amendment right to express a Leftist-approved opinion
Among the myriad rights outlined in the aforementioned Amendment are freedom of speech and the right to redress grievances with the government. (Although, I’m not sure I want to know how the grievances got naked in the first place.) These combine like Zords into a Megazord we call protesting, and it’s a right many Americans exercise more than they exercise, literally.
Protesting is one of the rights the Left hold dear because otherwise they might have to get jobs and be productive. However, they have a two-tiered approach to it, and as the definition I provided shows, it’s based on ideology.
I’m going to call this next section “A Tale of Two Protests.” And hopefully the estate of Charles Dickens doesn’t sue me into oblivion. Our first protest is one that has made the rounds in conservative media circles because of its sheer intensity and literal volume. Jeff Younger is running for the Texas State House in large part because of the way the courts treated him. You see, Younger is the father of a young boy who has been convinced by his mother he’s a girl. After a lengthy court battle, he won a small victory by a judge’s decision barring his now ex-wife from giving his son drugs that would restrict puberty and essentially transition him from male to female.
Well, Younger appeared on the campus of the University of North Texas and the Left showed up in droves to disrupt his speech because…transphobe? Actually, I can’t quite make out the logical arguments they made because a) I don’t speak Shrill Leftist Harpy, and b) they didn’t make any. They were simply there to cause chaos, go viral, and take a stand against trans hate. As a fan of the First Amendment, I can’t begrudge their protest, no matter how asinine it was, and the Left agreed. The students protesting were in the right.
Now, we move on to a different protest, the American version of the Freedom Convoy. If it’s anything like the Canadian version, be prepared for the utter chaos of…honking horns, music, and a sense of community. A worse hellscape than anything Clive Barker could come up with, I assure you.
Seriously, though, the Freedom Convoy by and large was and is a peaceful event with generally good fellowship mixed with a good helping of traffic disruption. Sure, there were some asshats who went overboard, but you’ll get that and they were the exception instead of the rule. And as you might expect, the Left has gone out of their way to denigrate this protest, insinuating it’s backed by Russians, white supremacists, neo-Nazis, conservative media, the Koch Brothers, and a few other groups. As of this writing, I’m not sure if the Freemasons (or even the Reasonably Priced Masons) have been invoked, but it’s still early in the year. And now that the impending war over Ukraine is looming like Michael Moore’s shadow over an all-you-can-eat buffet, Leftists are dismissing the Freedom Convoy protest because “there’s more important things to worry about right now.”
Like…allowing young boys to transition to young girls, apparently?
The thing to remember is both the UNT students and the Freedom Convoy should be allowed to protest, even if we don’t agree with them. The thing the Left doesn’t get about the First Amendment is it goes both ways, not just the way they want it to go. Kinda like Dennis Rodman, but with better fashion sense in wedding dresses. If the Left values the right to protest, they have to allow for the right to protest against them, but they don’t. Otherwise, I would have to be boring you with a different Lexicon topic.
The reason for the Left’s two-faced approach to protesting involves their desire to control the narrative. Once you control how events are presented, you control how they’re perceived and what the audience sees, hears, and feels. That’s creepy enough as it is, but it gets worse when an event is 180 degrees out of phase from reality. Then, the outcome gets messy and even expensive if legal recourse is initiated.
Just ask CNN or its new owner, Nick Sandmann.
Controlling the narrative is essential in protesting as well as in the media/court of public opinion. The chaos and destruction left by Black Lives Matter and ANTIFA protests is hard to ignore, but surprisingly many people only focus on the narrative presented by those groups. Instead of garnering scorn for trying to turn city streets into Beirut on a good day, they garnered sympathy because of the cause. But here’s the thing: no matter how righteous your cause, it loses its righteousness when the resulting protest turns destructive. Blocking the street with a march protesting police brutality and the unnecessary killing of citizens is inconvenient, but doesn’t cross that line. When the protest includes destruction of public property, assault, and arson…well, let’s just say you’ve missed your turn and are zooming down the highway to the Destruction Zone.
The right to protest can be a tightrope walk because of the implications of letting different sides speak their minds. If you allow, say, a Nazi rally in your town, does that mean the town is totally pro-Nazi? Not at all, but with the advent of incredibly fast social media posting and incredibly slow thinkers using them, it can become one faster than you can type OMG. That’s where we need to be a lot more libertarian in our approach to protests, meaning we support what we support and ignore what we don’t. Trust me, it makes life a lot simpler and stops you from having to continually apologize to people who wouldn’t accept your apology under any circumstances.
As with the right to free speech, the right to protest comes with some responsibilities. Just because you can carry a rifle in public doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to do so while voicing displeasure over a public official’s actions. If you feel the need to protest, put your best foot forward (and not to trip someone else, by the way). Be willing to discuss your position in a calm, rational manner. Even if those protesting your protest are screaming like banshees listening to a Yoko Ono CD on repeat, you’ll come off better by keeping cool. Plus, it drives Leftists nuts when they can’t rile you into emotional outbursts, so there’s that.
In the end, though, it cannot be overstated how the right to protest has lead to positive change in this country. It’s one I wholeheartedly endorse and support because of that fact. Even if the Left puts ideological conditions on its valid usage, we don’t need to follow their lead. We just need to allow them to march along to the beat of their own drummers so they can enjoy the fruits of their labor.
And we can enjoy mocking them. Thanks, First Amendment!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Once again, the Lexicon Gods came through in a big way this week! There was enough material for two whole installments, but one of those can keep for a while. This week, though, there was one that practically begged me to write about it.
And, no, it’s not the voices in my head. At least, not this time.
The two worst kept secrets in Washington, DC, became public knowledge this week. One involves an old man taking actions in preparation of the impending Republican obliteration of the Democrats in the 2022 midterm elections, and the other involves Supreme Court Justice Steven Breyer. After days of speculation about whether Justice Breyer was going to retire fueled by the media, he finally came out and confirmed he was, much to the chagrin of the tens and tens of his fans.
As a result, President Joe Biden may get a Supreme Court nominee in the near future. During the 2020 Presidential lock-in…I mean campaign, Biden promised to appoint the first African-American woman to the Supreme Court because…reasons? Leftists are praising the decision and pushing the President to make good on his promise because it will add, and I’m not making this up, “new lived experiences” to the High Court.
Hanging curve ball, meet rhetorical bat.
lived experiences
What the Left thinks it means – cultural insights that are not usually reflected in positions of power
What it really means – a word salad designed to give gravitas to someone just for breathing regularly
Let me cut to the chase here: everyone has lived experiences simply by living. Last time I checked, everybody was different, from genetic code on up. As a result, each life experience will be different due to parenting, environment, social and economic status, and so on. So, to make some people’s lived experiences more valuable than others, especially when it comes to political appointments, is folly.
Which is why the Left keeps doing it.
No matter who the President appoints, there is going to be scrutiny down to the microscopic level. Anything from legal briefs to favorite brand of cheese puffs will be brought up and scandalized by political operatives wanting to take down the nominee. Oh, sure, some will take a hard look at seemingly controversial topics done for the sake of looking smarter than the Senator actually is, but most of the inquiries will come down to “gotcha” moments. That’s why the party that controls the Senate does its best to coach nominees on how to avoid these moments.
In short, give vague, non-specific responses to specific questions, smile a lot, and try to look like you own the place.
Unfortunately, that typically works. In the past few decades, people who could have been good Justices have been scrapped while others who wonder which foot goes into his or her legal briefs first get by without a hitch. In some cases, even clear conflicts of interest aren’t enough to derail the nomination.
Now, what does any of this have to do with “lived experiences”? It’s a tool used to deflect any criticism, legitimate or otherwise, from the nominee in question. Within the “diversity is our strength” crowd, there are two fundamental principles: 1) white males are overrepresented, and 2) the only way to correct this is to overrepresent non-white people.
Don’t look at me. It doesn’t make sense to me either.
Even if you’re not a white male, the Left will find a way to discount your lived experiences if it’s inconvenient to their cause. Look at how the Left treats Dr. Ben Carson, Candace Owens, Tulsi Gabbard, and too many other people to mention, past and present. For some reason, their lived experiences aren’t valid, while the lived experiences of people like Vice President Kamala Harris or former President Barack Obama are sacrosanct. Then again, maybe the lived experiences of sleeping your way up the political ladder or going to private schools without anyone ever challenging you are vital to this country taking steps in the right direction, but I’m going to need a lot more convincing before I jump on the bandwagon.
And a few stiff drinks.
Now, consider the Left’s support of identity politics as it pertains to lived experiences. What happens if someone self-identifies as a non-white male? They probably didn’t have the same lived experiences as an actual non-white male, but in their minds they have. And unless they want to be hypocritical bigots, they have to accept this identification.
Now imagine if someone like Mitch McConnell, Donald Trump, or Ted Cruz did that. The sheer sound of Leftist heads exploding would be epic!
As it the fact lived experiences is about as useless a term as the Left has devised. Not only is it based off the absurd notion one person’s life experiences are somehow superior to others, but it creates a caste system based on it. The fact it’s being used as a bizarre Leftist litmus test for Supreme Court Justices is as unhinged and laughable as you can get. Like Joy Reid, only dumber.
But it’s all to hide any deficiencies in any Leftist darling’s resume when it comes to the actual job of the Supreme Court: to interpret the law and the Constitution. Nothing else. And in the end, as long as whomever is nominated has a grasp on that, I won’t raise too much of a fuss. If she turns out to be someone who couldn’t count to ten with the Bill of Rights as a cheat sheet, then I’ll have problems. And none of it will be related to her background or what life experience she brings to the table. That is ultimately irrelevant, as it should be from the jump. Anyone who says differently is selling something, namely a judge or lawyer who would make Lionel Hutz look like Earl Warren.
And not only is Hutz a horrible lawyer, but he’s a flipping cartoon.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
There are times when current events bring back policy issues from the past. This week, Roe v Wade was a hot button topic on the Left, mainly because the Left is ginning up fear that it will be repealed by the Supreme Court. On the docket there are two cases that the Left feels will do away with a woman’s right to choose if the High Court rules in a certain way, and with three Trump-era picks on the court, they’re afraid it’s going to be a slam dunk against them.
When you really think about it (and I because I don’t have a life), the Left puts a lot of weight on the Roe decision, but there are a lot of underpinnings that make it far more controversial than it is. And when you’re dealing with anything related to abortion, anything that adds more controversy is bad.
I promise my analysis will get better in this piece.
Roe v Wade
What the Left thinks it means – a Supreme Court decision essential to ensuring women’s rights
What it really means – a poorly-crafted Supreme Court decision with tragic implications
Before we get started, I know a number of people will dismiss this piece because I’m not a woman. It’s okay because I self-identify as one. Seriously, though, it’s frightfully easy to dismiss male opinions on abortion because of who is giving them. Maybe the Left missed the memo on this, but that’s sexism. After all, it takes two to tango, as it were, and men’s voices should be heard on the subject thanks to the fact men contribute half the chromosomes to make a baby. Until science figures out how to change the dynamic, men and women have just as much of a right to speak on the subject.
Even so, you think I’m going to get a bunch of Leftists silence me? I’m just too much of a jerk to let that happen.
At the heart of the Roe decision is a medical, philosophical, theological, logical, political, and moral question: when does life begin? For Leftists, life begins when the baby comes out of the birth canal and, thus, can be used to vote for Leftist politicians. From a physiological standpoint, life begins when the zygote is formed. Oddly enough, this is one time the Left doesn’t want us to follow the science.
On a related note, I’m going to use “baby” instead of “fetus” for the reason stated above: I’m following the science. When Leftists say it’s not a baby, they’re hard pressed to tell us what it is if not a baby. A muskox? Fairy dust? A perfectly preserved 1956 Chevrolet? So far, the best the Left has been able to come up with is it’s a bundle of cells.
Which, by the way, is technically all humans. including the Pussy Hat Brigade who want to be able to terminate some bundles of cells because…reasons.
Where the Roe decision really gets off the rails more than an Amtrak train being driven by Lindsey Lohan is in the interpretation and application of English common law. Under its direction, children in the womb received life, called quickening, at the first sign of the baby moving. (Good thing they hadn’t invented Taco Bell yet!) In other words, the baby was alive before he or she was born.
Once this point is established, it creates a domino effect on multiple levels, but most importantly in this case legally. However, the lawyers who argued in favor of a woman being able to terminate a pregnancy before birth twisted the story a bit. Instead, they claimed English common law didn’t specify it, which allowed for more flexibility. After all, if the fetus isn’t considered life, it removes a lot of the personal elements from the procedure itself.
Hmmm…I wonder why the Left would lie about English common law when it would advance their political…ohhhhhh! I get it now!
And really, this is utterly predictable, like Rep. Eric Swalwell making an asshat of himself on Twitter. Out of all the things the Left loves to politicize, sexual matters are at the top because, well, they’re immature. As much as they like to pretend they’re more sophisticated than the rest of us, the truth is the Left are like horny teenage boys at a strip club. Because of this, they look at such matters simplistically. You know, for people who claim to know all about nuance, they don’t practice it that much.
This brings us back to Roe. From the Left’s perspective, getting rid of Roe is akin to taking adult women and turning them into chattel without agency or independent thought. And that’s the Left’s gimmick! If Roe gets repealed, it leaves the decision of whether to allow abortion to the states, which takes it out of the federal scope and, thus, forces Leftists to take their loopy arguments to all 50 states. Oh, and it will force them to spend more of their/our money to get what they want. Ultimately, though, it dilutes the Left’s power to affect the change they want. Instead of clinging to a bad ruling like Linus clings to his blanket, they would actually need to do the legwork to get their agenda in place nationwide, and since there are some states who don’t take a liking to abortion, they won’t be able to force compliance with the force of judicial fiat.
Which would be fine if the Left’s talking points were anywhere accurate. According to them, legal abortion is favored by a majority of people polled, but it’s rarely brought up to a public vote. Why? Because putting it up to a vote opens it up for the measure to fail, which also means the talking points would be rendered as null and void as Chris Cuomo’s CNN contract. Talk about adding insult to injury! If you think Leftists are sensitive now, just wait until they get defeated by voters! If they do what they normally do with public referendums that don’t got their way, they will run into a hurdle, namely the fact the USSC overturned Roe. Oops.
The Left has a lot at stake with the two Supreme Court cases involving Roe v Wade, so it’s not hard to imagine they’ll pull out all the stops to win. Yet, what they win has to be balanced against what’s being lost: potential Democrat voters and Leftist foot soldiers. Although there are plenty of young people filling those roles right now, at some point there will be a drop in those numbers, either through aging, changing opinions, or simply just seeing how bat-shit insane the Left has gotten.
It strikes me as funny the Left is doggedly holding onto a Supreme Court ruling that, while flawed, is the key to their destruction (in Minecraft and other places). The longer Roe remains in place, the lower their numbers will eventually get. But to right that ship, they would need to do a 180 on Roe, which they won’t do because it would mean they’ve been wrong for 40+ years and their ego can’t take it.
Even so, as pro-life as I personally am, I have to know where my limits are. I’m not going to force someone to take my position. All I can do is make my opinions known and hope they’re persuasive enough. I urge you to take a hard look at the information that’s out there on both sides regarding Roe v Wade and be willing to do what the Left doesn’t want you to do: ask questions.
And take baths. They hate that!
Several Lies for Two Bothers
It’s no secret my opinion of the media is lower than the bottom of Mole Man’s socks, but it never fails to amaze me when they ask for more drilling equipment to go even lower. And when you’re talking about low, you can’t help but mention CNN, the third-rated cable news network today. Yep, the self-professed cable news leader is regularly getting beaten in the ratings by both news and non-news networks.
But that’s not the reason for this blog post. Instead, I’m going to focus on one of CNN’s puppets…I mean hosts, Chris Cuomo. As in the-brother-of-Anthony-Cuomo Chris Cuomo. As in the-the-former-Governor-of-New-York Andrew Cuomo. As in…just kidding.
Anyway, recent documents related to the “Luv Guv’s” sexual abuse allegations drew a pretty straight, solid, highlighted with every color of the neon rainbow line between the two brothers, with Chris giving Andrew advise and information about at least some of his accusers using some of his media connections. Although the media and Leftist politicians being in bed together isn’t anything new, the fact this was done so brazenly yet covertly has CNN looking for lighted mining helmets.
So far, the Left’s reaction has been a mixture of apathy, insinuations everyone would help a relative, and…attacking Fox News. But none of these address the central issue: a member of the news media used his connections and network’s reputation as straight news to help a politician who shares his ideological sympathies through a major personal and political scandal, all while doing it behind the scenes where the public wouldn’t know about it. It’s not illegal, but it is highly questionable ethically and professionally.
Which means CNN is in the clear since they have neither.
Seriously, though, the Cuomo Brothers, Fredo and…well, Other Fredo, aren’t helped by the fact they lied by omission and expected the “we’re family” excuse to work. Listen, I love my family as much as they do, but when they’re involved in criminal behavior, helping them hide it doesn’t make me a good family member; it makes me an accomplice. And if any family member would force or coerce me into a situation like that, well, let’s just say my Christmas card list just got shorter.
What the Left doesn’t want to acknowledge is how Chris’s actions compound an already crappy situation. Although the media (including Chris) did their best to sweep the fact Andrew’s leadership (or lack thereof) lead to the deaths of tens of thousands of elderly people under the biggest rug they could find, it’s a lot harder to treat multiple allegations of sexual misconduct in the same manner thanks in part to a little movement the media promoted called #MeToo. Granted, rich and powerful people getting away with crime is as common as Antifa protestors being unemployable by most of society, but #MeToo was supposed to put everyone on notice not to be a sexual predator. Many of the same people who are Fredo-shielding Chris have been railing against similar allegations levied against President Donald Trump and demanding he be held accountable, often with much less evidence than what Andrew is facing.
If that sounds like a whataboutism, it kinda is. It’s also factually accurate and speaks to the political matter at hand. No matter how much a Leftist politician sucks, the Left will protect him or her, but only as long as the politician a) continues to be an asset, b) takes actions they wish they could duplicate, and c) can be used to bludgeon conservatives or anyone else who thinks the politician’s actions are scummy as heck. With Andrew, you get the trifecta!
At least for now. The Law of Diminishing Returns is still in effect, even after criminal or civil law ceases to be. Andrew’s political career isn’t done yet, but the fat lady is warming up backstage as we speak. The same may be said about Chris’s media career. As of this writing, CNN has indefinitely suspended him “pending further investigation.” Meaning, until this all blows over. The fact CNN is doing this now as opposed to, oh, when his brother was in the news for sexual misconduct is like closing the barn door after the horses have gotten out, moved to a new ranch, and sent you their forwarding address. And it should not be lost on any of us that Chris isn’t fired. He’s merely sitting at home and most likely continuing to get paychecks for doing only slightly less than he does on air.
And if he comes down with the new COVID variant, guess who will get a shot back on CNN again.
That’s the part that irks me the most, but it’s not surprising given how lenient CNN was with Jeffrey “Don’t Ever Accept a Zoom Call From Me” Toobin. As bad as the allegations against Chris Cuomo are, CNN doesn’t seem to have a consistent standard when dealing with employees who cross lines as egregiously as he did. As others have so astutely pointed out, CNN fired three employees who refused to get a COVID shot, but keep Cuomo and Toobin on the payroll. But at least we know where the line is. You can slap the clown (and that isn’t a threat against Congresscritters) in front of coworkers or use your name and position to score details about sexual assault accusers, but being non-vaccinated is a bridge too far!
Granted, it’s CNN and they can do what they want regarding hiring and firing, but it would be nice to see them put more effort into trying to at least appear consistent with their discipline than they have been so far. Maybe CNN’s new owner, Nick Sandmann, can get them whipped into shape. Until then, we can either get mad that CNN can’t even hold its own people accountable consistently or we can do the one thing that CNN and its fanboys hate the most.
We can mock them.
And we will.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
In case you’ve been living under a rock recently (and given housing prices these days, I wouldn’t blame you if you did), there was a little trial in Kenosha, Wisconsin, where Kyle Rittenhouse faced some serious charges and was ultimately acquitted. At the heart of the trial and the situation that came before it is the concept of self-defense. Others have hashed out the various details of the case itself, so I won’t go too far into it because a) they’ve done a better job than your humble correspondent could, and b) you’ve probably heard as much, if not more, about it than I have.
With the Rittenhouse case, people on all sides have been focusing on whether what he did constitutes self-defense from a legal standpoint, but not too many have looked into the political aspect of it. That’s where I come in!
self-defense
What the Left thinks it means – an antiquated and unnecessary idea used to drive gun sales to paranoid right-wingers and gun nuts
What it really means – a principle essential to personal freedom
To put it mildly, things have gotten a little weird out there in the past couple of decades. Between Leftists LARPing as World War II vets and Trump supporters acting like, well, Trump supporters, you’re likely to find yourself in the middle of a conflict that can go pear-shaped before you can say, “Hey, isn’t that a pear?” Throw in all sorts of racial, sexual, and sociological contexts and you have a melting pot on the verge of melting down.
Such was the case in Kenosha, where protestors decided to do what the Property Brothers do, just in reverse. As you might expect, property owners (some of whom could be brothers, I suppose) didn’t like the impromptu Burning Man/Woodstock 99/any weekend with Lindsey Lohan vibe in the city. And the Kenosha police? Well, they were trying to maintain order by letting the protestors run around unopposed. Put another way, Barney Fife was Rambo next to these clowns.
Enter 17 year old Kyle Rittenhouse, a young man who lived in Illinois, but worked in Kenosha. If the stories we’ve heard are true, he was asked to help protect a business in Kenosha, but he also wanted to tend to any wounded people there if needed. (Maybe it’s me, but that doesn’t sound like a bloodthirsty killer.) It wasn’t until he felt threatened by the riot…I mean protestors that he fired his rifle. And with one guy pointing a gun at him and another smacking him with a skateboard, it’s clear his life was in danger. Regardless of whether you feel he should have been there, the fact he was attacked and didn’t fire first shows he wasn’t there to get his jollies by killing people. He felt there was no other option than to shoot and he acted accordingly to protect himself in the absence of police.
And that’s why the Left lost their shit.
To the Left, anyone who isn’t one of them is a dullard and needs to have Leftists run his or her life. The minute you show even an iota of initiative to do something yourself is the minute you become dangerous to the Left. After all, if you don’t need government to do everything for you, you won’t need…them.
Thus, the Left has taken up the cause to make bureaucracy as expansive and essential as necessary so more and more of us become wards of the state. And they’ll make it happen by any means necessary, including convincing/coercing people to comply. Whether it’s an additional charge to make a payment with a credit card over the phone or demanding people jump through flaming hoops only to have the state reject a gun permit, the Left’s goal with all of that is to make sure they have their noses in our business for no legitimate reason. Just ask Glenn Beck about the hassles he endured just trying to put up a fence on his property in the Northeast.
So, when someone decides to cut out the middle-man and pass the savings directly on to, well, himself/herself, the Left loses money and power, which makes them more than a little cranky. You see, the Left believes in self-determination so long as you abide by whatever they deem appropriate. Kyle Rittenhouse didn’t, and as a result is being held up as what’s wrong with the Right, an enemy that needs no courtesy or even an obligation to get even basic facts right. He’s an “other” just as anyone else who defies the Left.
And, as a result, Rittenhouse may get Nick Sandmann rich soon. But that’s a blog post for another time.
Self-defense is the ultimate fuck-you to the Left. After all, the Left think only the police and military should have firearms. You know, the same police that are racist and the same military that is a tool of the elites? Mind-blowing hypocrisy aside, this is to a) make it harder for people to defend themselves, and b) creating a need that only government can fulfill. The only problem with that is time. Anyone who has spent any amount of time at the DMV knows the speed of government is usually inert. No matter how quickly your need is, the police will get there when they get there and not a second sooner.
Provided they come at all or aren’t hamstrung by politicians. Anyone want to turn your community into San Francisco East? I’m gonna go out on a limb and say you don’t, but it’s the way the Left wants us to live: where the law-abiding are always the victims of the lawless. If you take up arms to protect yourself from being a victim, the Left can’t take it.
And that’s why you should do it, if you want to.
Really, it’s not a good reason why, but it’s certainly attractive. The best reason is because you have a right to be secure in your person, and if the government or its agents can’t or won’t respect that right, you shouldn’t be shamed into submission. If we take nothing else from the Kyle Rittenhouse situation, it’s that the best way to not be a victim is to understand what power you have and to never let anyone take it from you.
Oh, and that Leftists suck at keeping track of the facts of a criminal case before spewing ignorance.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Being a member of law enforcement at any level isn’t a cakewalk, especially in these politically charged times. This is doubly so for the men and women on the front lines of our southern border, who tend to catch heck for sneezing in the general direction of an illegal immigrant.
This past week, a photo of a Border Patrol agent on horseback apparently whipping an illegal immigrant from Haiti made the rounds, setting off a firestorm of criticism. Even though there were no actual whips in the photo, the Left whipped up resentment towards the Border Patrol. Yes, the same people who want to defund the police, abolish ICE, and say no human is illegal thinks the people enforcing our borders are meanie-heads.
And as we’ll see, it’s no coincidence these issues are connected.
Border Patrol
What the Left thinks it means – the tyrannical arm of the US government, targeting poor defenseless people trying to make a better life in America
What it really means – a group of people trying to hold the line against illegal immigration without much support from politicians
America has been a beacon of hope for many an immigrant for centuries. But as anyone who has ever owned a bug zapper will tell you, a beacon can attract less desirable elements who will use every trick in their arsenals to take advantage of our largesse. Unlike the bug zapper, though, we tend not to electrocute illegal immigrants. Instead, we take them into our country without stopping to think about the consequences.
To try to curtail the criminal element and deter future border jumpers, ICE and the Border Patrol work around the clock trying to get a handle on things. Unfortunately for them, we as a country haven’t gotten a handle on things since the 1980s. Politicians from the Left and the Right have failed to put a dent in the waves of illegal immigrants coming into the country and using our resources. Thanks to current President and hairplug spokesmodel Joe Biden, ICE and the Border Patrol have their short-staffed hands full.
Provided, of course, the Left doesn’t smack their hands for trying to do their jobs. Just look at their “solution” for dealing with the Border Patrol agents who were accused of whipping Haitian immigrants: take their horses away. Thus, making their jobs more difficult. All because the Left jumped to a conclusion Robbie Knievel wouldn’t even try with full medical coverage. But that’s par for the course for the Left in this situation.
See, the Left has a vested interest in keeping a steady stream of illegal immigrants coming into the country like teenagers to a K-Pop concert. This interest takes on multiple forms, but they all wind up fulfilling the Left’s political and social goals, thanks in to figures like Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, Saul Alinsky, and our good friend Uncle George Soros. All four of them have had a pretty strong hand in shaping Leftist ideology for decades, and it doesn’t end well for us. Here is a brief description of what they’ve added to the Leftist hivemind.
Cloward and Piven – developed a strategy to overwhelm the social support system to create more poverty and upset within the country, causing discord and fomenting revolution
Alinsky – the author of Rules for Radicals, which outlines ways for Leftists to make progress on social and political issues
Soros – advocate/creator of the Open Society Institute, which advocates for no borders whatsoever and everyone being a part of one global society, as well as an effort to control state election offices to help Leftist politicians get elected
With Soros and his disciples promoting the idea there shouldn’t be borders, it allows Leftists to promote ideas that will give the green light for illegal immigrants to come here. Once here, the Cloward and Piven strategy kicks in, putting a strain on existing programs through sheer volume. When critics come out against the first two concepts, Alinsky’s rules come into play. The result? More potential Democrat voters, which allows the cycle to continue. It’s brilliant in its deviousness.
And what’s one group of people who can throw a King Kong-sized monkey wrench into all of this? The Border Patrol. If they’re allowed to do their job, it will curtail the number of illegal immigrants coming into the country and getting all the bennies the Left is willing to give them because…reasons. So, instead of figuring out a way to…you know…change the laws on the books, the Left focuses their attention on the ones least capable of fighting back.
Including purposely mischaracterizing a photo to make it look worse than it actually was.
Unfortunately for the Left, the narrative is starting to break down like the Socialist Socialite after losing her battle to defund the Iron Dome in Israel. The primary source (i.e. the photographer who took the picture the Left is using to bash the Border Patrol) is saying the photo is being taken out of context and doesn’t reflect what really happened. Furthermore, the Border Patrol and eagle-eyed horse riders are pointing out the lack of whips in the photo itself. Even so, Twitter Leftists and their governmental counterparts are clinging to the original lie…I mean story. There are a few reasons for this, but one that should be at the top of the list is confirmation bias.
For those of you who have a life, confirmation bias is when a person believes a certain way because it affirms what they already believe. The Left already believes the Border Patrol is a bunch of racist thugs anyway, so it’s not that much of an effort to believe in the narrative in spite of the evidence to the contrary. That, and the fact the Left hate to admit they’re wrong more than The Fonz. Imagine that. A group of dishonest idealogues that already hates law enforcement trying to paint a group of law enforcement agents in a bad light? Who knew???
Well, those of us outside the Leftist hivemind did. While we wait for Jen Psaki to circle back and tell us another lie, keep the Border Patrol in your thoughts and prayers. They need them now more than ever.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
There are some weeks when your humble correspondent struggles to find an appropriate Lexicon entry based on the events of the day. Other times the Topics Gods shower me with topics.
Let’s just say I hit the motherload of motherloads this week. From the Socialist Socialite wearing an expensive dress with “Tax the Rich” on it while attending an event catered to the wealthy to the FBI being shown to be the Keystone Kops with federal funding, there was no lack of content. But I’m going to focus on a new Leftist turn of a phrase that came up during a recent confirmation hearing.
President Joe Biden nominated Jennifer Sung for a position on the 9th Circuit Court, and during the hearing she was questioned about a letter from Yale Law School students and alumni that she signed regarding then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh that said he was “intellectually and morally bankrupt” and that “people will die” (a direct quote from the letter) because of his stances on abortion and gay rights. Sure, she’s a nutter, but on the bright side the 9th Circuit Court is going to easily retain its title of Worst Circuit Court EVER.
In attempting to defend her position, Sung used the term “rhetorical advocacy.” Leftists glommed onto this, accusing anyone who found it nonsensical of being too dumb to figure out what it means. Unfortunately for them, I’m a word guy, so I will take a crack at it.
rhetorical advocacy
What the Left thinks it means – supporting a position in a general, high-level way
What it really means – a stupid way for a Leftist to get out of a public statement
The year was 2018, and then-President Donald Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh for the open seat on the US Supreme Court. At that point, the Left lost their collectivist hivemind because Kavanaugh was…a conservative! Before you could get Christine Blasey Ford on an airplane, the Left went to town trying to find a way to take down Kavanaugh.
Enter Ms. Sung and the aforementioned letter. At the time, the letter didn’t make the news because it didn’t meet the Left’s definition of news. To them, Kavanaugh being “intellectually and morally bankrupt” was an article of faith and, thus, didn’t need to be questioned. The funny thing? If Kavanaugh were a Leftist, that bankruptcy would be a resume enhancer.
Three years later, Ms. Sung’s signature is coming back to haunt her own judicial nomination. Even if you buy the idea of rhetorical advocacy, the problem of whether the words themselves were hyperbole comes into play. Granted, I haven’t been spending the past 3 years keeping track of the number of deaths directly related to Kavanaugh’s position on social issues, I’m going to go out on a limb and say the number is in the neighborhood of, oh, zero.
As the late Rush Limbaugh said, “Words mean things.” If Ms. Sung were concerned about the language used in the letter, she had a personal obligation not to sign the letter. Yet, she did because she never thought it would come to light. Oops.
Rhetorical advocacy is a ten-cent word that sounds impressive, but really isn’t. Once we break down the parts of the phrase, we can see what I mean.
Rhetorical involves the use of language, written or spoken, to convey an idea. This Leftist Lexicon post is an example of what I mean. Maybe not a good example, but an example all the same. Advocacy involves the support of an idea or cause through thoughts, words, and deeds. Put the two words together and you get…a redundancy. Advocacy uses rhetoric, and rhetoric can be used to advocate for a desired outcome. When you put it in the context of the letter Ms. Sung signed, the two terms are interchangeable.
This leads to the question of why the Left has adopted this meaningless term while mocking those who don’t think it’s all that great. Fortunately, there’s a simple answer: it’s to give them cover for their bullshit. Remember, Leftists love to play word games to make themselves sound smarter than they actually are. By throwing together the two words in question, it makes the result sound high-minded and intellectual. As we’ve seen, it’s neither, and it’s not that effective when it comes to providing cover.
I have a simple philosophy when dealing with people: take them at their word until they give me reason to doubt it. Although I disagree with Ms. Sung’s conclusions regarding Justice Kavanaugh, the fact she’s shying away from the words she signed off on now that the letter has come to light tells me she’s not willing to own up to them. Cowardice in the face of potential career advancement is no virtue, no matter what fancy-sounding words you use to soften the blow. I would have rather had her say, “I signed that letter because I agreed with the sentiments within it” because it would have been honest. Absolutely wrong, but honest.
Putting all that aside, the fact the Left is attacking those of us who think “rhetorical advocacy” is a bunch of bullshit is a sign they have no valid argument for the letter, nor Ms. Sung’s nomination. Who would want a judge on any level of the judiciary that can’t stand behind a statement without parsing it through an ideological lens? Any verdict offered by such a judge would be suspect and grounds for an immediate appeal to a higher court.
Which, if you think about it, makes her perfect for the 9th Circuit Court.