Before we begin, I feel obligated to warn you a lot of what I’ll be talking about this week isn’t pleasant and may stir strong emotions in people. If you feel you aren’t down for a serious (well, semi-serious because…me), this may not be the week to read the Lexicon, and I completely understand. I promise to return you to your regularly scheduled chucklefest next week.
This week, child sex trafficking came front and center from a couple of sectors, and the Left had an…interesting response to it. Not “gee that’s fascinating, tell me more” interesting. More of a “what in the Wide World of Fuck are you thinking” interesting.
It started with a new movie, “Sound of Freedom”, that came out on July 4th and has as of this writing a decent box office. The film is based on a true story about a man who went from government agent to warrior in the fight against child sex trafficking. Then, our good fiends…I mean friends in California had Democrat members of their Assembly Public Safety Committee block a proposal that would recriminalize child sex trafficking.
Oh, yeah. It’s about to get serious up in here.
child sex trafficking
What the Left thinks it means – a serious issue that must be dealt with
What it really means – an issue the Left won’t touch any time soon
To put it mildly, sex trafficking is a disturbing practice affecting millions of people worldwide, with a significant number being children. The fact it’s a global issue and yet one that doesn’t seem to get as much attention as climate change, starvation, or the latest Taylor Swift album makes the issue that much more painful to consider.
Yet, the Left are concerned about our children, right? I mean, they’re trying to create an inclusive environment where all races, gender identities, religions, etc. are respected, right? (Offer void with white straight Christian men.) They absolutely want the very best for future generations!
Not so much.
See, Leftists see children as tabula rasa in Garanimals, or if you’d prefer, toddlera rasa. For those of you playing along at home, a tabula rasa is a mental condition where no ideas have been formulated on a person’s mind based on his/her environment. Essentially, a brand new Etch A Sketch. Once this mind is exposed to incoming data from the senses, ideas and personalities form.
This is why Leftists have turned public education into indoctrination factories. As early as they can get them in the door, children’s minds and opinions form, even if they contradict what their parents believe. In other words, Leftists are attempting to create a child’s reality in their own twisted image.
“But Thomas, what does any of this have to do with child sex trafficking?” you might be asking. And if you are, I’m glad you are. If you aren’t, you might already know where I’m going with this, so don’t spoil the ending, okay?
At their cold black hearts, Leftists see children as a commodity, a purely transactional entity, an entry on a ledger. The value of a child is directly related to how closely he or she follows Leftist doctrine or can be used to advance it. Take Greta Thunberg (please). The Left gives zero fucks about her as a person, just as a figurehead they can use to advance their frequent (and even more frequently wrong) hysteria. Once Greta is no longer useful to the Left, she will get jettisoned out the closest air lock never to be catered to again.
By the way, Greta, check with Cindy Sheehan to get an idea of your future with the Left.
When you consider this angle, it makes the Left’s approach to child sex trafficking a little more understandable and a lot more creepy. And by approach, I mean either utter silence or claiming it’s a right wing fantasy.
And this brings us back to the Leftist Flow Chart of Dealing With An Issue.
1. Deny it’s happening.
2. Claim it’s made up by political opponents
3. Admit it’s happening, but it’s not as bad as it’s been made out to be
4. Admit it’s as bad as it’s been made out to be, but it’s not that bad
5. Admit it’s that bad, but it’s grossly misunderstood (i.e. anyone could make that mistake)
6. Paint those who were right all along as hateful bigots while painting the bad actors as victims
For a recent example to illustrate the point, the Hunter Biden cocaine story is heading into Stage 6. Right now, child sex trafficking is between Stage 1 or 2, depending on the outlet. Some outlets like CNN and Rolling Stone who are well into Stage 2, not taking issue with the subject matter “Sound of Freedom” so much as the people connected to it, namely Jim Caviezel. Now, if you haven’t been paying attention to his career, he’s one of those Hollywood actors who didn’t go woke and has been steadfastly conservative since making a name for himself.
Because a guy who played Jesus acting in a film trying to bring attention to child sex trafficking is clearly the bad guy.
Putting that biased and utterly stupid idea aside, we are left with an important question: why doesn’t the Left take child sex trafficking seriously? Granted, the “children as a commodity” perspective gives us a clue, but it’s not the whole answer. For being simple-minded, Leftists motivations to do or not do something tend to be more complex.
Enter our good friend Occam’s Razor. (I liked it so much, I bought the premise!) This idea boils down to simplifying an issue down to its simplest components to reach a conclusion. As faithful readers know, Leftists love money, power, and control, and if they take a position it’s because they think it’s going to work in their favor.
Now, I’m not saying Leftists have a child sex trafficking issue. I mean, it’s not like a big-name Hollywood producer or a famous financier had connections to high profile Leftists or anything, right?
By staying silent or attacking those trying to bring child sex trafficking to the forefront, Leftists keep the money flowing, which helps them maintain control and power. Even with former child stars like Corey Feldman, Elijah Wood, and others coming forward and exposing how Hollywood treats kids, you aren’t going to see too many Leftists coming forward to do anything about it.
Granted, many of the examples I’ve presented are tangentially-related to child sex trafficking, but I don’t think it’s too far of a leap to believe an industry that hides child sex allegations might also have an issue with how they get the children in the first place. Still, we must be fair and assume innocence until guilt can be established. Yet, we cannot rule it out as a possibility because, well, Hollywood is full of scumbags with enough power to make even the weirdest sexual deviancy go away.
Especially if they have friends in high places, like…oh I don’t know…Washington, DC?
Here’s the thing that confuses me, especially now. This issue is a slam dunk for Leftists if they really thought about it (Spoiler Alert: they didn’t). The electorate is hearing multiple news stories about children being groomed by Leftists, so they should be aware of the potential political bonanza they could see (as well as the ability to keep the “groomer” talk down for a while) by just coming out against it publicly. Plus, it would show the Left is willing to work with the Right on important issues regardless of political differences.
But they just can’t bring themselves to do it. After all, if they concede child sex trafficking is an issue, there’s a good chance it would open up further scrutiny and discussion about border security, sex trafficking in general, whether there is a culture of sex trafficking in Leftist strongholds and among Left-leaning groups, and a lot of other shitstorms the Left doesn’t need right now. After all, they’re too busy trying to cover up the daily shitstorms from the Biden Administration.
But, Leftists, staying silent, attacking a film about child sex trafficking, and blocking legislation that makes child sex trafficking illegal aren’t the way to win hearts and minds of the general population. The political losses you perceive pale in comparison to the sheer evil you’re allowing to young people who aren’t even old enough to vote for your shitty politics. You are politically shooting yourselves in the feet with a Gatling gun, all to protect people who might just be at the heart of the problem in the first place.
But look on the bright side. You got the sick pervert vote locked up!
Category: Justice
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
The US Supreme Court has been busy making Leftists cry lately. In addition to their recent decision regarding Affirmative Action (my coverage available here), they also ruled in a 6-3 decision in favor of a Colorado businesswoman who wanted to do wedding websites, but didn’t want to them for same-sex weddings. Seems it would violate her religious beliefs, so she challenged Colorado’s law and eventually won.
Which royally pissed off the Left!
While Leftists started in on their “expand the Supreme Court” and “extremist right wing Court” recycled rhetoric, others cheered the decision as a “victory for free speech.” So, why were Leftists (who proclaim themselves as free speech champions) upset?
I’m glad you…errr I asked.
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis
What the Left thinks it means – a Supreme Court decision that makes it legal to discriminate against people
What it really means – the mask slipping on the Left’s commitment to free speech
Our good friends at Twitchy give us a nice breakdown of the case and the stipulations the businesswoman was willing to make to comply with Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws. The Reader’s Digest Condensed Version is she was willing to work with anyone, but not to make websites that would go against her faith.
Wait. I seem to remember a similar situation with a baker in Colorado and the Left’s response being “Bake the cake, bigot.”
Both the baker and the businesswoman were subject to what might best be called coerced free speech. I take that back. The best term for this is bullshit, but you get the idea. The idea behind free speech is to allow everyone a chance to speak their minds up to the point it inspires violence (i.e. “fighting words“). Where the Left takes the, well, left turn off the freeway of free expression is when others say things they don’t like. Then, they will stop at nothing to prevent those evil mean nasty Nazi ideas from getting traction, including collaborating with Big Tech to silence them. Of course, they’ll use any excuse they can to justify it and if you disagree, you’re just dag nasty evil.
Or in the case of COVID-19 hysteria, most likely telling the truth.
This brings us back to the “bake the cake” mentality of the Left. There are segments of the Left (namely the LGBTQA+ABCDEFGOHWEOHWEOHGIRLIWANNAKNOWYOUKNOWYOU crowd) who will use the judicial system to force certain groups (namely Christians) to do what they want in some weird flex of their protected status. And until fairly recently, the courts have let them get away with it, stating a protected class’ “right” to services trumps the Christian’s right to religion.
When you’re coerced to speak under threat of judicial or regulatory reprisal, free speech is compromised to the point of being ineffectual. This is why the “bake the cake” argument is so fucked up in the first place. Although business do have the right to refuse service, it’s limited to situations where it’s not considered discriminatory. And thanks to the aforementioned Alphabet Soup Group, anything short of total subservience to their cause is discriminatory.
Not surprisingly, though, this runs smack-dab in the face of their attitudes about Twitter banning conservative users. Back then, it was okay to silence conservatives because “Twitter is a private business and can make decisions to deny someone a platform.”
Soooooo…I have a question. Why is it okay to silence conservatives because of Twitter’s status as a private business, but also okay to force private businesses to give Leftists a platform for their ideas? The short answer is it’s not because it’s hypocritical and counterintuitive to the idea of free speech. Regardless of how tasty the medium may be, you cannot force compliance one way without forcing it the other way and still be intellectually consistent.
And now, you can’t do it while being legally consistent.
Look, I get the idea behind Colorado’s anti-discrimination law. It’s how it’s being implemented that’s the issue. If you’re using it as a cudgel to attack people who don’t agree with you, it’s being used incorrectly. Laws like the anti-discrimination laws are meant to be more of a legal shield and a method to provide legal recourse should the laws be broken. Using it the way Colorado Leftists have, though, turns a law with good intentions into one with bad application, which puts it in proximity of “fighting words” in my semi-learned opinion.
Where the majority opinion in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis diverted expectations is that it was ruled on as a free speech rather than a freedom of religion issue. But the true brilliance comes when you consider the Left’s opinion of religion in general (save for Climate Change Cultists). In arguing against religion in the public square, the Left has taken one of two approaches: demanding an all-or-none approach (except when it comes to Muslims), or demanding freedom from religion. After all, you have to account for those who don’t want religion shoved down their throats, right?
Wellllll…let’s apply this to another idea, freedom of association. As this link shows, the Supreme Court has already ruled there is a freedom from association as well as a freedom of association. In other words, the High Court has already laid the groundwork for future challenges to Colorado’s law if some plucky attorney with time to kill and a client willing to test the law would put it in motion.
Not that I’m hinting someone should do that, mind you…
Nevertheless, the 6-3 ruling (with guess who making up the minority) is going to stand for now, and the Left can’t handle it. Not only can’t they force people to do their bidding because reasons, but the arguments put forth in opposition to the ruling are…how can I put this delicately…fucking stupid. But remember, Leftists are smarter than us. Just ask them.
In this case (and, to be fair, in most cases for that matter), the Left got this one wrong, and instead of figuring out how they went wrong, they blamed the “right wing Supreme Court.” You know, like mature adults do? Yet, something tells me they aren’t going to understand the implications of their insistence people have to be forced to platform their ideas. I mean, if their ideas were so popular, wouldn’t people want to give them platforms?
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis is a victory for actual free speech and a blow to the coerced speech the Left want to make the norm. No matter how the Left tries to spin it or muddy the waters with absurd claims, this is an L for them, which is a given.
After all, you can’t spell “Leftist” without an L.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
In a move that surprised, well, no one, California Representative Adam Schiff was censured by the US House of Representatives for his role in perpetuating Russiagate. You remember Russiagate, don’t you kids? That investigation into whether Russia helped Donald Trump win the 2016 Presidential election based on evidence flimsier than a balsa wood kitchen table?
Of course, Leftists were furious at the censure, but then coped by saying the censure would guarantee he would win a Senate seat, as well as it made him more powerful now than he was before.
And I wish I were making that last part up.
While Leftists were turning him into Obi Wan Kenobi, Schiff turned this censure into a fundraising effort because reasons. With all of the talk around the Representative, it seems fitting he should be the latest Lexicon entry.
Adam Schiff
What the Left thinks it means – an honest patriot standing up to Donald Trump and his minions
What it really means – a guy so full of shit he could fertilize Death Valley and the Sahara Desert several times over
During the Trump Administration, Adam Schiff went from a barely-there Congressional figure to a major player within Leftist circles, mainly because he had the balls to stand up to Donald Trump. And by balls, I mean eyeballs. And here I thought Mantenna was just an action figure from the She-Ra toy line, but here we are.
To say Schiff had a hate boner for Trump is an understatement of Rosie O’Donnell at an all you can eat buffet proportions. (I used Rosie here in celebration of Pride Month. You’re welcome, LBGTQIDUDIYRSVPUFOABCBBDCCRKISSELO+ community.) If anybody could make up…I mean uncover dirt on Donald Trump’s dealings with Russia, Schiff would be like a bloodhound. A bloodhound with Marty Feldman-like eyes, but a bloodhound nonetheless.
There was one tiny problem, though: the allegations of collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russia were bullshit. But Schiff couldn’t let a little thing like a lack of actual proof stop him! After all, if he couldn’t produce the goods, he would be a liar, wouldn’t he? So, he did what any self-respecting Leftist would do and lied some more!
This next part has become the millstone around Schiff’s pencil neck. He claimed there was “ample evidence” of the collusion that was “in plain sight.” Yet, when pressed to provide this evidence, Schiff acted like the dog ate his homework. Even as one of the dipshits running the first Trump impeachment based around stuff even law clerks could argue their way out of in a court of law, Schiff maintained he had the proof.
As of this writing, no such proof has ever been presented.
And this is the asshat the Left is calling an honest broker? Granted, it’s the same kind of defense they put up for Eric “I Slept With a Chinese Spy and All I Got Was Removed From House Committees” Swalwell.
Which brings us to an interesting problem for the Left: calling out liars. After years of demanding people call out Trump for lying (which is a 25/8 job because 24/7 just ain’t enough), the Left are suddenly okay with someone lying to Congress about the former President. Remember, kids, if Leftists didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have standards at all…not that you’d notice, mind you. As long as their team lies about the right people (i.e. anyone to the right of Ivan “I Have To Go” Trotsky), it’s for the right reasons. But lie about the wrong people (i.e. them) and Leftists will go at you like you abused their pet cat. They’ll throw the Library of Congress at you!
And most modern Republicans sit there and take it because they’re playing by a different set of rules, rules that neuter them politically to the point they’re so afraid of offending the electorate (who really aren’t paying that much attention to the details) that they will allow Leftists to lie about them constantly. How do you think Media Matters stays in business? I mean aside from generous donations from our buddy Uncle George.
It’s in this environment where Schiff is at his best. When he can lie with impunity because he’s on the winning side of Congressional elections, he goes full Super Sayan. But when he’s on the wrong end of the election cycle, he cries like a little boy who skinned his knee riding his bike. Seems he doesn’t like it when the shit he flings gets flung back at him.
It’s also in this environment where Leftists are the most vulnerable when it comes to Schiff. By going all in on his allegations, it becomes a “ride or die” situation. Either they keep pushing the narrative even after there are more holes in it than a Swiss cheese factory in the crossfire of a gang war, or they throw Schiff to the wolves (which are mostly toothless lapdogs in bed with the Left, but the point remains the same). Since Schiff has built up such a cult of personality around himself, Leftists fear the backlash from the latter, so they go all in on Schiffamania.
Here’s where the vulnerability lies. All it takes is for House Republicans to call Schiff’s bluff. (A pipe dream these days, but a man can dream.) Demand he produce the evidence he claims to have. If he’s telling the truth and didn’t disclose this information during the January 6th Commission, he knowingly withheld evidence from an active investigation. If he’s lying (a safer bet), then he lied to Congress and the nation. And not just on the floor of the House, mind you. He repeated the lie on social media, on TV shows, and in print. Even though a Representative can’t be arrested for lying while conducting official duties, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say being on CNN isn’t really a Congressional duty. If anything, it might be considered torture.
In either case, Schiff is fucked, and not in the good way.
Not that the Left cares, mind you. They want Donald Trump punished by any means necessary, even if it undermines the rule of law in the process. But it’s this single-mindedness that will eventually backfire. At some point, the Left will not be able to control the narrative nor the legislative might to enforce it, which opens them up to a universe of hurt. Adam Schiff’s censure sets the precedent for it, and can be used against other Leftists, like Swalwell, Ilhan Omar, the Socialist Socialite, and plenty of others.
And the best part? The Left made it all possible through their political circle jerk to take down Donald Trump. Good job, Leftists!
As for Adam Schiff, he’s basically a fourth string quarterback put in the game because the first three QBs are all injured, the cheerleaders don’t know how to run the offense, and the coach hates furries, so the mascot’s out of the running. But since he’s the guy, his team has to support him and cheer every inch gained as though it were a touchdown. Then, after he fumbles, throws interceptions, and gets sacked more often than Idaho potatoes, he becomes more of a liability than an asset. Democrats should distance themselves from Schiff sooner rather than later.
And Schiff? He’s 3/5 of an asset, and the -et don’t count.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
To hear the Left talk (and for God’s sake why would you), white supremacy is everywhere. From members of Congress (all Republican, by the way) to math, you can’t swing a cat without hitting something or someone not touched by white supremacy.
Including Moms for Liberty.
This past week, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC to the kids) called Moms for Liberty a right wing extremist group with ties to…drum roll please…white supremacy! And why? Because they didn’t want radical Leftist ideas intermingled with history, math, and other subjects. Those bitches!
While we’ve tackled white supremacy before, we haven’t delved into the Southern Poverty Law Center (save for the occasional semi-humorous jape at their expense). Are they the gold standard of finding and combating extremism, or are they pyrite?
Southern Poverty Law Center
What the Left thinks it means – the definitive source on hate and extremist groups in America
What it really means – a Leftist echo chamber regurgitating whatever bullshit the Left needs to push to make the Right look bad
The SPLC describes itself as:
a catalyst for racial justice in the South and beyond, working in partnership with communities to dismantle white supremacy, strengthen intersectional movements, and advance the human rights of all people.
On the surface, this makes the SPLC sound like pretty much every dumb Leftist group out there, complete with nonsensical buzzwords. Rest assured, dear reader, it’s much, much stupider.
It starts with their reason for existing, that being tracking extremist groups. According to their own figures, the SPLC tracked 1225 such groups active in 2022. This begs the question of what gets a group on the list. From what I gathered from the link I just posted, it’s a pretty short list of qualifications.
1. Be to the right of Josef Stalin
2. Want government out of our lives as much as possible
Now, there was a time when the SPLC tracked hate groups and anti-government groups separately, but that doesn’t raise as much attention (i.e. make Chicken Little look reasonable). So, surprise surprise, they decided to combine the two, starting in 2021! Their reason? Because hate groups and anti-government groups got together and became a mass of hate!
At this point, I have to admit there is some overlap between anti-government and pro-hate groups, mainly because of the nature of humanity. But it’s far from a single circle as the SPLC would have us believe.
Take me, for instance. I don’t hate anyone, including Leftists, because it’s no fun. Where the real fun lies is in pointing and laughing, which always makes me feel good. And I’m not anti-government so much as I am anti-stupid government. I don’t want to overthrow the government or participate in a violent coup for the same reason I don’t hate Leftists: it’s not fun. LARPing as a Founding Father just isn’t my thing, although I do have the gams to pull off the pantaloons…
And that would put me on the SPLC’s radar because they lack the ability to recognize nuance. Granted, this is a trait of any extremist, but it’s particularly damaging because the Left gives the SPLC a megaphone to spread the idea hatred and extremism are around every corner, under every rock, and in every medium known to Man.
And Leftist asshats think Joe McCarthy was a nutjob!
Even so, the SPLC has to resort to some tricky accounting that would make Arthur Andersen proud. I decided to see what kind of evil hateful meaniehead groups they found in my home state of Iowa. Among the groups that made the list were the Constitution Party of Iowa (anti-government group), Iowa Parents Involved in Education (anti-government group), and We the People for Constitutional Sheriffs (anti-government group). Sure, there are some notable names, like the John Birch Society and the National Alliance, but it seems like most of the groups on the list don’t belong there.
And certainly not multiple times like Moms for Liberty are.
Once or twice, maybe it’s an oversight. But five fucking times? That’s a decision. And it’s a decision that the SPLC made over and over again across all 50 states.
Now, consider a group like, oh I don’t know, Antifa. They’ve shown a significant amount of hatred and they’re pretty anti-government. Surely they’re on the SPLC’s radar as either or both, right?
Nope.
Color me…not all that surprised, really. After all, if the number of hate group goes down (which it has been according to the SPLC’s own numbers), the purpose of the group is weakened. Yes, only in the Leftist mind is successfully getting rid of hate groups a bad thing.
And that’s because the SPLC’s entire existence is built on fighting hate groups in America. As such, they have a vested interest in making it seem hate groups are more prevalent than bad pop music today. Or, in other words, pop music today. So, they have to keep playing fast and loose with what constitutes a hate group and an anti-government group while outwardly pretending it’s all hate groups.
The problem is when everything you don’t like becomes a hate group, you water down the concept so actual hate groups gain a bit of plausible deniability. After all, if a group that has to lie about the number of hate groups and what groups are considered hate groups, how can we trust them on the basic shit?
Of course, most hate groups are too stupid to realize this, but hey. If they weren’t stupid, they wouldn’t be hate groups, right?
Which brings us back to the designations. Moms for Liberty got on the list because members made they allegedly made violent threats. I say allegedly for multiple reasons, but primarily because of the source, i.e. the SPLC itself.
Plus, the standard they use doesn’t make any sense. The Constitution Party is listed as anti-government, even though its name and general principles come from a document used to guide our government (at least in theory). It’s like saying a car club is anti-truck in spite of it literally being a club about cars. And even then, the club members may not be anti-truck, per se. The devil, or in this case the SPLC’s overinflated numbers, are in the details.
With actual hate groups, it’s much more cut and dried, as there’s very few ways spouting hate can be seen as anything but, well, spouting hate. Even then, the SPLC will go out of its way to run interference for Leftist hate (see Antifa) while using the comment of a mother upset at Critical Race Theory being taught to her children in elementary school (and, yes, Leftists, this does happen) to paint a group as anti-government is all but guaranteed.
Then again, the SPLC handling Antifa with kid gloves might have something to do with Antifa members being on staff…
Regardless, it’s clear the Southern Poverty Law Center is as reliable as Puddin’ Head Joe staying on message. Which makes it that much more important to push back when they come out with bullshit like the Moms for Liberty being a hate group. The more they go unchallenged, the more they are seen as legitimate, and the more they’re used in conjunction with government agencies to find and categorize people and groups as dangerous.
But the tide might be turning, due in part to legal proceedings and whisteblowers. By exposing the SPLC’s long con, the organization’s flaws become evident, but I want to take it a step further. If the SPLC are focused on taking on hate groups, what are the results of their efforts?
Jack. Shit.
I’m sure they’ll have some sort of bullshit excuse, but the fact remains they’re failures being given credibility by the Left for ideological purposes. You know, like Kamala Harris. But not even a Leftist circle jerk can overcome pointing out how impotent the SPLC has been. You literally have one fucking job, and you can’t even do that right?
Keep that up and you could become President of the United States.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Clear your calendars, kids! The hottest new piece of literature just dropped and it’s going to be a scorcher! I’m not referring to any of the 498 books Stephen King will release this week. Instead, I’m referring to the long-awaited Durham Report.
After the initial shock of discovering Leftists had their fingerprints all over the Russian collusion allegations against former President Donald Trump, the Left has done into damage control. Some said it failed to deliver any real results, while others went so far as to say it was a flop that opened the door for future misuse. Some have gone so far as to give analysis that make the whole investigation look like one big boondoggle.
Which means the truth is far more damaging than the Left wants to admit. Oh, and that it’s this week’s Lexicon entry.
the Durham Report
What the Left thinks it means – an expensive bomb of an investigation that lead to nothing and should be called out for repeating Trump’s lies
What it really means – the report the Left wishes the Mueller Report could have been
For those who are interested in the report, here it is.
For the Reader’s Digest Condensed Version, here it is.
– Leftists within the alphabet agencies attempted to paint Donald Trump as a Russian asset in 2016 at the direction of Hillary Clinton.
– There was no evidence of Russian collusion.
– The aforementioned alphabet agencies knew it, but proceeded with an investigation anyway because Hillary.
– Leftists had actual ties with Russia during the time they were attempting to make Donald Trump look like a Russian asset.
– Leftists never thought they would get caught.
So, here we are. After 4 years and $6.5 million spent, the Left is finally worried about a partisan investigation. I mean, the Mueller investigation (which was shadier than the hygiene practices at Uncle Filthy’s Botulism Emporium and Discount Slaughterhouse) only cost $32 million! How dare Republicans spend $6.5 million!
By the way, these same dickweeds complaining about the waste of money with the Durham Report are okay with sending Ukraine $24.9 billion for a war where we’re not even one of the direct participants. Granted, that figure was from January of this year, so the current number is going to be higher than Willie Nelson hanging out with Snoop Dogg in Amsterdam on 4/20.
So, let’s cut out the bullshit about the cost and look at results. The primary result is the Durham Report exposed a real conspiracy of dunces with the sole purpose of making Donald Trump look bad. First off, he does a good job of that on his own, so the Left didn’t really need to help. Second, Hillary Clinton has a sordid (and utterly mock-worthy) history with Russia.
Now, Leftists are going to say I’m using a logical fallacy called “poisoning the well” as a means to prop up Durham after a failure of a report. That would be true…if there wasn’t so much evidence out there. And it’s information the Left doesn’t want to get out because it unravels a lot of their squawking points over the past few years.
The most obvious bullshit talking point destroyed is the alleged Russian collusion with Trump. The Left needs this point to be true because it’s the only way they can explain why Trump beat Clinton in 2016. That is, if you overlook how unpopular Hillary is. She lost to an unknown Illinois Senator in 2008, for fuck’s sake! And he was only slightly more competent than she was! Not exactly a ringing endorsement of Hillary’s popularity as a political figure.
Then, 2016 happened.
From before Donald Trump took the Oath of Office to today, the Left not only conspired to slime him in the court of public opinion, but got government agencies involved to make it happen. And even then Hillary lost. Simply put, Hillary Clinton is a political fuck-up aided by other political fuck-ups pretending to be law enforcement. Law enfarcement maybe, but not law enforcement.
Which brings us to another reason the Left has to discredit the Durham Report: it exposes just how broken the FBI has been for years. The Durham Report made a point of not only showing how fucked up the FBI’s involvement in the Russia collusion story, but also offered suggestions on how to fix the problem. Personally, I think we should nuke the site from orbit since it’s the only way to be sure, but that’s probably my inner 80s teen talking.
Once the FBI’s corruption got exposed (again), the Left loses one of the weapons in its arsenal to deal with what they consider unsavory elements. You know, like pro-lifers. In order to retain some semblance of control, the Left needs the FBI, which makes the agency look a lot less credible and will fuel even more calls to investigate just how deep the corruption goes.
I don’t see a down-side here.
Especially when the Left mocked the “Back the Blue” movement while elevating the FBI to near-godlike status. That’s how you know their love of law enforcement is utter bullshit, but it’s also a pretty big tell as to why the Left has a vested interest in protecting the FBI by denigrating the Durham Report.
You know. Poisoning the well?
The Left are also making a big deal of how few convictions came from the Durham Report as compared to the Mueller Report. Although the lack of frog-marching feds is cause for concern, it’s not really that big a deal unless you’re in the business of quantity of justice rather than quality of justice. Some of Mueller’s successes came as a result of shoddy charges and dishonest reporting. Can you say Michael Flynn, boys and girls? I knew you could.
And what’s more? The Mueller Report found no sufficient evidence of collusion with Russia, which was counter to what the Left wanted him to find. The Durham Report confirms this, which is counter to what the Left wanted him to find. Maybe it’s me, but I’m sensing a pattern…
Like the pattern of behavior the Left has when bad news hits their side. First, there’s panic as they try to figure out how to spin the bad news. Second, there’s the spin, where the bad news is turned into good news (often with a good amount of gaslighting). Third, there’s “debate” as people fact-check the Left’s spin and the Left pretends the fact-checks are inaccurate. Fourth, there’s Leftist “fact-checking” which is little more than gaslighting that would make the Hindenburg look like a sparkler. Finally, there’s the call to move on from talking about the bad news because “it’s old news.”
As of this writing, the Left has gone through at least 3 of the steps with the “fact-checking” step about to kick into high gear. Give it a week or so and the “old news” calls will be coming hard and fast.
Unfortunately, we have a lingering question that I don’t think we’re going to get a satisfactory answer to: who’s going to federal fuck-me-in-the-ass prison over this? The way the justice system works now, we’ll be lucky to get the FBI Director’s secretary’s brother’s former college roommate’s cousin’s dog walker’s accountant’s former high school basketball team’s water boy indicted, and if so, it will be for something completely unrelated, like a waaaaaaay overdue library book. The fact Lois Lerner is still on the outside instead of getting 3 hots and a cot in Leavenworth is proof of that. Reports outlining criminal behavior are all well and good, but without action, they’re just words on a page. And if you expect Leftists to join in the accountability mob, I have swamp land in the Arctic Circle I’d love to sell you. In this situation, elections have lack of consequences.
And it’s not like the Republicans have the best track record in following through, either. A big reason why is because a lot of them don’t want to rock the boat too much because then they become targets for the kind of bogus investigations we’ve seen out of the Left so far. And when their dirty laundry gets put out for the world to see, it puts a King Kong sized monkey wrench in their reelection plans. Then again, many of them are in “safe” districts and states, so even if they get caught getting baggies of heroin shoved up their asses by an Asian trans dominatrix named Madame Hung Lo their approval ratings might take a dip of 0.00000000000001% because “the other side is worse.”
As much as I can’t argue that, it doesn’t help the situation. Without a desire to stand up for what is right, our little Constitutional Republic is doing to go the way of Rome. And by that I mean an expensive tourist trap with a kitschy casino counterpart on the Las Vegas strip.
So, like Las Vegas.
Anyway, we need leaders more than ever, men and women willing to buck party lines to do what is right and just. It might take a few election cycles and some “come to Jesus” moments, but if anyone can do it, America can. The Durham Report is the first step on that journey, and we best take it while we can.
Also, it will piss off the Left, so…yay!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
When I sat down to write this week’s Lexicon, I was originally going to write about the debt ceiling because, let’s face it, it’s sexy as hell. However, another news story has taken over the cycle within the past few days that really shows a level of insanity I haven’t seen since, well, last week.
Jordan Neely was your typical homeless guy in New York City. Threatening subway patrons. History of mental illness. Fleeing an outstanding warrant for assault. You know, the usual. Then, after allegedly threatening to hurt or kill other subway patrons, Neely met his end at the hands of a Marine who may have seen Neely attack someone earlier in the week.
And like a racially-charged phoenix, Neely came back as a martyr. Leftists came out of the woodwork to proclaim Neely as a victim of racism, a failure of the mental health system, and proof of how racist America was. Some even compared him to Jesus. Calls for the Marine to be arrested for murder became commonplace. Even members of the Squid…I mean the Squad weighed in, stating Neely was “lynched.”
And it only gets stupider from here, kids. Hang on.
Jordan Neely
What the Left thinks it means – a black homeless man who was murdered for doing nothing at all
What it really means – the victim of Leftist enabling
As of this writing, we are still discovering details that fill in some of the blanks. Here’s what we know so far.
– Neely had been arrested 44 times before his death
– He lost his mother, which lead to depression
– Friends said he was spiraling out of control within the past 2 years
– He was alleged to have said he was going to kill everyone on the train and that he didn’t care if he went to jail.
– The Marine in question may have encountered Neely earlier that week and acted to protect people.
– The coroner ruled the death to be a homicide due to the choke hold the Marine put on him
Outside of these details, we’re dealing with a lot of uncertainty. And when there are blanks to be filled, people will fill them with whatever bullshit makes them feel good. And for the Left, making Neely into the next Trayvon Martin, George Floyd, etc., is top priority.
This raises the question of why. The obvious one is to continue the narrative the Left built over the past few years. I mean, when you put so much time and energy on perpetuating the image that blacks are being attacked and/or killed by evil racist MAGA-loving white people, you kinda want to keep the money flowing in…I mean “raising awareness to change the status quo.” What’s the worst that could happen?
Jussie Smollett could not be reached for comment.
But this stems from a foundational Leftist concept: victimhood. When they’re not busy creating victims (real and imagined), the Left knows how to make bank off victimhood. And just like Oprah handing out new cars, everybody gets to be a victim! Just look at what you think is wrong with your life and, bingo, you’re a victim!
And, surprise surprise, once you’re a victim, you get to be special! Just like everyone else who is a victim!
This isn’t to say Neely wasn’t a victim, though. Clearly, he didn’t have issues so much as he had subscriptions. Homelessness (which Leftists are calling “houselessness” in a complete ripoff of George Carlin), mental health, food insecurity, just to name a few. The Left’s solution? Talk a big game about the need for reform, and throw money at the problem. You know, the usual.
As unsuccessful as this approach has been pretty much every time it’s been tried, it will surely work now!
But there’s another element at play here. The Left hates to be proven wrong or incompetent, mainly because, well, they’re experts at being both wrong and incompetent. When the facts don’t work, the Left tries to muddy the waters to avoid making them look bad.
Hence, the focus on the unnamed Marine’s actions rather than Neely’s background. Leftists even say his criminal past doesn’t justify a “death sentence” especially when all the Left said he was doing was asking for food.
Maybe it’s me, but saying “I’m going to kill people” is a little bit different from asking for a sammich. But what do I know? I only speak and comprehend the English language…
By focusing on the Marine, it takes the focus off Neely, but more importantly it takes the focus off the multiple levels of fucked-uppery the Leftists caused by being wrong and incompetent. Instead of attempting to dissuade panhandling, New York City has published guidelines about the practice, including what constitutes aggressive panhandling. (Gonna go out on a limb here and say someone threatening to kill people would constitute the aggressive variety.) And, the best part? These guidelines promise the NYPD will respond “when they are not handling emergency situations.”
Like, you know…the city becoming a hellhole with skinny jeans and manbuns.
The saddest part of this situation (aside from the numerous tepid takes from Leftists wanting to throw the Marine in jail for murder because shut up) is how many touch points prior to the choking that Leftists had if they truly cared about Neely as anything but the next cause to support. Jail time, institutionalization, therapy, rehab, job training, and many other options could have turned him from a statistic to a functioning human being.
But the Left doesn’t want that. They need a constant stream of victims to perpetuate their self-imposed image of compassionate saviors who really care about the situation, dammit! While they’re giving their Oscar acceptance speeches and patting themselves on the back for being so caring, people like Neely continue to fall through the cracks, failed by the very people who claim to want to help them.
And when they’re not letting these poor souls continue to wallow in Leftist-imposed squalor, they’re being enabled, even emboldened, by Leftist lawmakers who justify what they do to others because of their misfortune. If we don’t subscribe to that way of thinking, we’re just not as compassionate as the Left is. And they’re right.
We’re more compassionate because we want actual solutions.
Leftists will scream we don’t because Republicans are evil meanie-heads who cut funding for alternatives (that the Left themselves don’t really fund when they have a chance). Let them scream because it’s better than what they’re actually doing, which is nothing. Plus, it’s impotent rage. The Left knows they have fewer legs to stand on than a clumsy lumberjack with a chainsaw, so they have to play the compassion card and try to make us feel bad, in an attempt to make themselves feel/look good in comparison.
Spoiler Alert: it doesn’t work like that.
Furthermore, situations like what happened to Jordan Neely are going to continue as long as the Left continues to enable the criminals at the expense of the law-abiding. At some point, the law-abiding are going to push back, and it won’t be pretty on multiple levels. Look at San Francisco right now. That is going to be the Big Apple’s future sooner rather than later, and knowing how New Yorkers take less shit than a defunct septic company, it’s going to get bloody.
Regardless of what further details are going to come out about Jordan Neely, rest assured the Left will be up in arms for quite a while because someone didn’t just let him act like a potential threat. Neely’s death will be attributed to a lot of things, but it can be summarized in one sentence that you can read in Morgan Freeman’s voice.
He fucked around, and he found out.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Amid all the stories of transgender controversies, gun control debates that will lead to nothing, and general social media dumbfuckery, it’s been hard to find fresh or even fresh-adjacent topics to discuss. Believe me, I can talk about the aforementioned topics all day, but I don’t want to bore you. That’s what my joke writer is for.
But hope springs eternal if you just look around long enough, and buddy did I ever strike pay dirt! During a recent House hearing, the current Director of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms Steven Dettelbach had a bit of trouble answering a firearms question: what is an assault weapon. Of course, he had trouble because he’s not a biologist…
But this got me thinking about the ATF as a government entity. Do we need it? What does it do? Can it be renamed the Bureau of a Good Time on a Holiday Weekend? These and other questions are going to be answered…somewhere else, but I’ll give it a shot.
Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms
What the Left thinks it means – a government agency designed to regulate the items in the agency’s name
What it really means – a really bad idea made worse through incompetence
The ATF’s website describes its mission as:
ATF’s responsibilities include the investigation and prevention of federal offenses involving the unlawful use, manufacture, and possession of firearms and explosives; acts of arson and bombings; and illegal trafficking of alcohol and tobacco products. The ATF also regulates, via licensing, the sale, possession, and transportation of firearms, ammunition, and explosives in interstate commerce.
Judging from the number of people who shoot off fireworks in my neighborhood around the 4th of July, it’s clear the ATF is doing a bang-up job, if you’ll pardon the pun. And if you don’t, fuck you!
Anyway, the Reader’s Digest Condensed Version of the ATF’s job is three-fold: investigate offenses, prevent potential offenses, and regulate a bunch of shit involving, well, alcohol, tobacco, and firearms. As of the most recent data I could find (Fiscal Year 2020 for the people playing along at home), the ATF had over 5000 employees across multiple areas, with an annual budget of $1.4 billion. That’s a shit-ton of money spent per employee! So, how effective are they?
That depends on who you ask. Many on the Left see room for improvement, especially in the area of gun violence prevention. Others aren’t so optimistic, citing ineffectiveness and a lack of respect as reasons they aren’t highly regarded and respected in their roles.
Maybe it’s me, but I think the real reason they’re not heralded for their work is how the agency fucked up in Waco, Texas, with the Branch Davidians. For those of you who don’t remember (and, for that, I envy you), the Branch Davidians were a Christian cult whose leader, David Koresh, was accused of some serious shit ranging from stockpiling illegal weapons to child abuse to statutory rape. And 51 days later, all chaos broke loose. Although the details are still sketchier than a mixed drink handed to a hot girl in a sleazy nightclub owned by Hunter Biden, the general consensus was the ATF and the FBI shared blame for things going pear-shaped.
Granted, we shouldn’t base our opinions of a government agency on one fuck-up, even if it’s the mother of all fuck-ups. That’s why I have more examples! And, as you might expect, anti-gun groups keep hammering the ATF to do its job.
Which, according to these groups, is to do what they say.
Which means a) the ATF shouldn’t listen to groups who need people to die to remain politically relevant, b) the ATF must really be fucked up, and c) the ATF needs to be abolished, like, yesterday.
Let’s be frank (especially if your name is Frank), the ATF can’t regulate its way out of a plain brown bag holding a bottle of cheap hooch, let alone the breadth of issues the agency is supposed to address. And for $1.4 billion, we should expect a level of competency even an amoeba could meet.
And let the ATF limbos under it without even having to bend over.
Of course, the Left doesn’t see this as a problem so long as the ATF continues to push for more gun regulations. And with the Biden Administration pushing for more as part of a “gun safety” push, it’s a safe guess the Left doesn’t want the ATF going anywhere for a while.
In the meantime, though, it’s hard to justify why we even have an ATF if they don’t know what they’re doing. I’m sure there are some good folks there (law of averages and such), but that doesn’t make them immune to the legitimate criticism of how the ATF sucks at its job.
What’s more, they are part of two rampant problems the Left doesn’t want to address: redundancy, and redundancy. Not to mention redundancy. So much of what the ATF does is also being done by other federal agencies or can be folded into existing roles without a loss of effectiveness. After all, when you’re effectiveness is a wash, you can’t really lose effectiveness by transferring duties to another team.
Granted, I am biased here because I’m definitely on the “smaller government is better government” bandwagon, so obviously I want to get rid of as much government as possible without damaging the country. Having said that, I think the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms has overstayed its welcome and should be heading to the Great Bureaucratic Shitstorm in the Sky. For the money we spend, we should be getting results other than “well, we fucked up again.”
In their defense, though, “Well, we fucked up again” is the unofficial slogan of the Puddin’ Head Joe Administration.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
And now the moment you’ve all been waiting for! No, not my announcement I’m giving up blogging. This is an even better announcement!
This week’s Lexicon has next to nothing to do with trans people! And in fact the only reference will be in the lead-up to this week’s topic!
In the aftermath of a Nashville school shooting that left 6 people dead and a trans person accused of pulling the trigger (see, I told you!), the Left went into full “push for gun control even though criminals don’t obey laws” mode. As pro-gun control groups swarmed the Capitol, three Democrat politicians joined in the festivities, using a bullhorn and approaching the front of the Tennessee House chamber to chant. Which got 2 of them expelled.
And also made these three politicians, Justin Jones, Justin Pearson, and Gloria Johnson, into a Leftist superhero team they’ve deemed the Tennessee Three. Which makes them perfect for mocking!
the Tennessee Three
What the Left thinks it means – three strong and brave people who are standing up to the NRA
What it really means – three politicians milking dumb policies for short term success and long term irrelevance
The Left love to circulate a meme that mocks the Right’s responses to mass shootings in America with the idea being the cycle is never-ending because no one does anything meaningful to stop it. If only we had stronger gun laws, like red flag laws and assault weapon bans, we could break the cycle and protect our communities!
Because tough gun control laws totally work so well in Chicago, Washington, and other Leftist udopeias…I mean utopias.
The gun control movement’s approach never changes, which makes it frightfully easy to lather, rinse, and repeat with every mass shooting (which is another weird term that has no clear definition, like pornography or Shia Labouf’s acting chops). Although gun control gets a little more traction because of this, most of the time their efforts fall flat. The Left attributes this to the power of the eeeeevilllll gun lobby, but I have a different hypothesis as to why gun control keeps failing to catch fire, if you’ll pardon the pun.
Gun control works less often than Kamala Harris.
Of course, Leftists point to states with the strictest gun laws having lower rates for gun-related deaths. (Their sources? Pro gun control groups like Everytown for Gun Safety and the Giffords Law Center.) And if you look at the states as a whole, you’d tend to agree.
Then, you wouldn’t know the dirty little secret behind the state approach: it hides how deadly many Democrat-run cities are. By broadening the focus to the state level, it obscures what really drives those numbers, which makes it easier for the Left to lie about them and blame Republicans for their allies’ ineptitude.
Now, what does this have to do with gun control? For one, it shows how dishonest the Left has to be when it comes to gun violence to try to make a point. The Left runs on the need to curtail gun violence, but they can’t even fix the shit they break. So, instead of, you know, fixing things, they blame Republicans for their lack of action to solve the problems they create.
And these assholes mock Republicans for times when the Right doesn’t accept personal responsibility?
Which brings us back to the stars of this melodrama, the Tennessee Three. While the Left elevates these three, it’s important to note they broke Tennessee House rules. That, and the fact those mean ol Republicans believe actions have consequences, lead to the current false narrative these three were victims.
No word yet from the 6 actual victims of the shooting on how they feel about the Tennessee Three.
The Left consider the Tennessee GOP’s “fuck around and find out” response to the Tennessee Three to be politically and racially motivated, considering two of the three happen to be black. As far as the political part, I have two words: fucking duh! Of course it’s political! Gun control and protests are political in nature, so any reactions that come from them are also going to be political.
Of course, the Left frames it as bad because three of their foot soldiers got caught. Much like the reason they tried to avoid bringing up the gender identity of the shooter (sorry, I lied earlier), the Left has to hide those little details that add context to advance the ideas they want. The gun control argument is all about deceit. Oh, and utter dumbfuckery. But if we didn’t have deceit and dumbfuckery here, I wouldn’t have a weekly column topic, so there’s that.
Meanwhile we still have a gun control problem, not a gun problem. Given the sheer number of guns Americans have, if guns were really the problem the Left say they were, they would be a bigger factor in the number of deaths per year. As it turns out, they’re not. In 2020, there were 45,222 people killed in gun-related incidents, with most of them being suicides. In that same year, this number didn’t even crack the top 10 of leading causes of death Granted this was a COVID year, so they might have squeaked in at number 10 otherwise, but the point is still the same. Guns aren’t the problem.
Even if you think strengthening gun laws is the answer, consider the fact there are already tens of thousands of gun laws already on the books at every level. Throw in the “Gun Free Zones” and you might as well open up a shooting gallery…oh wait, that’s Chicago on an average weekend!
And here’s a fun item to consider. When you look at the recent mass shootings, the majority of them were committed by…people who beat the current system. You know, the one you assclowns set up in the first place. What’s your next move? Create more hoops that mass shooters will zip through like they’re in Cirque du Soleil?
Which brings us to another problem with the gun control movement: the sheer number of laws makes it impossible to enforce them. More laws means more laws that won’t get enforced and zero gets accomplished. Well, except for more people dying, that is.
Maybe it’s me (and I wouldn’t be surprised if it is), but it seems the Tennessee Three are part of the problem. They make loud statements, get on TV thanks to Leftists, get glowing (albeit demonstratively bullshit) newspaper articles written about them, and rake in the adoration. In other words, the political circle jerk that always happens after a mass shooting (that don’t occur within Democrat-run cities, that is).
And with the accusations of racism, since the two black members were expelled while the white woman wasn’t (by 1 vote, by the way), the Tennessee Three have hit a Leftist goldmine. All by being assholes on the job. If that’s all it took, I would be a CEO!
And all on the bodies of 6 people sacrificed at the altar of gun control failure.
Of course, no one on the Left is going to say it because they have a vested interest in keeping gun violence front and center (as long as it can be blamed on Republicans). They have to keep the wheels greased, right? And then they can come out and show how much they CARE, dammit!
But if they really cared, the Tennessee Three would reject gun control as being a failure. Then again, that would require a level of self-awareness not even the smartest Leftist could muster.
By the way, Cindy Sheehan is on line one. Something about how the Left uses their own until they stop being the flavor of the month.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
It’s been quite a week, dear readers. Between a NCAA Women’s Basketball title game that was officiated by people who beamed down from Saturn just before tip-off (not that I have an opinion on that mind you) and former President Donald Trump being indicted on 34 separate charges, it was hard to find a new or interesting take on topics that have already been through the spin cycle several times over.
Then, I saw a phrase that kept getting used by Leftists related to the Trump indictments: no one is above the law. This has always struck me as an interesting phrase, especially when used against Republicans who are experiencing legal troubles of their own. And our dear friends on the Left surely believe in fairness to all under the law. Just ask them!
So, that’s why I’m throwing the brown bullshit flag so we can review whether they mean what they say.
no one is above the law
What the Left thinks it means – everyone is accountable to the law
What it really means – some people are accountable to the law while others aren’t
Remember when former Vice Presidential candidate John Edwards said there were two Americas? Although he played second fiddle to someone who made Al Gore look like Alvin Ailey, he was right, but his focus was too limited. There are two Americas on several levels, especially in terms of criminal justice. Leftists were quick to pounce (which I thought only Republicans did) on the Trump indictments as proof that white collar crime is treated differently than other types of crime.
Which it is and has been repeatedly for decades. I’m definitely not disputing that. What I am disputing is how the concept of no one being above the law is actually applied when it comes to crimes with a political bent.
One of the benefits of having political or cultural power is being able to afford good lackeys…I mean employees. And to find even better fall guys…or fall women. No need to be sexist here when we’re dealing with a lack of accountability, right?
Anyway, when you’re able to surround yourself with people who can either keep you out of trouble by finding loopholes and sucking up to the right power brokers or who can take the fall so you can skate away like Brian Boitano, you are practically untouchable. Sure, you might get socked every so often with lighter charges (like getting charged with an overdue library book after being found killing a nun at high noon in Times Square), but most of the time, you’re golden because you have the gold to make it happen.
That fact alone makes the Left’s “no one is above the law” bullshit, well, bullshit. But to add to the what-the-actual-fuckitude of these situaitons, when you add politics to the mix, you get people willing to protect you at all costs. And this is the really fucked up part of it: the political animals being protected by the mobs of adoring fans more obedient than Renfield was to Dracula give one-one-trillionth-of-a-fuck about those fans. They are useful idiots, with a heavy emphasis on the idiot part.
Guess that that means, kids. The same people who say no one is above the law become hypocrites when it’s one of theirs trying to be above the law.
Told ya it was fucked up.
Which brings us to the Trump indictments. Others far more knowledgeable than me have already talked about the legal shitshow ahead of us, so I will leave them to discuss the judicial ins and outs. The parts I will cover revolve around just how deep this indictment rabbit hole goes and just how far Leftists are willing to pervert the rule of law just to get Trump.
Let’s start with Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. The protagonist or antagonist (depending on how much you hate Trump) ran on an anti-Trump plank, citing the work he did on the investigation of alleged crimes prior to being elected. Under most circumstances, this would be enough to raise some eyebrows as to whether his office could be impartial. And when you consider a) Bragg is a Democrat, and b) the DA position is an elected position, the political aspects cannot be overlooked and can definitely be seen as a conflict of interest.
But, in Trump’s favor, Bragg appears to be inept, so he’s got that going for him.
Oh, and did I mention he got donations from Color of Change? This progressive movement works to try to address the racial inequities in the judicial system (meaning they want blacks to be incapable of being held accountable for crimes they commit). Even beyond that, some of their board members worked previously with SEIU, the Aspen Institute, and other progressive organizations at least partially funded by…Uncle George Soros. And when you consider Color of Change both got donations from Soros and donated some of their money to Bragg’s campaign, let’s just say the Star Chamber looks a lot more like King Solomon’s court by comparison.
And before you Leftists say it, pointing this shit out isn’t anti-Semitic. I could care less what faith, if any, he professes. A bad actor is a bad actor. I would criticize Soros in the same breath I criticize Joel Osteen and for the same thing.
Well, that, and the fact Osteen’s teeth are whiter than the DNC.
That brings us to Judge Juan Merchan, who will be presiding over this shitshow…I mean trial. No, wait, I do mean shitshow. The good judge donated a small amount of money to the Biden/Harris campaign as well as to other progressive causes. Sure, it’s not much in the grand scheme of things…until you consider his daughter worked for a progressive organization called Authentic …whose clientele include Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, and…the Biden/Harris campaign. And the list is even longer according to their website.
So again, a conflict of interest, but since it favors the Left, it’s okay!
No wonder people think we have a two-tiered judicial system.
And here’s the thing. For all the people who are cheering the Trump indictments, you can find plenty of examples on both sides of the aisle of politicians and figures who are literally above the law. Hunter Biden ring a bell? Of course, he’s just the son of the President who just so happened to be caught doing drugs, owning a firearm in spite of being legally prohibited from owning it, and a few other minor scandals including possible illicit deals with China. But he’s a private citizen, so we really shouldn’t pick on him, right?
Okay, I’ll agree to that.
But some of the following people weren’t private citizens when they committed their crimes:
Bill Clinton
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
Joe Biden
Adam Schiff
Nancy Pelosi
Harry Reid
Ted Kennedy
Christopher Dodd
Gretchen Whitmer
Alexandria Ocasio Cortez
Ilhan Omar
Kamala Harris
Maxine Waters
Need I go on? And I can produce the receipts of each and every one of their crimes. Try me.
And, yes, I know Trump isn’t the only Republican to seemingly skate when it comes to legal matters. But that reinforces the major point: Leftists are fucking hypocrites. They want justice (or at least a Pablo Picasso version of it) for everyone else, but don’t you dare hold them accountable for the illegal shit they do because…reasons.
So, we’re stuck. With political influence taking over the judicial branch like a case of the clap, there is no easy way to fix it. Given the political sideshow of the Trump indictments, you could get arrested for wrongthink before you could say “doubleplusungood” on the whims of a Leftist prosecutor or judge. And believe me they are just that petty. Even after charges are dropped, you’re still guilty. Just ask Kyle Rittenhouse.
Then, there are the people who can commit any number of crimes and never see the inside of a courtroom for them. I’m looking at you, BLM and Antifa. You can cause all the chaos you want, and you will always get the fiery but mostly peaceful benefit of the doubt.
I wish I could give you a happy ending or some inspirational speech to make things right again, but I can’t. As long as there are people who can get away with crimes no matter what, Lady Justice is best kept blind out of fear of what she might see out of the so-called judicial system today.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
I cover a lot of topics for the Lexicon, but there are some that I shy away from most of the time. One of these topics is abortion. My reasons are simple: 1) it’s such an emotional issue that it’s impossible to discuss without someone getting pissed off, and 2) much like a Hannah Gadsby comedy special, there’s not much funny there. Even some of the periphery topics can get people mad.
Well, this is your warning that some of you reading beyond this point are gonna get pissed because we’re going into abortion.
In their post-Roe Handmaids Tale pseudo reality, Leftists are pushing an idea that women now will be required to take babies to term. In a double doozy of dumbassery, former Secretary of Labor and current member of the Lollipop Guild Robert Reich tweeted the following:
Forced birth in a country that refuses to protect its people from being shot down in a mass shooting.
That’s right, kids. Forced birth is apparently a thing, at least according to Leftists, which means it’s a subject that’s right in the Lexicon wheelhouse.
Damn you, Leftists.
forced birth
What the Left thinks it means – a condition created by Republicans where women are legally required to give birth under any and all circumstances
What it really means – a scary-sounding phrase without any connection to reality
For almost as long as I’ve been alive, Roe v Wade was the law of the land, making abortion a legal activity, as well as a coin of the Leftist realm. When the US Supreme Court handed down its decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization last year, Leftists not only lost their shit, but started to make up new shit to replace it. Enter “forced birth.” All the usual culprits weighed in on the subject (using the same terminology and scare tactics, I might add). Planned Parenthood, the Washington Post, The Guardian, and even the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee weighed in, offering the most tepid of hot takes. Let me give you the short version.
Abortion good. Limits to abortion bad. Oh, and limits to abortion equals forced birth.
As with most terms used in the abortion debate, forced birth is a charged term, and it’s designed to be. Leftists love to combine words that don’t necessary go together, like climate justice or House Intelligence Committee member Adam Schiff. This is done to evoke emotions in line with what Leftists want us to feel or think (or feel instead of think).
In this case, they start with a word that is intended to make us feel bad, “forced.” This shocks us because people like freedom. If we’re forced to do something, our natural instinct is to resist.
Then, we come across “birth.” (Or at least the father did at conception.) Regardless of where you stand on the abortion issue, life is a pretty important subject. We understand it on a fundamental level and revere it to one extent or another. Even the most strident pro-choicer gets the importance of life; they just don’t feel bad at killing a baby in the womb because…reasons.
So, did the Dobbs decision force women to give birth? Nope! It affirmed there is no Constitutional right to an abortion, and it left the decision to either the states or Congress. While the decision didn’t outright ban abortion, Leftists made it sound like it did, if only to continue its Handmaids Tale cosplay.
Although I’m not a lawyer since I have morals and a soul, the Dobbs decision made a lot of sense to me because it was based on simple logic and attention to details. Even though the word “abortion” doesn’t appear in the Constitution, the Left argued it was an extension of the 14th Amendment, as Justice Samuel Alito referenced in his majority opinion:
The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”
The right to abortion does not fall within this category…. Roe’s defenders characterize the abortion right as similar to the rights recognized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage, but abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged, because it destroys what those decisions called “fetal life” and what the law now before us describes as an “unborn human being.”
The TL:DL (Too Long: Didn’t Litigate) version: abortion isn’t a right at all, and the two major decisions related to it (Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey for those of you playing along at home) weren’t consistent with the Constitution as written. Hence, states can set whatever limits they want on abortion thanks to a little thing the hip kids like to call the Tenth Amendment.
But that takes away the Left’s best weapon in favor of abortion: judicial fiat. Since that’s not on the table anymore, Leftists resort to their fallback plan, that being openly lying to people to get them outraged at the Supreme Court and Republicans deciding a baby’s life is worth as much as the mother’s. Those bastards!
But out of chaos came some ingenuity, which is shocking for Leftists considering they’re usually dimmer than a burnt out light bulb in a goth kid’s bedroom. Leftists started volunteering to take women to states where abortions are legal if they live in a state where it isn’t. Oh, and to donate money towards that end because, let’s face it, schlepping caramel macchiatos at Starbucks doesn’t pay well enough to fund it themselves.
Now imagine if these same Leftists understood economics in the same way they understand interstate travel to kill a baby. But that’s a blog post for another time…
Meanwhile back at the main point, the truth is no one is forced to give birth in this country. Some states make it more difficult to get one, but that’s not the same thing as making women give birth. What it does do is create an incentive to plan a pregnancy and take steps to prevent it before doing the horizontal mambo under the sheets if you’re not ready to be a parent. Of course, this is beyond the pale for Leftists, who treat abortion like it’s Pez. After all, showing any amount of foresight, planning, and dare I say it responsibility might…make you become a Republican!
Regardless of your position on abortion, it’s clear that Robert Reich and anyone else who is pushing the forced birth bullshit aren’t helping the matter any. If we’re going to come to a functional, albeit tenuous, agreement on the topic, we need to be honest with each other. Both sides have legitimate concerns that can only be addressed with dialogue instead of diatribes. Granted, that seems less likely than Michael Bay making a good movie, but I can hope.
And to Mr. Reich, I’m sorry your attempt to push the forced birth lie came up a little short.
I’ll see myself out…