Category: Justice

MeToo, But Trump!

In case you’ve been living under a rock, you’ve probably heard Andrew “I’m Not Fredo, But I’m as Smart as Him” Cuomo has resigned as the Governor of New York after allegations of sexual harassment and assault against female employees. And that’s after a year of the Left and the media (but I repeat myself) slobbering over how well he deal with the COVID-19 crisis.

No word from around 10-15,000 elderly constituents who died as a result of Cuomo’s ineptitude. Granted, I’m not a doctor and I didn’t stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but even I understand that putting infected people near others who are highly susceptible to the infection isn’t a good idea. But that’s a blog post for another crime…

After the allegations came to light, Leftists came forward and…waited for the Attorney General’s report to come out before taking the stunning and brave position that Cuomo needed to step down. Even now, though, Leftists are finding ways to discredit the findings to avoid looking like they were wrong. But their favorite is “What about Trump?” because apparently the former President did far worse than Cuomo is alleged to have done and with greater frequency.

Here’s the thing. The allegations against Cuomo have been investigated and found to be credible, credible enough for law enforcement to further pursue the former Governor. The allegations against Trump, though scandalous and equally as disgusting, have not been investigated fully, so we don’t know how valid they are. Yet, the latter’s allegations are treated as gospel truth while the former’s allegations are being taken through the spin cycle (and I’m not talking about laundry, either).

The obvious duplicity is low-hanging fruit, but there another angle not a lot of people have taken so far, and it involves the MeToo and Time’s Up movements. These movements were designed to help women come forward and fearlessly call out sexual abusers in positions of power.

You know. Like…oh, I don’t know…Andrew Cuomo?

That’s where the Left’s lack of consistency comes into play. While waiting for the facts come out is the right tactic, the Left doesn’t apply that standard consistently. In looking at the timeline of the “Luv Guv’s” actions, there were enough red flags to trigger bulls for miles around, but no one within Leftist circles took the care to notice and apply their own logic. With Trump, the mere allegations were enough to warrant a full-blown investigation into each and every claim, no matter how shaky the evidence was. Ditto for Brett Cavanaugh. But when it came to Cuomo and when it comes to other Leftist figures, it’s a wait and see if anyone remembers after the stonewalling concludes.

At the heart of the matter lies the Left’s attitude towards women. As long as they can use you for their ends, Leftists will always be behind you (which, as we’ve seen with Cuomo, may not be the best place for them). The depth of that support, however, isn’t that great because the Left will always view you as helpless and incapable of succeeding without their help. And anytime women fail, the Left has any number of ready-made excuses that protect women by deflecting blame.

Just don’t see through the Left’s bullcrap or assert yourself without their help. Otherwise, you’re not a real woman to them. And, yes, I’ve seen Leftists say that to women who disagree with them, including a former Secretary of State.

I’m not sure, but I think that’s misogyny.

When you consider this, it makes the Cuomo story into a whole new and creepy direction. And it leads to another question: how many women have to endure the kind of behavior Cuomo and other Leftist males before the Left shapes up? Let’s just say I’m not holding my breath. As with every group within the Leftist hivemind, women are treated as chess pieces to be moved and sacrificed as desired. Although I’m sure there are women who would be flattered at the attention of a powerful man, it doesn’t make it any less troublesome for the Left.

Nor does it make the “But Trump” defense any more valid. A scummy action is a scummy action, regardless of political affiliation. If even one of the allegations against Trump is investigated (by someone other than Leftists on Twitter) and found to be legally actionable, I will be among the first to demand charges be filed. And Leftists will, too.

The only difference? I won’t be a hypocrite when I do it.

Sometimes Less Is Moratorium

Last week, the nation’s Capitol was awash in moratorium fever, and not even a cowbell would have quelled it. House Democrats started beating the drums about the end of the eviction moratorium put in place due to COVID-19 and told us it was important that it get extended by the end of July. Of course, they knew about this in June, but they just had to get it taken care of with mere hours to spare.

Any parent who has worked until 2 AM on a science project due later that day for a son or daughter knows this feeling.

As much as I would love to dunk on the process in this case, the actual subject of this piece is the eviction moratorium itself. What started off as an act of kindness in the midst of a fracking pandemic has become a hot button issue where very few people pushing for the moratorium extension have fully thought out the implications. (I know. I’m as shocked as you are that a dumb Leftist idea wasn’t planned.)

The eviction moratorium seeks to forgive past due rent due to the economic impacts of the pandemic. With businesses either slowing down or going out of business altogether, it made sense to allow some flexibility. The only problem with that is some people will take advantage of it. What was considered a safety net was quickly and easily turned into a hammock, all with the help of people like the Leftists pushing to extend the moratorium. Between the handful of economic relief checks and the changes to the unemployment process, it became easier and more profitable to sit at home and let the government take care of the details than it was to find a new job.

Oh, and to spend the “free” money on big-ticket items instead of, you know, paying the rent as outlined in the rental contract.

Wait a minute…am I saying the renters had to sign a contract to live in someone else’s property? Yes, yes, I am. Maybe they didn’t cover this at Leftist colleges and universities, but a rental agreement is a contract and getting Big Daddy Government to step in on your behalf doesn’t negate the contract. At least, not yet. If Leftists get their way, the federal government will be able to undo any contract it wants, even ones they’re not a party in. That in and of itself should scare you, but if not, I can put on a Frankenstein’s Monster mask and say it because, damn it, I care.

But this has a much larger impact than what the Left want to believe. Instead of sticking it to landlords, who are often regular people instead of megacorporations, the moratorium extension has the power to make it so the megacorporations get to own more rental property. Here’s how. When you are the owner of rental property, your income is dependent upon rental income coming in on a regular basis. COVID-19 put a King Kong-sized monkey wrench into this situation. Instead of being able to count on rental income, the owners either had to take the lumps without expecting to get paid or wait for a government bailout. And since the latter doesn’t quite fit with the Left’s strategy or their understanding of basic economics, the landlords had to eat the losses. Great if you’re a renter struggling to find a use for a Bachelors degree in Albino Native American Feminist Slam Poetry Studies, but bad if you’re the landlord.

If the moratorium becomes a permanent thing, it’s likely fewer people will rent out properties, provided those properties aren’t foreclosed upon due to…non-payment! Once the properties get foreclosed, usually anybody can snatch it up including a little organization called BlackRock. BlackRock just happens to be one of the largest property management companies in the country. Oh, and I forgot to mention they have former employees working in the Biden Administration as economic advisors after serving in government roles under President Barack Obama.

Scummy as hell, but hey. No mean Tweets, right?

Now, here’s the Rod Serling style twist. By pushing for the federal government to extend the eviction moratorium, Leftists are making it possible for a corporation to corner the rental property market. Brilliant! But I’m sure the Socialist Socialite has already figured that out and is lobbying against the moratohhhhh yeah, she’s in favor of it. Just goes to show you people can get a degree in something and still not know a damn thing about it.

Anyway, the Leftists pushing the moratorium haven’t thought through the issue carefully enough to be informed. Then again, that’s never stopped them before, so it’s not that hard to imagine they would spout off about the moratorium without considering the economic and legal implications which will screw over members of their base while enriching at least some of their donors.

At least there aren’t mean Tweets, though, amirite?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

If there is one thing the Left excels at, it’s sucking at life. But if there’s another thing they’re good at, it’s hyperbole. If there is a problem they can market, it’s the most horrible problem ever! After the 2020 Elections and the results being more questionable than a Media Matters hit piece, many Republican-led states looked into passing voting laws designed to address the issues they saw. As expected, the Left overreacted, calling these new laws a threat to our democracy.

Then again, the Left thinks a threat to our democracy is anything from new voting laws to fines for overdue library books. It’s gotten to the point it’s become a rallying cry to get their supporters energized enough to take a day off work and…sorry, I couldn’t even type the rest of the sentence with a straight face.

Now’s as good a time as any to add the term to our Leftist Lexicon.

threat to democracy

What the Left thinks it means – a group or idea that can potentially unravel the social and political fabric of America

What it really means – an overused catchphrase that is both unintelligent and inaccurate

There is one thing I forgot to mention in my introduction. The Left is good at connecting two things that have no actual connection whatsoever. Remember, these are the folks who maintain speech can be violence, but actual violence is speech, and mostly peaceful speech at that! So, it’s not surprising the Left would try to conflate new voting laws with events that will destroy our country, move us closer to a fascist/totalitarian state, and, Marxist Utopia forbid, lead to another Nickelback album.

The problem is these new laws have gotten a bad rap (by the same Leftists who told us the 2020 Election was the most secure in history) because the Left…lied about them. Whether it’s Georgia’s proposed law that allegedly bans people from getting water while in line to vote (it doesn’t) or Texas’s proposed law that allegedly restricting access to vote (it doesn’t), the Left has people thinking any Republican effort to curtail the potential for voting fraud are politically-motivated, racist, ageist, and overall evil.

And, surprise surprise, this is by design. The Left doesn’t have any substantive arguments against the proposed laws, or at least none that doesn’t make them look like idiots. Let me put it this way. There are Democrats who are exposing the Left’s lies on these bills. No matter how you slice it, that’s not a good look.

As deceptive as this is, unfortunately it works with a lot of people outside of the Left’s bubble because it preys upon the fact most of us fell asleep during Civics 101. We are not a democracy, nor have we ever been. Whether we will be one later…well, let’s just hope it doesn’t happen unless you want to be Piggy in a live-action version of Lord of the Flies. Many Americans think we are for the reason I mentioned earlier, and it makes it harder to convince people of the truth.

And, no, a democracy and a republic are not interchangeable, nor are they close enough to be synonymous with each other. In a democracy, the people have a direct voice within the government, while the people have an indirect voice within the government through the election of representatives in a republic. A slight difference, but one that means a lot in the grand scheme of politics. For there to be a threat to democracy, there must be a democracy to threaten.

The other aspect of the Left’s latest squawking point left to tackle is why the Left makes so many seemingly minor molehills into metaphysically dangerous mountains. For this, let’s focus just on the voting laws. The purpose of the laws is to prevent people and parties from undermining elections. That is troubling to the Left because these laws shut down many of the tricks they’ve used to win elections in recent years. That gives Leftists a vested interest in shutting down these laws, even though the specifics of these laws make sense. It’s like watching a debate between Ben Stein and an agitated honey badger.  One will present the facts in a measured tone, and the other will rip your throat out if you get too close. And if you’ve ever had your throat ripped out by Ben Stein…

But just like the honey badger, the Left doesn’t care about the facts. They need people to be afraid because fear makes people malleable to the point they abandon critical thinking and focus on self-preservation. And with the Left thinking they know what’s good for you more than, well, you do, they’re going to do whatever they can to get you under their control. Then, after you die, they will control how you vote. Isn’t that nice?

Unfortunately, it’s worked again, and many people are lead to believe the new voting laws prevents people from voting, but only certain people (i.e. non-whites). The facts aren’t as sexy as the fear, so the sexy wins. But as we’ve found out with supermodels, sexy isn’t the same as smart. While the fearmongers screech about how these new restrictive laws prevent people from giving voters in line water, they leave out a little detail: it applies to everybody connected to a political campaign or movement. If it’s the Girl Scouts doing it, no problem. If it’s the National Organization for Women stumping for Biden/Harris, that’s a problem. The devil is in the details, kids, and the Left just so happens to not like to give all the details as they tell you Republicans want people of color to die of thirst while in line to vote.

Meanwhile, we here in “flyover country” have this nifty little thing called tap water that we can put in our own containers and drink to our hearts content. (Offer void in Flint, Michigan.)

As with most Leftist ideas, the best weapon is common sense. Why are the Left so up in arms about voter laws in Republican states that are often looser than voter laws in Leftist strongholds? It’s pure politics, baby. If the Left wants to turn states like Texas and Georgia blue in our lifetimes, they need to keep their cheating on the down-low. New laws mean the Left’s goal to flip red states is going to be delayed as they try to figure out new ways to cheat. To put it simply, the Left is counting on you to be scared so their status quo doesn’t change. They’re not interested in saving democracy; they’re interested in saving Democrats!

Sorry for saying the quiet part out loud, Leftists, but if you’re not going to level with us, I’m going to level with us and, spoiler alert, it’s not going to end well for you. Take your faux-patriotic self-generated OHMYGODWEREGONNADIE bunk and stick it where the sun don’t shine.

Namely, under Jerald Nadler’s beltline.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The eyes of the world were on Minnesota earlier this year, and not because the Twins and the Vikings have been mathematically eliminated from the post-season on the same day. Former police officer Derek Chauvin was convicted on three counts related to the death of George Floyd, and the Left cried tears of joy because justice was served (according to them). Yet, there are some, including your humble correspondent, who don’t quite agree with the sentiment, thanks to people like Maxine Waters voicing opinions prior to the jury being sequestered to deliberate.

We’re going to be dealing with some lofty concepts here, kids, so grab a cold beverage and strap in.

justice

What the Left thinks it means – an outcome that reinforces our collective societal will and punishes those who try to subvert it

What it really means – an outcome where the process and the verdict support a fair result

To make things perfectly clear, I happen to agree with the verdict. What Derek Chauvin did on camera crossed the line between securing a suspect and police brutality. It’s hard to argue that (although I’m sure there are plenty of people willing to try). If the case were tried purely on the evidence, the result would be the same.

Ah, but there’s the rub. This case wasn’t tried purely on the evidence. The Court of Public Opinion, which has a track record that makes the 9th Circuit Court look like Solomon, has been trying and retrying this case pretty much on the daily. Whether it’s elevating George Floyd to heroic/deity levels or using the case as a means to promote everything from defunding/abolishing the police to rooting out white supremacists en masse, the Left has been milking this situation for all it’s worth. Judging from the recent home purchase of a Black Lives Matter founder, it’s worth quite a bit.

Even with the video evidence, there is still an important step to consider: ensuring both sides get a fair hearing. The Court of Public Opinion typically isn’t the venue for such discourse, so it falls to the actual court system. And that’s where the Chauvin verdict goes off the rails like Gary Busey driving an Amtrak route. Thanks to Leftists like Maxine Waters, Ilhan Omar, and President Joe Biden, the environment surrounding the trial made a fair hearing impossible. There is some question of whether the jury was sequestered to the point they wouldn’t have heard the aforementioned Leftists’ comments, so we can’t be sure one way or the other.

And that, ladies and gentleman, is how you plant the seeds for an appeal.

Leftists were so hellbent to get a conviction that they didn’t take into consideration what they were doing to deny justice, the very thing they claim they wanted out of the Chauvin trial. Although lack of self-awareness isn’t a bug in the Left so much as a feature, it took an amazing amount of blockheadedness to agree to the idea to let some of the most divisive politicians in modern history and Joe Biden weigh in on what the jury “should” do.

Speaking of which, Speaker Pelosi? Call your office, provided you’ve extracted your feet from your mouth after thanking George Floyd of “taking one for the team.”

Anyway, the Left’s approach to justice, real or whatever make-believe version they want to promote today, is based on their general approach: the ends justify the means. In the Chauvin case, the Left wanted a guilty verdict so they can continue to perpetuate the notion police officers are killing innocent black victims constantly. (Of course, actual data shows that’s not happening, but Party of Science, kids!) As long as this perception is considered to be reality, the Left can keep bringing it up as a means to get money and power without actually doing anything about it.

Think about that last part for a moment. The Left needs these problems to continue for their own purposes. And if it takes people dying to make that happen, so be it! Who would have thought the party that supports abortion on demand would have such disregard for human life?

Meanwhile, the Left keeps slapping “justice” on everything to the point the word loses its meaning. You know, just like they did with racism! Environmental justice, social justice, economic justice, racial justice, about the only thing they haven’t touched on is actual justice, and let’s be glad they haven’t or it would get screwed up worse than it already is. And if the Derek Chauvin verdict is any indication, they may have their sights set on it.

The issues they face, however, are a bit deeper than they are. For all the times they’ve taken up for convicted cop killer Mumia Abu Jamal and the number of lawyers in their midst, you’d think they’d have figured out the American criminal justice process. Just because you hold your breath and stomp your feet doesn’t mean you get the verdict you want. There is still a matter of evidence and procedure that have to be followed or else you get a conviction that gets overturned faster than a pancake at IHOP. And that’s by design, my Leftist friends. Actual justice doesn’t begin and end with the judge’s gavel; it begins with following the steps to ensure all parties involved have a chance to be heard and present a case. I know that kinda puts a crimp in your “execute first and ask questions…well, never, really” approach, but it does make things a lot handier when it comes to, you know, actually getting a legal ruling that won’t get overturned due to a lack of procedural integrity?

In other words, if you follow the rules and don’t let Maxine Waters say something incredibly stupid about an ongoing trial, you don’t have to worry about the verdict you want getting thrown out. Granted, that may be a hell of an ask from the Left, but we can hope.

Regardless of how you feel about the Derek Chauvin verdict, it’s hard to say whether justice was actually served. On the one hand, he has been convicted of contributing to George Floyd’s death. On the other, the environment surrounding the trial made the conviction all but certain, but not in a good way. When that happens, it’s a good thing Lady Justice is wearing a blindfold or we’d be due for a series of rampant scale-whippings.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

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

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

Are they right? Let’s find out!

insurrection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, and keep your eye on the sparrow.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

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

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

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

sedition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

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

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

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

religious freedom

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

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

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

Thanks, ACLU.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

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

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

originalist

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

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

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

You know, like Amy Coney Barrett.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which pisses off the Left to no end.

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

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

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

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

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

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

packing the court

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guess which option packing the court will achieve.

Keeping the Faithless

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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