Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

After last week’s Lexicon entry about abortion, I wanted to do something in a lighter vein.

So, we’re talking about the filibuster. I know! I’m as excited as you are!

Actually, we do have to go back to the abortion debate for a little while because it plays a role in the discussion, and we have Senator Elizabeth “Chief Running Mouth” Warren to thank for it. See, the Senate tried to make the abortion protections laid out in Roe v. Wade federal law last week in the form of The Women’s Health Protection Act, but it ran into a little snag: it didn’t have enough votes to bypass a potential filibuster (which is absurd as we’ll find out later). As a result, Chief Running Mouth took to the media to renew her call to eliminate the filibuster.

Hoo boy. We’re going to need Mayflower to help us unpack all of the wrong here.

filibuster

What the Left thinks it means – an antiquated unconstitutional Senate rule that threatens democracy

What it really means – a Senate rule that Leftists will rue eliminating if they get their way

Time for a quick civics lesson. Although we tend to work on a majority rule model here in America, there are some exceptions designed to prevent the majority from totally steamrolling the minority. One such tool is the filibuster, which is when the minority can cobble together at least 60 votes to prevent a bill from going forward. Even the threat of a filibuster can be enough to change how a bill is written or presented.

In today’s hyper-partisan world, that happens less often than David Duke gets invited to the NAACP Spirit Awards.

Since Democrats hold a numerical majority thanks to Vice President Kamala Harris, they don’t necessarily feel they need to reach across the aisle to get things done, which puts their current opposition to the filibuster into perspective. It also puts their previous use of the filibuster into perspective, since they love to use it when they’re in the minority. If it wasn’t for double standards, Leftists would have no standards at all.

Leftists by their very nature are control freaks (in addition to being other kinds of freaks). They feel they have to rule completely because anything else gives opponents the ability to disagree with them. With enough naysayers, Leftists can’t get done what they want, which is a sin in their eyes akin to killing puppies, destroying the planet, and worst of all…not being a Leftist!

This desire for control has been at the core of a lot of defeats for Senate Democrats, including The Women’s Health Protection Act. Instead of reading the room and coming up with a bill that would get Republican votes, Leftists tried to ram through a bill banking on Republicans to surrender out of fear of public opinion. Wellll…that didn’t happen, and one Democrat Senator, Joe Manchin, sided with the Republicans to make the vote to move forward with the bill 51-49. And it shouldn’t be overlooked it was the Senate Democrats who forced the vote. Talk about a self-own! On the plus side for Leftists, Senator Kyrsten Sinema voted with the Democrats, so she might be able to get back on their Winter Solstice card lists.

But the failure wasn’t because Senate Democrats fucked up! It was that damn filibuster! And it’s about time to we got rid of that unconstitutional rule that prevents progress!

Not so much.

First, let’s deal with the constitutionality argument. Although it’s true the filibuster doesn’t appear in the Constitution, there is this passage from Article I Section 5 that would apply here:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings…

This has been interpreted to mean the House of Representatives and Senate can make their own rules, which means the filibuster is constitutional. You would think someone who taught law might be able to figure that out, but we’re dealing with Elizabeth Warren here. She’s as sharp as a Nerf ball, as anyone who understands her missives on economics an attest.

Or as anyone who understands what a majority is can attest, for that matter. The filibuster literally had very little to do with the failure because, and let me spell it out for the good Senator and any other Leftists who are reading this…the votes weren’t there. You had a threshold and failed to meet it. Those were the rules in place at the time, and you lost. Until you change the Senate rules or amend the Constitution to remove the filibuster as a means of ending debate or altering legislation, those are the rules you have to live by.

Of course, nothing can stop you from bitching about it, even if we didn’t have a First Amendment in place. But can you at least bitch about it intelligently? A tall order, I know, but could you do it for your Uncle Thomas? Please?

Although it’s fashionable to shit on the filibuster, it does serve an important role, even today. Just because one party or the other has a majority doesn’t mean that party is right. The fact the filibuster exists in the Senate is a feature, not a flaw, because the Founding Fathers established the Senate as a more deliberative body. If you want bills written up on the fickle whims of the public, you go to the House. If you want substantive discussions, you go to the Senate.

Well, nobody’s perfect, not even the Founding Fathers.

Even though the filibuster isn’t working well today, it still provides a necessary release valve for impulsive legislation not well thought out and poorly presented. You know, like The Women’s Health Protection Act? (On a side note, how does this bill protect women’s health when statistically the most babies aborted would be female? But I’m not a biologist, so there’s that.)

So, before you Leftists throw out the unborn baby with the bathwater, consider this. Senate Republicans have resisted calls to do away with the filibuster when they’ve been in the minority because they understand it still has value, even when the previous President believed otherwise.

That’s right, Leftists. You now are on the same side as Donald Trump.

As the meme says, congratulations. You just played yourself.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Have you ever known someone who is completely oblivious about a topic one week, but then gets super-attentive to it the next because it’s become a major controversy? Really, that’s Twitter in a nutshell.

Funny I should mention Twitter because this week’s Lexicon entry is related to the recent purchase of the aforementioned social media platform by one Elon Musk. I won’t go into the details because a) they’re not really important to the subject matter at hand, and b) I don’t want to relive the trauma of hearing that many Leftists screech at once.

Instead, we’re going to look into a portion of the takeover that isn’t getting that much attention, but it’s become a cause celebre for Leftists. I’m speaking of Section 230, the sexiest title involving technology ever devised. Believe me, I’m talking 50 Shades of Gray hot!

Okay, it’s not, but it’s still an important aspect of internet culture as a whole that has gotten a lot of attention without a lot of explanation. Grab a big cup of coffee, kids. This is going to be a toughie.

Section 230

What the Left thinks it means – an important regulation that needs to remain in force and enforceable to ensure the future of the Internet

What it really means – a mixed bag of ideas in an obsolete regulation

If you want a solid and balanced analysis of Section 230, I can’t recommend Ballotpedia’s overview enough. For solid and unbalanced analysis, read on!

The short version of what Section 230 does is it protects online services from being held accountable for what members of those services say while using them. It also gives these networks leeway as it pertains to what communication they will allow, even if the communication could be considered protected speech under the US Constitution. In the early days of the Internet, these protections were enough. Then again, back in those days getting a 28.8k modem connection while signing onto America On Line was reason enough to declare a national holiday.

On a side note, if anyone wants one of the free disks AOL gave out like samples at a drug pusher convention, let me know. I have 5 or 6 storage units full of ’em!

Meanwhile, back at the main point, Section 230 worked well enough at the time, but as technology advanced, regulation didn’t. I’m sure there’s a government agency somewhere resisting the trend to upgrade to Windows 95. Given what I’ve seen of the various “upgrades” that may not be a bad thing, but the point is expecting government bureaucracy to move swiftly to an issue is like expecting Joe Biden not to screw up foreign policy: it ain’t gonna happen!

One of the effects of the speed of quiet of regulations is it opens up opportunities to evolve without having to worry about someone telling you no. And online culture took that ball and ran with it. I’ve been online in one form or another since the early 90s and I can attest online culture has gotten very weird. And I’m not just talking about the porn! It’s a completely different world these days with people willingly or unwillingly putting their entire lives online with all the privacy concerns therein.

But the one thing Section 230 couldn’t have seen coming was the politicization of online content. Sure, you can still see pictures of kittens or the occasional funny meme, but outside of that is a nuclear wasteland that makes Chernobyl look like Salt Lake City. And when there’s ideological conflict, there are going to be people who will do whatever they can do to win the argument.

Including twisting the rules of the online road.

Twitter, among other social media platforms, has been accused of silencing conservative voices, and you’d have to be a Leftist not to see it. What started out as subtle biased enforcement of the rules to blatant “we write the rules and you can just fuck right off if you don’t like it” enfarcement. I mean, the Taliban had an active Twitter account as of last year, and their accounts promote violence and hatred. But, try to say men and women are different and you’ll get silenced, temporarily or permanently based solely on who is handling the Ban Hammer.

And therein lies one of my problems with Section 230 as it stands right now. When biases affect who gets to say what on a social media platform, it ceases to be anything but a political tool, which the Left sees no problem with as long as they’re the ones controlling the tool. The kicker here? This actually goes against the spirit and the letter of Section 230.

Funny. I think we’ve just found the first regulation on the books the Left doesn’t deify.

This fact inspired former President Donald Trump and his supporters to push to repeal Section 230 altogether. Given how social media platforms lean so far Left they are parallel to the ground, this seems to have merit. Now that Elon Musk has bought Twitter, through, the idea is gaining more steam on the Left, which doesn’t have merit given how they were in favor of reforming it all the way back in…let me check my notes…two weeks ago.

Obviously, this change of opinion is politically motivated because, duh, Leftists, but it reveals a fundamental lack of understanding, not just of Musk’s stated goals, but of Section 230 itself. Section 230 opens with a Congressional acknowledgement that the Internet is a place for political discourse and should be kept open to diverse points of view. Haphazardly applying terms of service depending on how a poster votes doesn’t accomplish that in the least. If anything, it makes discourse, political or otherwise, nearly impossible. Reversing that trend is what is best for everyone involved. Sure, you are going to have to deal with assholes who will take things too far, but I’d rather know where those assholes are so I can avoid them than to play a perverse game of Three Card Monte where the cards are a white supremacist, a BLM member, and a grandmother in Wyoming who just wants to post funny videos.

Where I deviate from the folks who want Section 230 to go the way of CNN+ is the protection of platforms from the things their users say. If some dumbfuck uses Twitter to call for the extermination of redheads, I don’t want to see Twitter called into court to answer for what the dumbfuck says. They should be busy applying the terms of service equally, not lawyering up every time a Twit posts an ignorant screed. Their business isn’t, nor should it ever be, to be the whipping boy for people looking to get a fast buck because their fee-fees got hurt.

Unfortunately, Elon Musk taking over Twitter won’t fix the fundamental problem with Section 230: the out-of-touch Congresscritters who still ask their staffers to find stamps for their emails. The fact no one in Washington has put forward serious efforts to update Section 230 and create better enforcement tells you just how little they care about the problems its current form poses. Now, if they tied it to pork spending back home, every Congresscritter would be fighting each other to get to a microphone and camera to let his or her opinions be heard.

Or, you know, use Twitter. Or have one of their staffers use it for them.

I’m not usually a fan of keeping regulations on the books, but Section 230 has a lot of good things going for it that would get wiped away if we did away with it completed. Beef up the enforcement a bit to keep social media outlets honest (or at least more honest than they are now), add some actual penalties for non-compliance, and have everything overseen by tech-savvy people who can put their politics aside, and we might just be able to make social media great again.

Then we can tackle the real problems in the world, like figuring out if Mark Zuckerberg is a real person or a wimpier T-1000.



Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

If you heard a loud cheer this past week, it was the sound of airline passengers cheering as they found out the federal mandate on wearing masks on airplanes and other forms of public transportation got lifted. Afterwards, however, you heard the sound of Leftists heads exploding as they tried to explain why it was a bad thing to let people choose whether to wear masks.

And they found out the judge in question was a Trump appointee who had been ranked as “not qualified” by the American Bar Association. That, along with the gross mischaracterization of the ruling a “a judge with no medical experience ruling on a medical matter,” became the talking point to discredit the ruling without actually taking the time to, you know, read it. But it does open up an interesting question: why would the ABA’s rating of this judge matter? Turns out, it matters a lot… and not at all.

American Bar Association

What the Left thinks it means – an important group whose ranking of judges is essential to determining their fitness for office

What it really means – a group whose reputation carries more weight than its actual rankings

For as long as I can remember, the ABA was the gold standard when it came to all things judicial. Their opinions could make or break a judge’s career, and often did. Then, over time, their opinions started to lean further left than a runner trying to avoid getting picked off on first. As a result, let’s just say only a handful of people take their rankings seriously, and oddly enough, it’s the same people who consider Paul Krugman a credible economist.

Let’s take the ABA’s ranking of the judge in the federal mask mandate case, Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle. They took the bold step of ranking her as not qualified because…they felt she hadn’t spent enough time on the bench. Of course, she has the experience of, you know, actually doing the job, so the lack of time on the bench shouldn’t be a disqualifier…except for the ABA and the Leftists who still listen to them.

By contrast, the newest Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson earned a “Well Qualified” rating by the ABA. And that was in spite of Justice Brown Jackson not knowing what a woman is because, “I’m not a biologist.”

Granted, we’re dealing with two different levels of judicial positions, but before Leftists can convince you this will excuse the difference, let me point out the fact the standards seem to be higher for the lower courts if the ABA’s analysis is to be taken seriously.

Which, at this point, we really shouldn’t.

Their rating system categorizes each judge as “Well Qualified”, “Qualified,” or “Not Qualified” under the auspices of a 15-member panel. (Don’t let the fact the Ninth Circus…I mean Circuit Court has 2 votes on this panel sway you.) A simple majority is all that is needed for a judge to get one of the three designations, with a super majority of 2/3 needed to add extra prestige to the designation. Nothing like that new judge smell.

Ah, but that’s where the ABA has gone astray. As the link I shared above shows, the ABA’s leftward tilt has created a system where even the most qualified judge with conservative leanings could be left out in the “Not Qualified” hinterlands while unqualified Leftist judges could get a “Well Qualified” rating with little more than a wave of the hand. As you might expect, this has watered down the ABA’s sway over federal judicial nominations more than a mixed drink at a low-end strip club…not that I know anything about that, mind you.

Adding insult to injury, the past two Republican Presidents, George W. Bush and Donald Trump, made the move away from relying on the ABA’s ratings as a determining factor for federal judicial appointments. This was met by Leftists with one part derision, one part hypochondria, and one part partisan screeching. Or as the rest of us call it, Tuesday. Even before Bush and Trump, it was becoming clear the ABA’s blessing meant jack shit to whether a judge would be appointed. That was bound to happen when your ratings are as questionable as roadside sushi stands in Death Valley.

When President Joe Biden made the move back to elevating the ABA to the judge of judges, it was quite the tell, but it was also an inadvertent admission of how its reputation has been sullied by, well, acting like a bunch of dishonest lawyers. (Yes, I know I kinda repeated myself, but still.) Of course, Leftists will blame Trump for the erosion of faith, but it’s a self-inflicted wound; Trump only poured salt, habanero juice, lemon juice, and pure grain alcohol into it.

And the ABA isn’t getting the hint. With a more critical eye towards actual qualifications instead of arbitrary benchmarks, we will get better judicial nominees and appointees instead of “check the box” style candidates whose external “qualifications” hold more weight than their curricula vitae. (That’s Latin for “boring shit academics put on resumes instead of saying they worked as a night stocker at Piggly Wiggly to get through law college.” Didn’t know ancient Rome even had a Piggly Wiggly, did ya?) That’s why I think the ABA needs a procedural tune-up.

First, we need stricter guidelines for the three designation levels. Just because a judge wins a popularity contest doesn’t mean his or her rulings aren’t shit. Here are my suggestions.

– “Not Qualified” should be only for those cases where the judge couldn’t follow basic jurisprudence with a highlighter and the spirit of Earl Warren helping them. In fact, this ranking should be reserved for those who shouldn’t even be allowed in court to defend themselves in a criminal case. Like Congresscritters.

– “Qualified” should mean the nominee has a firm grasp on the law and how it and the Constitution are interpreted. This should not mean he or she would rule a certain way because all the other judges are doing it. The judge has to show his/her work. Doesn’t have to be anything flashy or profound. Just competent, and God knows we need more competent judges on the bench.

– “Well Qualified” should be reserved for the truly exceptional judges, ones who craft well-reasoned decisions and/or showed scholarly traits that helped to advance our understanding of the law and/or Constitution. I’m talking the best of the best. This designation should be rarer than how Count Dracula orders his steak, and it should be backed up with evidence so we know the judge is truly worthy of the designation.

Next, I would make the ABA members who vote on the designations present their cases arguing solely on the merit (or lack thereof) of the candidates themselves. That means they are going to have to do their homework (or have their clerks or interns do it). I feel this can be done through a blind test where a judge’s ruling is laid out, minus any identifying details that would like him or her to the ruling. After study and deliberation, the ABA can then vote for the candidate’s designation. Oh, and if it’s determined one of the members voted purely upon ideological or political grounds instead of the merits, they gone and their vote nullified.

And one final reform. Until the American Bar Association can get its act together and start acting in a non-partisan manner, their opinions should be taken with a grain of salt. And I’m talking a grain of salt so big it will be open for skiing and snowboarding. Maybe attract mountain climbers and sherpa. That big.

Not Qualified

The Newest Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States wasn’t nominated because of her merits, skills, knowledge, or experience. She was nominated because she was a woman and because of the color of her skin.

During her nomination hearing we learned her lacking of knowledge. As a woman, she couldn’t define a what a woman even was. Something that you don’t have to be a biologist to know.

During her nomination hearing we learned of her lack of merits. Allowing light sentences for dangerous criminals allowing them to leave prison early and to re-offend violent crimes.

During her nomination hearing we learned of her skills and experience within the knowledge of Law. No one is all encompassing in this vast body of skills and experience. And she was no exception.

I think she certainly needed more experience, merits, and knowledge before being named and confirmed to the highest Court.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

It’s April, and it’s time for one of the Left’s favorite activities to resume. Is it the start of Major League Baseball? Nope. Is it the NBA playoffs? No. Is it whining and complaining about the rich not paying their “fair share” in taxes?

Bingo.

The “fair share” drumbeats started up again like a Neil Peart drum solo recently when President Joe “I Helped My Son Get a Sweet Gig in Russia and All I Got Was 10%” Biden proposed a new minimum tax for billionaires (or more precisely hundred millionaires) of at least 20% on their actual income and any assets that have gained value but haven’t been sold yet. Sorry for the long sentence, folks, but to fully express the proposal, I had to be a little long-winded. Meanwhile back in the main topic, Leftists are happy with this proposal because they say it will help with the deficit. But, as you might expect, there’s a bit more to their love of taxes.

taxation

What the Left thinks it means – a means to pay for the services the government provides

What it really means – a way to punish people more successful than Leftists will ever be

Leftists thrive on negative emotions, but the coin of their realm is jealousy. Well, that and killing babies in the womb, but it’s hard to pay for massive government spending in baby parts. Besides, Planned Parenthood needs the money to buy exotic cars!

Where jealousy comes into play in regards to taxation is two-fold. First, the Left needs us to believe people like Elon Musk are gaming the system and, thus, taking advantage of the workers of America. Second, the Left blames any lack of progress in addressing societal ills on not getting enough money from the government. And as we’ve seen in recent decades, both facets work really well to get people to support higher taxes for the evil rich.

And I don’t just mean higher tax payments, either. The Left thinks the tax brackets are too low for the wealthy, so they are always looking for ways to jack up the tax rate to stick it to The Man. If you doubt this, ask a Leftist why they don’t support a flat tax, which would mean everybody would pay the same tax rate. Their answers range from “because everybody paying the same tax rate wouldn’t be fair” to “keep licking the fascist boots of the corporate overlords, you idiot.” But, really, it boils down to this.

Leftists use taxation as a purely punitive measure.

Remember the Left’s belief in a zero-sum game as it pertains to economics? If not, it’s the notion that there is a finite amount of wealth, so any time a rich person makes money it’s at the expense of a poor person. If so, it’s the same concept, but I’m far more apologetic for repeating myself. In either case, it’s based on a faulty premise: that there’s a finite amount of money. Anyone who has followed the expansion of the national debt can see the flaws in the zero-sum game idea.

But a little thing like being divorced from reality like they were Liz Taylor or Mickey Rooney won’t stop Leftists from pushing class hatred in the name of spending other people’s money. All they have to do is make the poor and middle class hate the rich and the lack of reality won’t matter. Needless to say, but necessary to type, this has worked well and continues to work.

Beyond income taxes, the Left has ways to punish the lower and middle classes through taxation. Yes, I’m talking about gax taxes. Contrary to popular Leftist belief, oil companies aren’t gouging people at the pump by jacking up prices. Based on current calculations, those evil greedy oil companies are making…pennies on the dollar with every gallon sold. That’s not a clever turn of a phrase, mind you. I’m talking literal pennies on the dollar (and unlike the kids of today, I do mean literally in the literal sense). And when you consider the costs oil companies incur to refine oil into usable fuel, it’s a wonder they even want to keep drilling.

On the other side of the equation, there’s an entity that rakes in far more money with each gallon of gas sold and incurs none of the risks and costs to get it. If you guessed the state and federal governments, you get a gold star! And these taxes affect the working class more than the upper class. You’re more likely to see Rosie O’Donnell successfully going through Weight Watchers than to see Bill Gates topping off his tank at the local Gas and Sip.

And you’re even less likely to see Leftists support suspending gas taxes right now. After all, it’s free money, and it’s a way to punish us for continuing to use the internal combustion engine instead of being able to fork over several thousand dollars to get an electric car or a hybrid…that would also use fossil fuels like gasoline to get from point A to pointless B. There’s that word “punish” again, kids!

Now, if you’re like me and not keen on paying more taxes than owed, the Left will try to guilt you into paying more by invoking patriotism. In fact, President Pudding Cup once said paying taxes was our “patriotic duty.” Who wants to be seen as not patriotic, right? Of course, this argument might be more persuasive if a) tax dollars were being spent on the country instead of pork programs with no practical application, b) we wouldn’t get in trouble with the IRS for non-payment, c) the government typically doesn’t get rid of old taxes because free money, d) around half of the American population pay little-to-no taxes in the first place, and e) the Left didn’t hate America so much. To be fair, I’m surprised Leftists don’t scream out in pain like vampires taking a holy water shower when they wrap themselves with the American flag.

Even if I grumble at paying taxes out of fear of the IRS giving me an anal cavity search without so much as dinner and a drink, I understand the need for taxation. There are some things we need to pay for, like national defense and infrastructure, because they’re in the Constitution and make sense to spend money on. (Try beating back the Chinese Army with pool noodles, oddly enough made in China.) Having said that, we need to start drawing a few lines before we’re taxed after we die…oh, wait.

Taxes are a necessary pseudo-evil. Like with fire or Auto Tune, they are tools whose use determines whether the results are good or bad. And when they’re used for the purposes of fostering hatred and jealousy, as they are with the President’s billionaire’s tax, there can be no good outcomes.

Except, of course, if you’re sitting on a few empty Swiss bank accounts.


Leftist Lexicon W0rd of the Week

If you want to make a simple concept more complex than it needs to be, leave if to the Left. This past week saw an example of this fall in our respective laps, and it involves a woman. Or, more specifically, what a woman is. Now, most people can figure it out, but that hasn’t stopped the Left from trying to cast doubt on the answer.

Whether it’s a NCAA woman’s swimming champion sporting a penis, proclamations about trans women getting pregnant in spite of lacking the necessary parts, or a Supreme Court nominee who seems to think you need a biologist to know what a woman is (while being a woman herself), the Left has made being a woman a lot more difficult.

woman

What the Left thinks it means – anybody who identifies as a woman

What it really means – an adult biological female

Now, the Left will tell us my definition doesn’t include trans women and, thus, I’m a transphobe. Of course, if they knew me, they would know a) I don’t hate trans people, b) I don’t fucking care what they call me because c) I trust week-old convenience store sushi more than the Left’s ability to accurately judge a situation. And, to put it mildly, they’ve completely misread the situation with women.

For decades, women flocked to the Left for various reasons, including their desire to kill unborn children at will. And that worked well…until the Left got invested in trans rights. Now, Leftists are showing how much they actually cared about women’s issues: not a hell of a lot.

The Left believe the ends justify the means. If that means they have to lie, cheat, and steal to achieve a goal, they’ll do it, and they’ve done it with women’s issues. They’ll throw out vague threats (Republicans are going to outlaw abortions if they get back into power), nice-sounding but ultimately meaningless slogans (childcare is infrastructure), and ideas with no basis in reality (the gender pay gap) to keep women voting for Leftists. Yet, in spite of promising to fight the patriarchy, nothing of substance gets done. Part of this is because Leftists are mostly incompetent, but the main reason is because they need problems to continue for them to keep votes coming in for Leftist candidates. Blather, rinse, repeat.

Then, trans women came into the scene. Although most are predisposed to vote for Leftists, the Left doesn’t want to take any chances. So, they played around with the language and came up with the idea to consider trans women as actual women. On the surface, it doesn’t seem to be that troubling, but then trans women started to get involved in women’s sports. And not just succeeding here and there, kids. Absolutely dominating them.

Congratulations, ladies. You lost the War of the Sexes to men, thanks to Leftists.

What’s worse is the Left doesn’t even want to consider the fact their overly gracious definition of women is wrong. They’re the smartest people in the room (just ask them). Well, there are a couple of key points these “smart” people have overlooked and to much hilarity.

First off is science. Now, the “party of science” doesn’t want you to consider basic biology to realize there really are two genders, male and female. While the Left pushes the bullshit idea that gender is a social construct put upon babies upon birth, the actual science says just the opposite. In order to be born female, a baby has to have two x chromosomes. Once that happens, nature takes its course and the girl develops as girls tend to do, no doctors designations needed.

Then, there is the numbers game. Right now women make up a little over half of the population. Meanwhile, 1.4 million adults identify as transgender. Out of a US population of 329.5 million people, that makes a whopping…0.004%. So, Leftists are gambling on pissing off over half of the population just to appease a group that was already inclined to vote with the Left in the first place.

So, how does that ass-fucking feel, ladies? It gets worse, though.

Thanks to the Left’s love of trans women, there are going to have to be new interpretations of existing rules, laws, and regulations. If you’re upset over Lia Thomas dominating NCAA women’s swimming, just consider the implications for Title IX. For those of you playing along at home, Title IX is designed to prevent sex discrimination at any educational institution that gets federal funding. That’s right, kids. Soon men will be allowed to get Title IX protection merely by identifying as women. They don’t even have to get their…well, hot dogs…removed.

If you’re sensing a pattern here, it’s because there is one. For all of the “progress” being made with trans women, it’s at the expense of women who were born women. Say, isn’t there a term the Left uses for power systems that favor men? Isn’t it called…the Patriarchy? Why, yes, yes it is! Am I saying the Left’s supporting the Patriarchy by going so overboard with the trans woman issue? Why, yes, yes I am!

Maybe it’s me, but sometimes the irony tastes like steak. This is one of those times.

To put it simply, trans women aren’t women. I don’t say this to be mean or hateful; I say it because it’s the truth. There is a lot more about being a woman than just slapping on a skirt and make-up. As conservative commentator and all around good egg Tammy Bruce explained it, women are the sum total of their unique experiences, experiences men don’t have and, thus, can’t shape their lives like these experiences do for women. Although, I do think of the day my mom got me my first bra…unschweiger. Yeah, that’s it!

Anyway, the important thing to keep in mind here is women are different than men. Always have been and always will be. And that’s a good thing! What isn’t so good is the notion women have to take a back seat to trans women in the name of equality, diversity, and tolerance. You ladies have worked far too hard for far too long to gain equal, and in some cases superior, footing in society just to let Leftists toss it all aside for the Lia Thomases of the world. Stand up for yourselves and let the Left know how you feel. Sure, you’ll get pushback and even some harsh rhetoric thrown your way, but it doesn’t matter because of one little detail the Left can’t refute.

You are smarter than a Supreme Court nominee because you don’t even need to be a biologist to know what a woman is!


Convention of States

There is a growing political movement out there to call for a Convention of States (CoS). This is also known as an Article V Convention or a Constitutional Convention. Just different names for the same thing.

Article V of our Constitution reads as follows:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the First Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

The supporters of this movement appeal to the emotions of their victims to gain additional support and momentum. A classic move of Leftists everywhere. And the Leaders of this political movement refuse to debate their opponents. This should be very telling exactly were this issue stands.

The beginning of the emotional appeal is stating that a CoS is needed to combat and stop federal government overreach and to limit federal power. Many Conservatives, Libertarians, and Republicans all recognize this as a growing problem in Washington DC.

We are all fed up with how the federal government is encroaching on our everyday lives and we all want to stop it from happening and getting worse. And just think for a moment about this issue. What are your feelings? Anger or even rage perhaps. This is an emotional response and if one says yes to the CoS. It is due to that emotional outrage instead of a logical, rational, or intellectual response. That is what the CoS leaders hope happens.

The two big pushes for a CoS are a balanced budget Amendment and a term limits Amendment. What isn’t widely known is that an Amendment to the Constitution isn’t needed for either of these things. Congress can simply balance the budget without it. That does of course take self control and Wise spending practices on the part of Congress. Additionally term limits were never originally part of the Constitution because the Founders thought the American people would be educated and politically active. Thus automatically preventing career politicians with their votes.

In the false tongues of the CoS movement, we are told that there is no reason to fear or be worried about such a Convention. There are rules. Each State gets one vote. 38 States have to Ratify any new Amendment created by the Convention. And the States calling for the Convention all have to agree on reasons for calling it. So nothing could possibly go wrong.

So yes it is completely safe. Except when you look at the facts of history.

No one can guarantee what will happen if a CoS is called. Write all the agendas you care to write. But just because it is written doesn’t mean it will happen that way.

A case in point for those that have never attended a political convention. One of the first orders of business by the duly elected or appointed delegates is to either approve the rules or change them. This includes changing how the votes are counted. Secondly, after the rules question comes the agenda. It is either approved or also changed. Again by a vote of the delegates present.

I have seen this happen in my own lifetime during my political journey. To say it wont happen at CoS is just pure ignorance and naivety. And to say it wouldn’t happen with something as large and important as the Constitution in the United States of America. That too is ignorance of history.

Once before, here in the United States of America, appointed or elected delegates met for a Convention. Called by a unanimous vote of all the several States, which was at the time the requirement. They met at Independence Hall at Philadelphia in 1787. Their stated purpose, the agenda, was to amend the then governing document of the nation, the Articles of Confederation.

They did not. No, instead those men changed the rules and the agenda at their Convention. They throw out the Articles of Confederation and created our current Constitution in its place. They even changed the ratification rules with this new document. Instead of all the several States needing to ratify it. Only three fourths needed to do so.

There are many political groups out there on both the Left and the Right, who have already written a new constitution for their version of what the United States of America should be in their eyes. None of these drafted documents are better than our current Constitution. And all it takes is those delegates at a CoS to vote on changing the rules and agenda to have one of these new constitutions or some other to become our new governing document.

The leaders of the CoS movement say that the above would never happen during their Convention. That such a scenario is a scare tactic by the opponents of the CoS movement.

Yes it is a scare tactic. And you should be scared to death of what a CoS could do if called into being. I am, which is why I’m writing this article to help educate the public and spread the word about the dangers that calling a CoS can do.

Look at history again. Even without a CoS we have created Amendments that completely replaced previous Amendments or changed whole clauses of various Articles under the Constitution.

Within a CoS it becomes very easy to make changes or even create a new constitution. The danger of a CoS is too real to ignore despite anyone’s feelings that such events wont happen. It cannot be guaranteed.

If the CoS is called, will this nightmare scenario happen? Will they create a new constitution or propose changes other than what the original agenda was created to do? We wont know until it happens and then it is too late. It’s like passing a bill to find out what is in it.

The fact of the matter is that I don’t trust a single living soul to write new Amendments to the Constitution or even write a new constitution. Including myself in this. The majority of Amendments added to our Constitution since the beginning of the 20th Century have all been based on emotions and are poorly written and conceived.

Do not support the call for a Convention of States (CoS). Fight it with every opportunity you have. Your life, your children’s lives, and your prosperity depends on defeating this Pandora’s Box before it gets opened.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

To say America is polarized right now is like saying “The View” is a moronic TV show: technically accurate, but severely understated. Everything is a point of contention. Whether we should teach children about sexual identity. Who is to blame for gas prices so high Willie Nelson and Snoop Dogg look Mormon by comparison. The ongoing struggle between Joe Exotic and Carole Baskin.

And now, we have a war to contend with between Russia and Ukraine.

If you thought the Exotic/Baskin conflict was bad, hoo boy, don’t try to express even a nuanced, factual opinion like former Congresswoman and current sane Democrat Tulsi Gabbard did regarding biolabs in Ukraine that might cause a global threat if Russia wins the war. In response, current Senator and former kinda sane Republican Mitt Romney called Gabbard out, stating she was “parroting false Russian propaganda” and “Her treasonous lies may well cost lives.”

Ah, there’s the million dollar word: treason. It’s a word being thrown around like a football in Tom Brady’s hands, especially by Leftists looking to drum up support for Ukraine and shut down even the smallest debates about the war. And, as we’re about to find out, it’s a heavy term that shouldn’t be used lightly.

treason

What the Left thinks it means – actions that undermine American ideals

What it really means – actions that undermine Leftist ideals

In the interest of transparency, I am undecided on whether to support Russia (extremely unlikely) or Ukraine (more likely, but not without further introspection) in their geopolitical Wrestlemania with heavy artillery. Both sides have a vested interest in putting a positive spin on what they’re doing, so for someone like me, it’s hard to take what is being presented/reported at face value.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is treason according to the Left, and to Senator Romney. After all, there’s a war going on, right?

Welllll…yes and no. Yes, there is a war going on, but we’re not one of the particulars. Given our history over the past couple of decades, this is a nice change of pace, but the fact we’re not directly involved as a combatant undermines the accusations of treason and simultaneously shows how the Left’s use of the word in such a manner is idiotic at best.

To quote Hannibal Smith, I love it when a plan comes together.

The primary definition of treason according to Dictionary.com is “the offense of acting to overthrow one’s government or to harm or kill its sovereign.” (More on that later.) Furthermore, Article III, Section 3, Clause 1 of our lovely and talented US Constitution addresses treason thus:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

And this is why we need to read the Constitution, kids. For as much as the Left love to try to muddy the waters, the Constitution is pretty clear most of the time, especially here. Maybe it’s just my wacky way of weeding out the bullshit and getting to the heart of the matter, but it seems to me nobody asking legitimate questions (or even illegitimate ones for that matter) is trying to help the enemy, whomever that is in the Russia-Ukraine battle because, well…how can I put this delicately…there is no fucking enemy!

Granted, a pretty good case can be made that Russia is the enemy here since they’re trying to get the former Soviet Union back together again and Vladimir Putin hates us like the Yankees hate the Red Sox. But right now no one here is waging war against us by asking questions about the motivations behind the war and our role in it.

Spoiler Alert: turns out we have a vested interest in seeing Ukraine win if only to hide some of the shady shit we’ve been doing there.

Like…oh I don’t know…funding biolabs in Ukraine.

Now, before you Leftists start trying to quibble over the facts, let me point out something you’ve missed in all of this treason talk. I mean, aside from the whole we’re not at war with Russia and/or Ukraine thing. As much as you want/need to discredit Mrs. Gabbard, she brought this little thing the kids call receipts. After her television appearance that got Romney’s magic underwear in a bunch, she dropped a lot of newspaper articles that not only backed up her claims, but made his “treasonous lies” claim seem pretty stupid (which they were).

Unless, of course, you want to start accusing the Washington Post of being in Putin’s back pocket, Mittens…

Now, for the big picture part the Left always seems to miss in these situations as they madly try to defend their incompetence. These biolabs may or may not house biological weapons. That, in and of itself, should be enough justification to ask the questions Gabbard did, but there’s another element. If we are to believe the federal government’s view of what these labs do, they are a storehouse of infectious diseases and cures. In the wrong hands, these can be weaponized, figuratively and literally.

Now, let’s take this little thought experiment a step further. You know what country known for a certain infection disease that caused a global lockdown is chummy with Russia right now? Can you say “China”? I knew you could.

Even if you are hesitant to assign blame to China for COVID-19, the fact they also have biolabs that work on infectious diseases (and, oddly enough, have security measures so weak it makes Barney Fife look like Walker Texas Ranger) should be enough to throw up some major red flags.

Especially for those “follow the science” folks. Hmmm…wonder what happened to them and what they feel about the current situation in Ukraine. I’m sure they couldn’t be completely oblivious to the possible danger and simply be throwing around a term like treason willy-noooooooh, wait.

Regardless of what you think about Gabbard’s political positions and connections to Russia, she has been staunchly anti-war and unafraid to call out people on all sides when they’re being dumbasses. And that isn’t treason, kids.

But that won’t stop the Left from throwing around the term like parade candy. Take the 1/6 “insurrection” for example (Told you we’d get to it!) Leftists are quick to point out the “traitors” who stormed the Capitol were trying to overthrow the duly elected government and threatened to kill Congresscritters and Vice President Mike Pence. Although there were some asshats who went that far and should be considered traitors for doing so, most of the 1/6 participants didn’t. If we’re going to throw the treason charge at them via guilt by association, let me be clear in saying that is going to backfire in a big way when Leftists who backed Antifa and Black Lives Matter get a one way ticket to Fort Fuck-Around-And-Find-Out for the crimes some of the “mostly peaceful” protesters did. And let me just say I think prison orange would look horrible on Maxine Waters, not because it’s an ugly color, but because Auntie Maxine looks horrible in just about anything.

For me, accusing someone of treason is a serious charge that needs to be backed up with more than hurt feefees. To date, Senator Romney hasn’t backed up what he tweeted with any evidence, let alone evidence to the extent Gabbard provided. And any Leftist who is praising him needs to back up the accusation or get called out. Gabbard accepted Russian money. You know who else was willing to take it?

Matt Romney, as in Mitt’s son.

Wow. That’s going to be an awkward conversation at Thanksgiving dinner. Provided, of course, Senator Romney is consistent. Spoiler Alert: the only thing he’s consistent at is being inconsistent. Just like Leftists! Then again, using “Leftist” and “Mitt Romney” in the same sentence is repeating one’s self, but that’s neither here nor there.

The larger point here is we shouldn’t be calling anyone or any idea treasonous unless it actually is treasonous. A bold position, I know, but one that has to be made in today’s contentious ideological environment. Tulsi Gabbard’s concerns over biolabs in Ukraine simply doesn’t rise to the level of trying to overthrow the government or kill its leader. Anyone who says otherwise is a liar, an idiot, or both.

Or Mitt Romney, but I repeat myself.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

With everything going on in the world today, it’s a good bet someone is going to get upset about something. And if that person is motivated enough, he or she may decide to whip up support by protesting that thing.

For Leftists, it happens on a day ending in, well, “day.”

Yet, for all of the protesting the Left does, they don’t always support protesting, as we’ll see in a bit. But first, a little housekeeping in the form of a definition.

protest

What the Left thinks it means – exercising a First Amendment right to express an opinion

What it really means – exercising a First Amendment right to express a Leftist-approved opinion

Among the myriad rights outlined in the aforementioned Amendment are freedom of speech and the right to redress grievances with the government. (Although, I’m not sure I want to know how the grievances got naked in the first place.) These combine like Zords into a Megazord we call protesting, and it’s a right many Americans exercise more than they exercise, literally.

Protesting is one of the rights the Left hold dear because otherwise they might have to get jobs and be productive. However, they have a two-tiered approach to it, and as the definition I provided shows, it’s based on ideology.

I’m going to call this next section “A Tale of Two Protests.” And hopefully the estate of Charles Dickens doesn’t sue me into oblivion. Our first protest is one that has made the rounds in conservative media circles because of its sheer intensity and literal volume. Jeff Younger is running for the Texas State House in large part because of the way the courts treated him. You see, Younger is the father of a young boy who has been convinced by his mother he’s a girl. After a lengthy court battle, he won a small victory by a judge’s decision barring his now ex-wife from giving his son drugs that would restrict puberty and essentially transition him from male to female.

Well, Younger appeared on the campus of the University of North Texas and the Left showed up in droves to disrupt his speech because…transphobe? Actually, I can’t quite make out the logical arguments they made because a) I don’t speak Shrill Leftist Harpy, and b) they didn’t make any. They were simply there to cause chaos, go viral, and take a stand against trans hate. As a fan of the First Amendment, I can’t begrudge their protest, no matter how asinine it was, and the Left agreed. The students protesting were in the right.

Now, we move on to a different protest, the American version of the Freedom Convoy. If it’s anything like the Canadian version, be prepared for the utter chaos of…honking horns, music, and a sense of community. A worse hellscape than anything Clive Barker could come up with, I assure you.

Seriously, though, the Freedom Convoy by and large was and is a peaceful event with generally good fellowship mixed with a good helping of traffic disruption. Sure, there were some asshats who went overboard, but you’ll get that and they were the exception instead of the rule. And as you might expect, the Left has gone out of their way to denigrate this protest, insinuating it’s backed by Russians, white supremacists, neo-Nazis, conservative media, the Koch Brothers, and a few other groups. As of this writing, I’m not sure if the Freemasons (or even the Reasonably Priced Masons) have been invoked, but it’s still early in the year. And now that the impending war over Ukraine is looming like Michael Moore’s shadow over an all-you-can-eat buffet, Leftists are dismissing the Freedom Convoy protest because “there’s more important things to worry about right now.”

Like…allowing young boys to transition to young girls, apparently?

The thing to remember is both the UNT students and the Freedom Convoy should be allowed to protest, even if we don’t agree with them. The thing the Left doesn’t get about the First Amendment is it goes both ways, not just the way they want it to go. Kinda like Dennis Rodman, but with better fashion sense in wedding dresses. If the Left values the right to protest, they have to allow for the right to protest against them, but they don’t. Otherwise, I would have to be boring you with a different Lexicon topic.

The reason for the Left’s two-faced approach to protesting involves their desire to control the narrative. Once you control how events are presented, you control how they’re perceived and what the audience sees, hears, and feels. That’s creepy enough as it is, but it gets worse when an event is 180 degrees out of phase from reality. Then, the outcome gets messy and even expensive if legal recourse is initiated.

Just ask CNN or its new owner, Nick Sandmann.

Controlling the narrative is essential in protesting as well as in the media/court of public opinion. The chaos and destruction left by Black Lives Matter and ANTIFA protests is hard to ignore, but surprisingly many people only focus on the narrative presented by those groups. Instead of garnering scorn for trying to turn city streets into Beirut on a good day, they garnered sympathy because of the cause. But here’s the thing: no matter how righteous your cause, it loses its righteousness when the resulting protest turns destructive. Blocking the street with a march protesting police brutality and the unnecessary killing of citizens is inconvenient, but doesn’t cross that line. When the protest includes destruction of public property, assault, and arson…well, let’s just say you’ve missed your turn and are zooming down the highway to the Destruction Zone.

The right to protest can be a tightrope walk because of the implications of letting different sides speak their minds. If you allow, say, a Nazi rally in your town, does that mean the town is totally pro-Nazi? Not at all, but with the advent of incredibly fast social media posting and incredibly slow thinkers using them, it can become one faster than you can type OMG. That’s where we need to be a lot more libertarian in our approach to protests, meaning we support what we support and ignore what we don’t. Trust me, it makes life a lot simpler and stops you from having to continually apologize to people who wouldn’t accept your apology under any circumstances.

As with the right to free speech, the right to protest comes with some responsibilities. Just because you can carry a rifle in public doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to do so while voicing displeasure over a public official’s actions. If you feel the need to protest, put your best foot forward (and not to trip someone else, by the way). Be willing to discuss your position in a calm, rational manner. Even if those protesting your protest are screaming like banshees listening to a Yoko Ono CD on repeat, you’ll come off better by keeping cool. Plus, it drives Leftists nuts when they can’t rile you into emotional outbursts, so there’s that.

In the end, though, it cannot be overstated how the right to protest has lead to positive change in this country. It’s one I wholeheartedly endorse and support because of that fact. Even if the Left puts ideological conditions on its valid usage, we don’t need to follow their lead. We just need to allow them to march along to the beat of their own drummers so they can enjoy the fruits of their labor.

And we can enjoy mocking them. Thanks, First Amendment!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Unless you’ve been living under a rock this week (and given the housing situation in California, it might not be a bad housing choice), the big news of the past week was Russia attacking Ukraine. Come to think of it, maybe living under a rock wouldn’t be a bad alternative to what we’re seeing now. As reports come in from the area, the world is shocked at Vladimir “I Am Former KGB and All I Got Was This Lousy Country” Putin’s actions and are urging Russia to stop its aggressive actions against Ukraine.

You know, seeing all these Leftist embrace freedom from tyranny is great, but that’s a post for another time. Instead, let’s turn our attentions to our on-again, off-again frienemy, Russia.

Russia

What the Left thinks it means – a foreign power with whom we have a complicated relationship

What it really means – a foreign power whose leadership wants to restart the Cold War and win it this time

It seems weird that within many of our lifetimes we were on the brink of nuclear war. At any moment, Russia or the US could launch missiles at each other and blow us all to hell. (On the plus side, it would have increased property values in New Jersey.) Those fears were dashed when Ronald Reagan, Patron Saint of Preventing America from Becoming USSR West, ended the Cold War by…and this is a radical strategy…treating the Soviets as the bad guys instead of treating them like an annoying brother-in-law who is staying with us until he can find a job even though it’s been 4 years and he’s been fired 43 times from the International House of Food Poisoning and he’s dumber than a bag of shi….

Sorry. Got a little too close to home there.

Anyway, as you might expect, there were some Russians who weren’t too keen on America winning the Cold War, one of them being Putin. And as a former member of the KGB, he had a vested interest in bringing back the Soviet Union. Then, he became President of Russia twice with a Putin puppet in office in between so he could keep tabs on the country (oh, and to exert his power to get what he wanted). And he didn’t even have to become a lobbyist to do it!

It’s safe to say he hasn’t gotten over his desire to bring about Soviet Union II: Electric Boogaloo, and his latest excursion into Ukraine is the latest move in that direction. Of course, the Left, who has been treating Russia in a manner that would make Sybil look stable, has been utterly mystified by Putin’s actions to date. Good thing we have President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris on the case or we’d be really fucked! Remember when the President used his foreign policy expertise to make the country better and safer?

Neither can I.

Considering President Biden was at the helm when the Afghanistan withdrawal shitshow happened, let’s just say I have more faith Joy Behar says something sensible than I have in Biden’s diplomatic prowess. This was only strengthened after listening to the speech he gave last week announcing what NATO (i.e. our military) would be doing or not doing and the approval of economic sanctions, including freezing Russian assets in America. In other words, CNN and MSNBC might be in financial trouble soon.

Seriously, these steps make sense, but only if you apply a Cold War mentality to the modern world. Sanctions only work if they cause actual economic pain for the ones being sanctioned. Freezing Russian assets and going after their banks only goes so far, thanks to the advent of cryptocurrency. For any of the Congresscritters reading this, let me break it down for you. Cryptocurrency can circumvent the sanctions because a) the transfer of currency doesn’t go through banks, thus rendering the sanctions against the Russian banks meaningless, b) the Russians have a decided technological advantage over America, which translates to real power in the real world, and c) I’m pretty sure I’ve lost you by this point and I don’t have the patience, crayons, or hand puppets to explain it. Let’s just say it doesn’t end well.

Then, there’s the oil. Russia is sitting on a sizeable oil reserve, possibly enough to impact global oil prices. And if I remember correctly, oil is pretty useful in America. OPEC tolerates us, as long as we keep buying their oil at whatever price they set. On the other side of the equation, we have oil reserves and the ability to drill for it, but we lack the will, or more precisely the current Administration lacks the will. It’s not all Joe Biden’s fault, but the Left has some ‘splainin’ to do on the oil front.

There’s a third element not many people I’ve heard talk on the subject so far has broached: China. Over the past decade or so, Russia and China have started getting chummy again. For those familiar with history and, thus, doomed to watch it be repeated, that’s a bad thing. With the current situation, China stands to make some serious geopolitical bank the longer the situation in Ukraine goes. China needs oil to keep building its global stature while still being allowed to pollute the world because of their status as a developing country in the eyes of the global climate change cult. And who might just have a surplus of oil they might be willing to sell to China? That’s right, kids. It’s Russia. Sanctions or no sanctions, Russia and China will figure out a way to keep the oil flowing in a favorable direction.

On top of that, China holds a significant chunk of our national debt. Although “experts” tell us China wouldn’t use this as a weapon in this situation, the fact is we can’t completely rule it out. (Then again, these same “experts” were caught by surprise by Putin invading Ukraine in spite of the obvious red flags, so we might be able to take their expertise with a Mount Everest sized grain of salt.) It’s not that far-fetched to think China would sell or even trade some of our national debt to Russia for oil or cryptocurrency because they share the same basic opinion of America.

They hate us.

Outside of the economic sanctions, which appear to be as meaningful as Bill Clinton’s wedding vows, there’s the kinda-sorta-maybe-but-not-really threat of military action if Putin doesn’t straighten up and fly right. Of course, we as in America won’t be going to war. Oh, no! It’s going to be NATO…which means America will be going to war, but under the NATO flag. So…what are we hoping to accomplish here?

To hear the Left talk about it, it’s to deter Russia militarily. After all, who would want to go to war with America and its allies? Well…Russia and China might. And with the rest of NATO aside from us being more cheerleaders than military leaders, it’s pretty much us as in the US against them, and I’m not liking our chances. Sure, we have the tools and the talent, but we still need oil and our political leaders were stupid enough to sell national debt to China, creating a perfect storm of dumbfuckery second only to Twitter.

This idea is strengthened by how our NATO allies have stepped up to the plate. And by stepped up, I mean ran the other way by and large. And, yes, I’m looking at you, Germany. Seriously, finally coming through with helmets for Ukrainians, but expecting them to go get them? I long for the days of the quiet competence of Jimmy Carter’s handling of the Iran hostage crisis after seeing the parade of idiocy at work here.

And all because the EU wants Russia’s oil.

Maybe it’s my Gen X cynicism talking here, but I don’t exactly trust Russia and Putin here. Years of living under threat of a nuclear winter that would make Ice Station Zebra look like Rio will do that to you. And with Putin wanting to get the band back together again to do a Cold War reunion tour, I think we need a lot more of my cynicism when looking at the Ukraine situation here and abroad.

Look at the number of Leftists coming out in support of Ukraine. To listen to them (and, really, I wouldn’t recommend it for long), Ukraine has a right to exist and their citizens need to be armed to protect themselves and fight for their freedom against the evil big bully Russia. President Biden himself even said America stands up to bullies! Yet, these same Leftists don’t apply the same sentiments to, oh I don’t know…gun owners, the Freedom Convoy, conservative speakers on college campuses, Israel, and so on. These Leftists are the very definition of sunshine patriots, who will stand up for our principles and freedoms at times like this, only to abandon them when they get in the way of their goals. And when you consider these same Leftists accused Russia of interfering in our elections for 4+ years with evidence so flimsy Scooby and the gang would figure out the mystery before the opening credits finished, I’m not willing to let them wrap themselves in the Ukrainian flag and lead the freedom parade.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, I have maintained the idea that Russia is a fair weather ally that needs to be scrutinized at regular intervals before taking them at their word. As Saint Ronald said, “Trust, but verify.” He was right then, and he’s right now.

Look, I know I’ve thrown a lot of information at you with this one, but it’s important to understand the various moving parts in this ever-changing situation. We can only hope our political and military leaders take the time to see the whole field and extrapolate viable strategies to mitigate loss.

So, we’re fucked.

Time to queue up “Two Tribes” by Frankie Goes to Hollywood.