Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

When you think about it (and I do because I really have no life), the English language has a lot of words and phrases that come from combining two words or concepts. Some of them work, like “ginormous” which combines gigantic and enormous which are synonyms for “big.” Others, like “jumbo shrimp” or “House Intelligence Committee,” don’t work so well because they contradict each other.

This week the Left rolled out a new phrase to describe a threat they see underneath their beds, that being “Christian nationalist.” Whether this phrase is the next “ginormous” or “House Intelligence Committee” has yet to be seen, but I think it warrants a deep dive to give us a better perspective on this new turn of a phrase.

Christian nationalist

What the Left thinks it means – the newest threat to our democracy, conservatives who believe Christianity should be the primary inspiration for our government

What it really means – a turn of a phrase that shows the Left knows nothing about either

Although Christian nationalism has only recently come into focus, the concept has been around for a few years. In fact, the Leftists at the New York Times have linked it to the rise of Donald Trump, mainly because it seems the faithful and the nationalist in America flocked to his message. Which, of course in the hivemind of the Left, makes them domestic terrorists in training. In fact, if Christian nationalists aren’t stopped now, we could find ourselves in the midst of another rise of Hitler…or is the The Handmaid’s Tale this week? In either case, it’s bad.

Or is it?

I won’t pretend there isn’t the possibility of bad outcomes with Christian nationalism, mainly because there are people willing to twist Christian doctrine towards political ends because, let’s face it, there are some asshats out there. Having said that, I’m not sure Christian nationalism is as much of a threat as the Left would lead us to believe. Imagine that. Leftists overstating a problem to whip up hysteria and fear for political gains. Who would have thunk it?

Anyway, we need to look at both parts of the phrase to understand what the Left is trying to portray as a threat and whether the threat is credible. First, let’s look at Christianity as a whole. After all, nothing like pissing off as many people as possible, right?

Although individual faiths and mileage may vary, the Bible is pretty clear on matters of governance: governments are established by God’s will, as outlined in Romans 13:1-3:

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended

Notice something that’s missing in that passage? A reference to nationalism. Well, that, and a good meatloaf recipe, but that’s a discussion for another time.

Although God teaches us to follow the law, there is still an acknowledgement of the possibility of wicked men and women getting into positions of power and making laws that go against the Word. And, remember, this was before Las Vegas was built. As a result, Christians are also taught to focus not on the world of Man, but on the world of God because we are taught Man is sinful and imperfect. And anyone who has followed politics in the past few decades can attest to both being true.

So, where does nationalism come into play? As noted above, the Bible doesn’t mention nationalism, which puts it clearly in the world of Man. The best way to describe it is what you get when you inject steroids and PCP into patriotism. It goes beyond merely loving one’s country and into a belief the country itself is the best in the world under any and all circumstances. The only problem with this idea is it assumes the country cannot make mistakes and always does the right thing. Again, see the past few decades of American politics for proof this ain’t the case.

When you combine Christians and nationalism, you get…a confusing mess. On the one hand, the faithful are to accept the government we have because God put the elected officials there (that, and the dead voters in Chicago in Illinois Democrats’ cases) and Man is imperfect. On the other hand, nationalists believe the country we have is perfect and should be the model for everyone else to follow. Maybe it’s just my weird way of looking at things, but wouldn’t nationalism mean its proponents put the country, ruled by imperfect people, above God? And wouldn’t that make Christian nationalism contradictory?

Why, yes. Yes on both counts.

But the Left doesn’t want us to think that hard about it. Just accept Christian nationalists are super-duper dagnasty evil and be done with it. There’s a tiny problem with that, however, and it stems from how the Left sees religion as a whole.

The religious have been stereotyped in pop culture as being so uptight not even WD-40 could loosen them up. Oh, and that each one is a super goody-two-shoes who are also flaming hypocrites on any and all subjects. Of course, if you are a person of faith who just happens to vote straight-ticket Democrat, you’re doing right by your Lord and by your party. Hmmm…didn’t Jesus say something about not being able to serve two masters?

Why, yes. Yes He did. Matthew 6:24 for the people praying along at home:

No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

Although the verse specifically mentions money, the same principle applies to politics, which also involves money these days. Even so, the point remains. You cannot serve God and Man at the same time without running into the kind of theological and moral quandaries only Man could invent for ourselves. And you thought Elon Musk was clever!

However, this doesn’t prevent the Left from perpetuating the stereotypes they’ve spent decades perfecting. They rely on it to make any openly Christian politician look two-faced and phony, and it works for the most part thanks to tactics from what’s become a Bible of sorts to the Left, Rules for Radicals. One of the rules boils down to making your opponents live up to their own standards, which gives Leftists plenty of political fodder to use when the opponents don’t. By building the “Christians are moralizing hypocrites” strawman, the Left have an easy way to knock down people of faith.

Then, they put a little more English (that’s spin, not the language) onto it by lumping Christians in with nationalists to create a Frankenstein’s Strawman of undesirables. And linking it to Donald Trump? That’s your trifecta of fuckery there, kids!

Here’s the funny thing, though. The Left’s knowledge of Christianity and nationalism don’t go much beyond the stereotypes they build. I’m as shocked as you are to learn Leftists are lazy thinkers, but I think we can overcome the surprise and disappointment.

Christianity is much more than an ideology or a political faction. It is a way of life. The faithful take God’s Word to heart and try to live their lives in a Godly way while knowing they will fail. And it’s not a cult mentality, either. If you stop and get to know Christians, you’ll find they’re not that different from most regular people (which excludes Leftists since, well, they ain’t regular). They worry about the future of the country like we all do from time to time. They want to be able to put food on the table and roofs over their heads. And, yes, they want politicians to represent their interests in office.

But does that mean Christian nationalists are evil? Not really. Maybe confused or unclear about what the Bible teaches, but not evil..yet. There are Fred Phelps types out there who have no problem twisting the Bible into hateful rhetoric, and here’s the part Leftists don’t get: Christians are taught to look out for these types and not follow. And given the Westboro Baptist Church has fewer members than Republican hosts on MSNBC, I don’t think they’re as pervasive a force as they and the Left think they are.

Which leads us to question whether Christian nationalism is a problem. Well, this is going to shock you, but I’m going to say they aren’t. We’re not dealing with a massive movement that attracts people on a daily basis, but rather a few cranks who think their combination of Christian faith and nationalism is the only way to go.

And the Leftists who are giving them more attention than they warrant.

That’s right, kids. The Left has a vested interest in getting people to worry about Christian nationalists, and it boils down to money, power, and division. Just like with mass shootings, Leftists need there to be unrest caused by people they deem undesirable to gin up nightmare scenarios that never seem to come true. Remember, these are the same Leftists who told us Donald Trump would get us into a war with China. And as we found out recently, apparently that was Nancy Pelosi’s job.

Regardless of what, if any, faith you follow, it should concern you Leftists are working so hard to make you afraid of a theocracy that has been threatened for decades, but has yet to materialize in any way. What are they trying to hide or divert our attentions from, exactly?

Oh, yeah. Leftists suck at governing.

If your track record was as much of a flaming bag of dog shit as Joe Biden’s, wouldn’t you try to invent an enemy to bash?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

If there’s one thing I’ve learned from Leftists over the years, it’s how tuned in they are to what America really needs. This week, House Democrats focused on an issue that has been on all of our minds lately.

Marriage equality.

In the aftermath of Roe v Wade being sent back to the states, Leftists are looking to codify as much as they can before they presumably lose power in January 2023. And same sex marriage is getting its turn in the spotlight (at least for now), and a way the Left has packaged it recently has been to frame it in terms of equality. Surely, no one would be against equality, right?

Time for me to be a “but-head.”

marriage equality

What the Left thinks it means – treating same sex marriage the same way legally as straight marriage

What it really means – a way to package same sex marriage in a way as to not freak out the normies

One of the major stumbling blocks in getting society to accept same sex marriages are as legit as straight marriages is the fact there is no single agreed-upon definition. To traditionalists and the religious, marriage is between a man and a woman, including making a covenant with God as the latter group believes. Society sees marriage as more of an informal arrangement (oddly enough made in formal wear) where love may or may not be involved. Legally, marriage is a contract between two parties that can be enforced and/or broken through the judicial process and with spending a ton of money in the process.

Same sex marriage falls somewhere between the social and legal perspectives, which pisses off the traditionalists and religious because of how it takes the existing framework and spins it in a new direction. To be fair, same sex marriage proponents have done a great job in framing the issue in terms of the legal and social elements because it addresses the heart and the mind simultaneously. They argue same sex marriage is no different legally than straight marriage (a valid point) while also bringing up how there are many gays and lesbians who are in long-time committed relationships (also a valid point).

But not all marriages are created equal, especially these days. Whether it’s celebrities bouncing from marriage to marriage like they’re trying to beat Larry King’s numbers or our fellow plebs who find ways to fall in love and marry people who aren’t stable enough for either, we don’t look at marriage in the same way we did even 20 years ago when things like “throuples” were limited to bad online erotica or the seedier corners of cyberspace. Now, open marriages are as common as getting hand jobs from homeless crack whores.

Not that I know anything about that, mind you.

And gays and lesbians want their marriages to be on the same plane as these folks?

Seriously, though, marriage isn’t something to be entered into lightly regardless if it’s Adam and Eve, Adam and Steve, or Adama and Stephanie. It’s a lot of work, communication, and compromise. And that’s just trying to agree on where to go out to dinner. Imagine having to do something really important!

When you throw human emotions into the mix, marriage can be like a perpetual minefield where the smallest mistake can blow up into something worse. Any couple, gay or straight, that can weather the worst of storms together and come out the other end with the relationship intact, if not stronger than before the storms, is admirable and shows what it takes to succeed. If not, there will be emotional scars that will take many years to heal and the relationship will never be the same.

It’s the gravity of this situation that I think is missing in the discussion of marriage equality. Proponents treat marriage in general as a legal framework, which takes out the human element altogether and makes it easier to argue for equality. But by taking out the human element, you cheapen the institution and make it merely a transactional relationship. Granted, a lot of straight marriages have accomplished this for decades, but that’s not the point here.

When arguing the societal element, though, marriage equality advocates appeal to our emotions with slogans like “Love Is Love.” This is designed to create a sense of the universal since humans need love like they need food, warmth, and a decent WiFi connection. And with us being humans, this appeals to us, making it easier for people to jump on the marriage equality train.

So far, the way the Left has been able to achieve even a foothold in creating an even playing field for straight and same sex marriages is through their favorite tactic in the world, judicial fiat. By getting judges to look at the legal side of marriage and ruling in favor of equality, Leftists have circumvented the entire process of making arguments to get people to agree with them and gone straight to “This is the way it will be, and if you complain, you’re a bigot.” As they found out with Roe recently, that approach will only be effective for so long before the pendulum swings the opposite way like the wrecking ball in the Miley Cyrus music video. You know, the one for “Party in the USA”?

Thus, we’re seeing Leftists pushing to codify same sex marriage, which they should have tried to do before now if they actually gave a fuck about the issue in the first place. Spoiler Alert: they don’t. As long as the issue is on the table in any way, Leftists will keep stringing voters along and asking for donations along the way. And we’re no closer to actual marriage equality.

If the issue goes back to the states to determine, it may seem like a step backward, but it’s the right way to go about it. Instead of relying on men and women in judicial robes to make these decisions on our behalf, we would actually have to talk about it and make our opinions known though the ballot box. Yes, this will not get the universal approval the judicial fiat route gives us, but it will take everyone’s thoughts and feelings into account, not just the ones that agree with our viewpoints.

And the Left can’t stand that.

The Left maintains a lot of political power by stoking the fires of division and pitting Americans against one another. The Right does this, too, just not to the same level and effectiveness. The minute people start working together and getting to know each other, the minute Leftists lose their ability to influence opinions through division. And a little thing the kids like to call “respect” starts growing. Even as divided as this country is right now, most people get along in spite of their differences because we have at least a basic level of respect (or at least a desire not to pry too much into the lives of others). It’s this approach that will ultimately bring us to actual marriage equality, not just the glib soundbite the Left has made it.

Before we get there, though, I need to set some ground rules.

1. Respect is a two-way street, not a one-way cul de sac.

2. If it ain’t your marriage, it ain’t your concern.

3. When in doubt, see rule 2.

I know this is going to ruffle a few feathers (like, say, a million chicken coops’ worth), but it had to be said. As much as both sides of the marriage equality issue are dug in, we have to deal with the world as it is. There are some amazing gays and lesbians, just like there are shitty straights, and vice versa. If we continue to focus solely on the negative on both sides of the equation, we will continue to stay dug in. If we recognize the good ones (which, I’ll argue, represents the bulk of people in between the two sides of this issue), we can build bridges instead of trenches.

And that will piss off Leftists, which is always a good time.

The Rule of Law(less)

In the aftermath of recent Supreme Court decisions that Leftists didn’t like, they’ve adopted a new plan of attack: undermining the credibility of the High Court by any means necessary. It’s even gotten to the point a Georgetown law professor tweeted out a missive calling the Supreme Court “actively rogue.”

Hoo boy. It’s one thing for a lay Leftist to tweet out something this stupid, but when it’s someone teaching future attorneys, the stupid actually hurts.

First off, Leftists need to drop the “rogue court” bullshit because, well, it’s bovine scat. Regardless of how you feel about it, the fact remains each current Supreme Court Justice went through the same process with only minor deviations from the set script. The opposing party tries to sink the nomination through stupid “gotcha” questions asked by politicians who wouldn’t know habeas corpus from a hole in the ground, while the supporting party chucks more softballs than an explosion at a Nerf ball factory. Granted, it’s supposed to be more substantive than this, but this is the Senate we’re talking about here. You’re more likely to find a virgin on a porn set than you are a smart Senator.

One of the reasons the Left is committed to the “rogue Supreme Court” line is they got played by Mitch McConnell with an assist from Chuck Schumer. To try to get some of President Barack Obama’s judicial nominees through the confirmation process, Schumer set the precedent that a simple majority was good enough to approve the nominees. Well, McConnell applied that precedent to Supreme Court nominees, even after warning Senate Democrats of what could be coming if they went ahead with the Schumer strategy.

Then, there’s the Merrick Garland situation. Due to a vacancy on the High Court, President Obama had the opportunity to nominate a Justice, but McConnell again relied on precedent to block Garland’s nomination from going forward due to the vacancy occurring during a Presidential election year. As a result, Garland went from ineffective Supreme Court nominee to ineffective Attorney General, Donald Trump got three picks, and Leftists got their panties in a bunch because they got played by a Republican, and a Southern Republican at that!

That blow to the collectivist ego is what I think is driving the “rogue court” sentiment right now. The recent decisions going against the Left’s wishes add fuel to the fires of hatred, but it’s the agony of defeat that was the spark that set the kindling ablaze in the first place. And that’s what we have to fight right now. The Supreme Court isn’t acting on its own against the Constitution, as can be seen by, oh I don’t know, reading the fucking decisions before throwing a temper tantrum?

The thing is the Left doesn’t mind courts going rogue if the end result is what they wanted in the first place. Like Roe v. Wade, for example. The reason it’s been so controversial is because its legal and constitutional standing are shakier than Jello on the San Andreas Fault during a 4.8 on the Richter Scale. Or that analogy, even. Anyway, the point is the Roe decision was eventually going to come to a head and the foundation of balsa wood and wet tissue paper it was sitting on would crumble. If Leftists wanted to avoid this problem, they would have codified legal abortion through the legislative process. However, they didn’t because a) they’re short-sighted, b) they’re dumbasses, and c) they ironically relied too heavily on the conservative nature of the Supreme Court.

Now, I’m not talking politically conservative here. What I mean is the High Court’s tendency not to undo lower court rulings unless there’s a Constitutional means to do it. As much judicial activism as there is in this country, the USSC isn’t a hotbed for it. In many cases, the rulings are based on legal scholarship, understanding of Constitutional principles, and a dispassionate approach. With abortion, however, that last one goes right out the window with Justices playing to their respective crowds. That turns any confirmation hearings into a political Kabuki theater where a lot gets said, but little of substance is found. You know, like a Kamala Harris speech.

Since the advent of “Borking” judicial nominees, politicians from both sides have figured out the art of the “gotcha” question, most of which with nothing to do with the job duties. Whether it’s asking a nominee whether Roe v. Wade is “settled law” or what a woman is, we should be collectively asking “What the actual fuck?” It’s not to develop a full picture of a nominee’s legal philosophy; it’s to try to draw rhetorical and metaphorical blood.

And now it’s being used to demand three current Justices (Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett) be impeached for, get this, perjury when they said Roe was “settled law” when they were under oath at their confirmation hearings. Since most Senators have the intellectual prowess of kale, they fail to understand the fact any judicial candidates can only speak to the condition of the Roe decision at the time of the hearing because…they haven’t had a chance to rule on cases brought before the Supreme Court yet.

You know, I take back what I said about most Senators. Kale understands chronology better.

If you’re basing your entire belief of a “rogue court” on the idea current Justices lied under oath about “settled law” before they got to be Justices, you’re missing the point completely. We’re not asking the High Court to be prognosticators. Their job is to interpret and apply the Constitution to cases brought before them. And with Roe, the “settled law” was on unsettled ground.

And while we’re here, let’s get something crystal clear: “settled law” is not a thing, especially these days when lawyers find all sorts of new ways to fuck up the language in defense of an idea, let alone a client. It may be a rare occurrence, but the Supreme Court does change its mind on legal matters (and not because some evil right wing cabal with deep pockets is secretly paying them under the robes). Some of the most recent examples of “settled law” being tossed out like Charlie Sheen at an AA meeting involve gun control. After decades of rulings that have allowed strict gun control laws in cities and states to stand, the Supreme Court has changed course and overturned previous decisions based on the Second Amendment, and it looks like those more recent rulings are going to stick, at least for now.

Even if you discount that example, there’s another example that you might have heard of where “settled law” got nuked. It’s called Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, a decision that reversed the “separate but equal” ruling from Plessy v. Ferguson.

Any Leftists want to call out that “rogue Supreme Court” for undoing “settled law”?

Although a lot of the hatred is being directed at Justice Clarence Thomas, there is additional vitriol being spewed at the aforementioned Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett. Although the Left wants to make it about alleged perjury, the actual reason may be a lot more basic. And I mean that as in “simple” and “crude.” What do these three Justices have in common, aside from sticking in Leftist craws? They were all appointed under Donald Trump. Even though Leftists managed to beat Trump in the 2020 election, he still manages to find a way to live rent free in their collectivist heads and still have space for all of Trump’s stuff, an Olympic size swimming pool, the Taj Mahal, and at least 3 football fields (NFL, Canadian, and Arena Football).

The fact Trump’s appointees have foiled the Left repeatedly pisses them off to no end, so instead of taking their lumps and figuring out how to govern, they use the “rogue court” defense. After all, they can’t be legitimate because Trump appointed them, right! And they still maintain Trump was never a legitimate President (although voters in Wisconsin might disagree). If they can’t win, they claim chicanery. Like when they claim Senators get into office because of gerrymandering.

Yes, kids. They are just that stupid.

The Left also has a Constitutional problem when it comes to “settled law,” namely their contrary position on the Constitution itself. Remember, the Left loves to say the Constitution is a “living document,” meaning they can make up what they want to be in there and get a court to agree with them. But wait…if the Constitution can be fluid, why are some Supreme Court decisions based on interpretations of it unable to be just as flexible? Or it is only decisions Leftists agree with that are set in stone?

Things that make you go hmmmm…

To put a nice tidy bow on this piece, we need to consider Leftists are now trying to figure out how to “discipline” the Supreme Court for going rogue (at least to Leftists). All because the High Court didn’t rule the way they wanted. For all their faults, the Right understands the rules and found a way to get a long-desired goal by working within the system. They didn’t bitch and moan about how the Supreme Court was horrible and needed to be punished. They got Justices appointed, crafted legislation and legal arguments to achieve the goal, and got it done without too much drama. Calling a branch of the government “rogue” doesn’t move the needle for anyone but those who already think that way, and it doesn’t help make the argument for anyone outside of the hivemind.

Ultimately, though, it is nothing but sound and fury, representing nothing but a hissy fit from people who didn’t think they would ever have to play within the rules to get what they wanted. Now that the Supreme Court has ended that judicial gravy train for the Left, they’re left complaining, maligning, and utterly missing the point. The Right plays the long game, while the Left plays the short-sighted game, and the Left keeps losing with this strategy. Do you honestly think calling the Supreme Court “rogue” or looking for ways to neutralize, circumvent, or vaguely threaten the High Court will work?

Spoiler Alert: it won’t. And it won’t help you look any less lawless.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

With Leftists adding words to the English language more often than Cher announcing retirement tour dates, it can be hard to keep up with their approved terms for people, places, and ideas. During the heyday of political correctness, you could go from being PC to a right wing evil meanie-head if you didn’t use the preferred term of the nanosecond. And, really, nothing’s changed.

Enter one of the latest terms, Latinx. What sounds like a new prescription drug from Mexico is actually the latest way to describe people of Latin origins. And it’s catching on like…well, the opposite of wildfire. But not from a lack of trying! It’s because of this trying to make Latinx a thing that warrants a closer look.

Latinx

What the Left thinks it means – an inclusive term for all people of Latin American origins

What it really means – a term that tested well with white Leftists, but not with the people it’s designed to describe

It wasn’t that long ago that terms like Latino and Latina were the preference, including with a certain Supreme Court Justice who described herself as a “wise Latina.” (Her rulings call that self-labeling into question, but that’s a blog post for another time.) Then, Leftists decided the terms weren’t inclusive enough because…they didn’t take non-binary people into consideration. So, instead of telling the non-binary people to pick a gender and stick with it for longer than a TikTok video, Leftists created Latinx to remove the gender designation.

To better understand the impact this change has, we have to take a slight side trip into the world of languages. I promise I won’t take too long and soon you can go back to being bored out of your minds by my usual insights.

Latin languages, especially Spanish, have distinct word forms depending on whether the person, place, or idea is considered to be masculine or feminine. Granted, this isn’t unique to Spanish, but it is essential to understanding the situation. For example, the word “baño” (Spanish for bathroom) is maculine, while “biblioteca” (Spanish for library) is feminine. The way you can tell which gender is being used is by looking at the last letter. Thus, any word ending with an O is masculine and any word ending with an A is feminine.

But it goes beyond just a word or two in a blog post, kids. Spanish even has specific terms to be used with the gendered words, mainly the word for “the.” For masculine words, the corresponding word for “the” is “el,” while “la” is used for feminine words. Put simply, the entirety of the Spanish language relies on gender.

Which would pose a problem for people who want us to believe there are 948,236 genders (as of the writing of this sentence). If Leftists were to accept the linguistic rules Spanish has, they couldn’t turn around and then say there were more than 2 genders. Okay, they could, but they’d look like hypocritical morons, or worse yet…the non-woke! Thus, they dropped the O and A and replaced it with an X and everybody was happy.

Not so much.

According to polling done by the Pew Research Center, only 23% of Hispanic Americans surveyed have heard of the term, with only 3% using it. Now, if we were to use global climate change logic, that would mean the science is settled, but using normal people logic, that means it’s not that popular. Just from the linguistic part alone as documented above, I can understand why.

Beyond that, though, there is a cultural element to consider. Once you dilute or strip a culture of anything that makes it unique or special, you drive a dagger into that culture’s heart. Now I’m going to go out on a limb here, but I think that might piss off a few people in that culture. Normally, this might cause a political rift between Leftist voting blocs were it not for a trend that even Stevie Wonder could have seen coming.

For a long time, Leftists have counted on immigration to court Hispanic-American voters, mainly because they’re more willing to support extending every public service under the sun in exchange for votes. For the most part, it’s worked, but at a cost. When you look at what Hispanic-Americans believe and the other issues they feel passionately about, they tend to lean more Right than Left. At some point, there isn’t enough money to make someone sell his or her soul and that person walk away. Just ask freshly minted Representative Mayra Flores.

Flores is one of an increasing number of Hispanic-Americans who are leaving the Left because of actions like trying to make Latinx a thing. Sure, there is still a significant number of people willing to vote with the Left on the basis of immigration alone, but with the shift to the right comes political consequences. California will still be safe for Leftists to try out bad ideas, but what about states like Florida and Texas, and to a lesser extent states like Arizona and New Mexico? They all have significant Hispanic populations and they tend to vote. Try turning Texas blue and keeping Arizona bluish when you piss off enough people by erasing their cultural identity.

But here’s the really funny part. There is a potential for Leftists to lose more Hispanic voters over this Latinx shit than they gain from non-binary voters. According to a study done by the UCLA Latino Policy and Politics Initiative, 16.6 million Latinos voted in the 2020 election. A separate study done by the Williams Institute stated 1.2 million Americans identify as non-binary. Now, I’m no math wizard, but last time I checked 16.6 million was a lot more than 1.2 million. Even if the Right manages to get 10% of the Hispanic vote from 2020 in 2024, that’s still more than the potential non-binary voters if they voted 100% for Leftists.

Now, consider Donald Trump got more Latino votes in 2020 than he did in 2016 and one of the potential candidates is the current Governor of Florida, which has a significant Latino population and remains pretty popular in spite of the Left’s attempts to make him look like Donald Trump with larger hands.

That’s a recipe for a fuck-up, kids. On top of the other fuck-ups in America right now, Leftists have a lot of ‘splainin’ to do.

The fact Leftists thought Latinx was a suitable alternative to Latino/Latina shows how tone-deaf they are when it comes to people who aren’t white Leftists. In spite of the fact the Left has cobbled together a patchwork coalition of voting blocs, these blocs constantly have to jockey for position to gain power, money, and representation with white Leftists. And right now, white Leftists care more about pleasing people who can’t pick a gender from a list of a whole 2 than they do about making sure a significant voting bloc’s concerns are heard and respected.

And remember, kids, Leftists are smarter than we are. Just ask them.

Leftists are known for making bad decisions, but pushing for Latinx is up there with letting two people not known for being able to string together coherent sentences be President and Vice President. Whether it will be a serious blow to the Left has yet to be seen, but if there’s anyone who could snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, it’s the Left.



America the Pretty Nifty, Revisited

Many years ago before I became a part-time blogger and a full-time pain in the ass, I wrote a piece called “America the Pretty Nifty” where I extolled the virtues of this great country of ours. Times and opinions change, so on our nation’s “birthday,” I figured I’d take another look at the topic and see where it takes us.

In spite of all its faults, I still think America is one of the greatest countries in the world, if not the greatest. And I don’t say that because I’m a geopolitical homer. When I look at what we have to be proud of, I’m hard-pressed to find a better country anywhere else. Here are a few examples of what I mean.

The races tend to get along. – If you look at media coverage (and, at this point with their blatant and frequent dishonesty, why would you), you would think we’re on the verge of a race war. In truth, we’re nowhere near that point. As with any relationship, there are areas to work on, but overall our melting pot is pretty, well, melty.

America is still a land of innovation. – If you have a dream and the means to follow it, you can make it. After all, it was an American who decided to create a machine that cuts hair using the suction power of a vacuum cleaner. Take that, China! If you want/need a more recent example, just look to Elon Musk. He started out as a South African kid with a weird name and a dream and created a successful electric car company, a company trying to make space travel more accessible, and a way to trigger Leftists on Twitter merely by existing. If that’s not great, I don’t know what is.

We can still have robust intellectual discussions on most topics. – Although I haven’t found a space yet where this is happening, the law of averages says it has to exist somewhere. If you happen to find where it is, please let me know.

We survived a pandemic. – Whether it’s because or in spite of our medical science and political leadership, we came out of the COVID-19 outbreak better than we thought we might. (Observation may not be applicable to the elderly in New York State.) While we still quibble over the effectiveness of mask mandates, the “Fauci Ouchie,” and mandated lockdowns, the fact we have as many Americans as we do able to quibble is a testament to Americans. And speaking of the pandemic…

The pandemic helped people get creative. – When you can’t go outside, you have to figure out how to pass the time. To put it more mildly than salsa in Utah, the pandemic lead to a creative explosion that we are still seeing the ripples of today. Thanks to sites like Etsy and RedBubble, people with the creative bug not only showed off their wares, but were able to make decent money catering to the forced shut-in crowd. There’s even pandemic porn on the Internet (and I’m not talking about the kind pushed by the Fauci-ites, kids).

America is still the shining city on the hill. – Ronald Reagan popularized this image of America as a land of opportunity for people from around the world, and it still holds true today. There are millions upon millions of people who want to come here and start a new life. Granted, we don’t know for sure if it’s because we have opportunities or because Leftists have extended the largess of our tax dollars to make it difficult to resist, but the point is the same. People still want to be Americans.

We have a wealth of global entertainment options. – Hollywood, Silicon Valley, Broadway, Nashville, and many other American cities and locations are hotbeds of entertainment of all kinds. Art, music, theater, books, television, movies, podcasts, internet porn, it doesn’t matter. If you want it, America has it or can direct you to where you can get it. We have such a surplus of entertainment options, producers and directors are trying to recycle ideas that worked in the past, thus guaranteeing work for C-list and below actors if the “Sharknado” series has taught us anything.

Women are still free here. – Contrary to Leftist caterwauling about the recent Supreme Court decision that “overturned” Roe v Wade, women enjoy far more freedom here than their sisters globally. We might have been dragged kicking and screaming towards this point, but we got here and we continue to make strides to keep moving forward. Just remember, for a brief time, a piece of shit named Amber Heard was one of the most talked-about people in the world. Thanks, America!

The really bad/incompetent players haven’t fucked up everything yet. – Over the past few decades, we’ve had some real losers winning elections and getting political power. After all, the most powerful woman in the world not named Oprah or Lady Gaga got as many delegates in the 2020 Presidential race as I did and I didn’t even run. Yet, in spite of the Peter Principle being the rule of thumb in Washington, DC, nobody has done anything so devastating that it can’t be undone later. There have been a few close calls, I grant you, but even then America’s still standing.

We still value freedom. – The fact we fight like the Hatfields and McCoys on a PCP binge whenever there’s a debate over personal freedom is an indication of just how much we love freedom, even after all this time. Some of this is self-serving or done for political/ideological ends, but the passion is still there. Deep down inside, I think most Americans want everyone to be free to live their lives on their own terms, not the terms of others.

I still see America as a fix-er-upper, but one that is worth keeping working at to restore its past beauty and glory. And as long as there are people willing to put on their tool belts and put in the work, America will remain pretty nifty.

Nostradamus They Ain’t

With the recent US Supreme Court decision that referred abortion rights back to the states, Leftists went nuts (more than usual), suggesting the end of the world as they know it. After all, without a federal mandate that allows for Leftists to kill babies, they might actually have to…get people to support their view of abortion rights! The horror!

As Leftists explain it, the Supreme Court decision will create a horror show of back alley abortions, dead mothers in the streets, and a society straight out of The Handmaid’s Tale. (On a side note, between this and the Harry Potter novels, I swear the Left’s reading lists are shorter than an earthworm’s inseam.) And all of this is going to happen because Roe v. Wade was overturned. Just listen and believe, people!

Of course, the Left has been predicting this under every Republican President since Ronald Reagan, but we’re not supposed to know that.

In fact, the Left doesn’t want us to know about the numerous wrong predictions they’ve made regarding Roe because it makes them look like hyperventilating ninnyhammers. Granted, they are, but they don’t like to look like that because it undercuts the gravitas of their ideology. And by undercuts, I mean completely fucking destroys it. Of course, that works out great for me because I can mock it mercilessly.

Guess what I’m about to do, kids!

The Left loves to make grand predictions about the fall of civilization, but these predictions rarely, if ever, come true. Put another way, their track record makes local TV meteorologists look like Nostradamus.

Of course, the reason the Left makes these predictions in the first place is to instill fear in the minds of the unsuspecting. Look at what they’ve done with global warming/climate change/climate catastrophes/extreme weather/climate disruptions/whatever term they want to use this minute. For decades, they’ve been predicting sea levels rising, temperatures shooting higher than Snoop Dogg and Willie Nelson on 4/20, massive droughts, more powerful and dangerous weather patterns, and so on. Yet, none of this actually happened. Sure, you might be able to pick out one or two times when the exception proves the Leftist rule, but it should be noted these are exceptions. Meaning, they don’t happen all the time.

The same is true of the post-Roe America the Left tells us is coming. It’s been a week since the decision that sent the abortion issue back to the states and…nothing has happened. Red states haven’t turned into Gilead overnight. The bodies of women killed by back-alley abortions aren’t piling up in the streets. At least for now, everything is as fucked up as it was before the recent Supreme Court decision.

And the funny thing is…the Left still didn’t get it right completely. Abortion rights haven’t been stripped away from millions of women; they’ve just been sent back to the states to let the voters decision instead of 9 Supreme Court Justices. And if people are as pro-choice as Leftists tell us they are, this shouldn’t be a problem. Voters should be more than happy to support abortion initiatives at the state level, right?

Not so much. There are quite a few Democrat voting blocs that aren’t as keen on abortion as Leftists are, namely in the black and Hispanic communities. If abortion is put up by itself, there’s a chance it could get voted down, meaning the Left would lose power, money, and influence. That means the Left would have to work harder to elect more pro-choice candidates or persuade voters to agree with them that killing babies in the womb and possibly using them for spare parts is a good thing. Good luck with that.

Not surprisingly, though, Leftists have misread the room on this issue, among many others. By being so strident in their beliefs, they have turned off voters who might be willing to compromise if the Left put up a convincing argument. Now, with abortion rights being a state issue instead of a federal one, they don’t have the “well, it’s settled law” card to fall back on. And let’s just say they’ve been riding that like a roller coaster for decades, so they’re a little bit rusty on the whole making a convincing argument thing.

This brings us back to ginning up fear. Fear can be a powerful motivator, but a piss-poor argument when reason is brought into the picture. Once you alleviate the fear, the Left’s arguments don’t have a leg to stand on, but maybe Planned Parenthood can lend them a couple.

However, I could be wrong on this and red states are getting the red robes and white bonnets from the dry cleaners as we speak. I’m willing to admit I’m wrong when it happens. But you have to ask yourselves whether the Left has ever done the same with abortion rights, climate change, or anything else they’ve predicted. It’s more likely they’ll double down more than a blackjack player who keeps getting 11 than admit they were wrong. Again.

And again.

And again.

And a…well, you get the idea.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

After every mass shooting (except for the ones that occur nearly every weekend in Leftist utopia Chicago), Leftists bring up the need for “common sense gun control.” Of course, they never come out and say what that would look like, but, dammit, they care!

With the most recent shooting in Uvalde, Texas, though, Leftists changed tactics. Instead of calling for gun control, they’re now calling for gun safety. On the surface, that’s a move in the right direction since it seems to be an area of common ground between gun owners and gun control advocates.

If you’re expecting a “but” here, you should. There’s more to this concept than the Left wants us to know.

gun safety

What the Left thinks it means – a movement to curb gun violence as much as possible

What it really means – repackaged gun control

Advertisers love to play with phrasing to get consumers to believe a certain product is better than another or to gin up new interest in an existing product. That’s why you see “new and improved” in ads and on packaging. The idea is to get you to think a certain way that will either reinforce your current buying habits or get you to consider changing them.

The same principle is at work here. By switching from a pointed phrase (“gun control”) to one that seems more neutral (“gun safety”), the Left is hoping you will consider changing your opinion on gun control. After all, who wouldn’t be in favor of gun safety? Maybe Alec Baldwin, but he’s an outlier.

The thing is gun safety means different things to different people. Most gun owners already practice gun safety, such as not pointing guns at others and keeping guns and ammunition secured and stored in separate places. These are actions people can do themselves without having Big Brother giving us direction on how to do it. And considering the federal government has utter morons running departments, if not full branches, maybe we don’t need their help.

To Leftists, gun safety has nothing to do with what individuals can do, but rather what the government can do because they believe government is the source of all good (except if that government is run by those evil Republicans who take money from the National Rife Association to prevent meaningful and sensible gun laws from being passed). That’s why all of their solutions to the gun problem revolve around passing more laws, banning more guns, and demanding more from gun owners than they expect from the criminals who commit gun violence. But there is one common thread throughout these efforts.

Leftists don’t know shit about guns.

That fact alone should render their opinions on gun safety as irrelevant as Joe Biden’s teleprompter. Yet, with their emotional appeals whenever a shooting happens, no one stops to think whether we’ve tried some of these suggestions before. News Flash: we have. And it hasn’t stopped mass shootings at all. What it has done, however, is make the vast majority of mass shooters legal gun owners. That’s right. Most of the mass shooters (outside of Chicago, of course) have passed the background checks the Left have demanded. What’s next? More background checks to make up for the background checks we were told would stop mass shootings and didn’t? More hoops for law-abiding citizens to jump through that criminals will ignore?

The truth is the Left needs there to be more mass shootings to justify their power grabs in this case and to protect themselves from the inevitable backlash once enough gun owners get tired of being treated like potential criminals for merely wanting to own firearms. Now, if you’ve been paying attention (and I know you have), this runs counter to what the Left is saying they want now, gun safety. Banning certain guns doesn’t make them or us safer. The same with background checks, limits to ammunition purchases, or the number of bullets a gun or rifle can shoot before needing to be reloaded. In fact, nothing they’ve proposed have anything to do with safety, but everything to do with controlling people.

Just as it was intended.

There is one thing the Left can do to show their commitment to gun safety, that being offering gun safety training. Of course, they’ll have some competition from…the NRA. Yep, that same NRA that is super-duper evil and wants to kill schoolchildren so Bubba can have an AR-15 (according to the Left). Why haven’t gun safety advocates on the Left come up with something similar?

Because it’s all about getting rid of guns altogether. Oh, sure, Leftists won’t come out and say it unless they’re in friendly company, but that’s been their goal for a while now. No matter how they rebrand their approach, the endgame is always get rid of guns.

So, what do we do? Call out the newly-minted gun safety crowd and ask them what they’re going to do about actual gun safety and not the laundry list of Leftist demands that always come out after a shooting. And don’t let them get by with bullshit answers, either. Press them like they want to press gun owners to comply. Then, when they fail (and they will), point it out and tell everyone who will listen about their real agenda.

But if you want to really push for gun safety, Leftists, I have a piece of advise. Don’t arm yourselves. Leave it to the police to protect you. You know, the police you want to revamp/defund and have called racists with badges?

Have your next of kin let me know how that works out for you.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

With all of the heavy subjects this week, I decided to inject a bit of actual comedy into this week’s Lexicon. (Finally!) British comedian and now-infrequent awards show how Ricky Gervais has a new special on Netflix that has garnered a lot of attention from Leftists…for all the “wrong” reasons. Leftists attacked Gervais for making jokes about trans people and mentioned one of their favorite new defenses against comedy, “punching down.”

I watched the special because I was curious (and I think Gervais is genuinely funny) and I can confirm he didn’t punch any children or midgets. Then, I thought about it and realized Leftists mean something completely different. No less stupid, but different.

punching down

What the Left thinks it means – when a privileged person mocks or hurts a less-privileged person

What it really means – Leftists choosing which sacred cows aren’t to be made fun of

In a statement what will surprise no one, Leftists have an inflated sense of self-worth, especially in the area of comedy. In recent years, they’ve managed to change comedy from telling jokes to making social statements where jokes may or may not be used. And more often than not, they don’t (unless they steal jokes like Amy Schumer). With a good number of comedians aligning with the Left, Leftists think they are the only truly funny people out there.

Which brings us to the new rules they’ve adopted and expect all other comedians to follow. One of these rules is not to punch down, meaning not to joke about people less fortunate or powerful than you are. On the surface, it makes sense in a weird way. We don’t want to intentionally hurt people who may lack the ability to come back on equal footing because we’re at least trying to look like good people.

The problem is, as Steve Martin so eloquently put it on one of his albums, comedy is not pretty. A lot of comedy involves some element of pain, discomfort, or disruption. That’s why the Marquis de Sade was the hottest stand-up comedian of his day. (True story…I guess.) Even jokes that involve questioning the reason a chicken crosses a road require one party’s life to be interrupted to try to answer said question. And don’t get me started on the perverse nature of knock-knock jokes!

The Left’s demands to punch up instead of punch down shows how little they actually know about comedy. Comedy is the great equalizer because everyone can be the butt of a joke. Elon Musk, a homeless person, it doesn’t matter. To set up an arbitrary limit on who can be joked about is to remove that equality and limit the potential comedic targets. That limits the jokes that can be told. After a while, you will run out of jokes that pass Leftist muster, which leads to the jokes becoming stale and predictable like an episode of “Two and a Half Men.”

But then there’s the comedic conundrum that is “Will & Grace.” This is one of the Left’s favorite sitcoms because of its inclusion and representation of gay characters. I watched a couple of episodes back during its original run and came away wondering why it was such a beloved show on the Left. The comedy, such as it was, seemed obsessed with the gay lifestyle instead of, you know, being funny. And when one of the secondary foils of the show is an over-the-top exaggeration of a gay man and his humor revolves solely around him being gay, I guess I fail to see how this is positive and funny. But apparently it didn’t punch down, so yay, I guess?

On the flip side, there’s “Married With Children.” Throughout its run, the show offended everyone at some point (except for sick freaks like me, apparently) and kept punching up, down, sideways, and all around. Even as controversy raged, there were no fucks given and they continued to be equal opportunity offenders. The same can be said for “South Park,” “Beavis and Butthead,” and a handful of other successful shows. Why did these shows survive and flourish?

Because they understood what was funny and didn’t try to limit the jokes to avoid offending people without senses of humor.

The whole concept of punching up or punching down is absurd, and not in a humorous way. Comedy does have the ability to open minds and change opinions. If it weren’t for comedians like George Carlin and Dennis Miller, I wouldn’t be the man I am today, for better or worse. But the best lessons come from times when you learn without even knowing it because you were having too much fun. Granted, I wouldn’t want to try to learn nuclear physics by watching “Wheel of Fortune” but the point remains the same. We don’t need to be beat over the head with a message to get it.

That’s where Leftist comedy always fails. Well, that and the fact they’re rarely intentionally funny. For Leftists, the message is everything, so it becomes the focal point of any comedy at the expense of any actual comedy. It’s the difference between Dave Chappelle and Hannah Gadsby. Chappelle’s comedy has a message (one that Leftists love to distort for the purposes of getting outraged) while Gadsby’s comedy is only about the message Even when Chappelle bombs, he still has a process to either rework it into something better or dump the bit altogether. Gadsby doesn’t have that option. Plus, you wouldn’t know if she bombed because the sound of crickets in the audience drowns out any laughter.

The funny (strange, not haha) about the concept of not punching down is how fragile the Left thinks some groups are. Granted, these are the same morons who tell us “jokes are violence” and “words are violence,” but this is beyond even that level of what-the-actual-fuck-ism. If someone telling a joke at your expense or at the expense of your group identity causes you emotional or psychic damage, it may not be because the joke is mean-spirited; it may be because you have deeper issues than someone telling a joke, and you’re going to need someone more specialized than Patch Adams to address them.

Going a step further, Leftists feel that every minority group is oppressed and only they can speak for the oppressed. This is especially true of white Leftists, I’ve found. They have savior complexes that would put Superman to shame. But in doing so, they’ve stolen the groups’ voice and used it for their own selfish purposes: to make them look better. That’s a gut punch down, if you ask me!

Then, there’s the other major problem, that being not all members of the group may feel the same way or take offense. There have been a number of gay and trans people openly supporting Gervais’ special, saying it was funny and…non-offensive! How will Leftists respond? The way they always do: ignoring or belittling the people who disagree with them. Now, if words are violence and Leftists mock gay and trans people who liked the Gervais special, wouldn’t that be a hate crime? You make the call!

Either way, it’s not worth the time to worry about whether a comedian is punching up or down because all it does is limit comedy to the point of banality. Laugh at what you want, don’t laugh at what you don’t, and remember to keep a healthy perspective. Even when a comedian hits a group you identify with, it’s not personal, and you have to admit even Republicans and conservatives do things worthy of being mocked openly. I do it, but when the Left keeps serving up mock-worthy topics like punching up, it’s hard to pass up!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Conspiracy theories abound these days. Although most of them hold as much water as the new Uggs thermos, some of them have a basis in truth.

Recently, the idea of replacement theory became a Leftist talking point, as some Republicans have shown at least passing support for the idea. The Left pounced on this, calling the idea a conspiracy theory believed only by right-wing nuts. Since I’m allergic to those kinds of nuts, I figured I’d delve further into the subject.

replacement theory

What the Left thinks it means – a racist right-wing conspiracy theory that states whites are slowly being phased out by non-whites

What it really means – what the Left actually wants to do with whites other than themselves

Leftists have a love-hate relationship with whites, namely they love to hate them. And based on their version of history, who wouldn’t? Whites were responsible for slavery in America, misogyny, homophobia, toxic masculinity, environmental catastrophes, and, worst of all, voting Republicans into the White House. Having that much guilt on a person’s soul makes one more amenable to the idea that whites shouldn’t be involved in things anymore.

Well, at least if they weren’t Leftists. Then, they’ll be there in the background to make things work great because…well, I’m still trying to figure that part out, but the sentiment is there. And really, isn’t that what really counts?

Anyway, it cannot be overstated how the Left originated the concept and worked to bring it into practice. The really scary thing is how easily it’s been incorporated into other Leftist policy points without us knowing it.

Replacement theory states whites are slowly being replaced by non-whites through a series of factors, including decreasing white birth rates and illegal immigration taking jobs whites could do. And what has the Left been advocating? Open immigration, women waiting to have children until after they’ve succeeded in business, easy access to abortion, prohibiting law enforcement from checking on papers from suspected illegal immigrants, demanding more minority hires, just to name a few.

But remember, replacement theory is just a right-wing conspiracy with no basis in fact.

And thanks to the recent shooting in Buffalo, replacement theory has been brought front and center. The shooter’s manifesto mentioned replacement theory, so that gave the Left all the opportunity they needed to paint him as a right wing fanatic and to dismiss replacement theory as right wing nonsense. Of course, the shooter was a self-professed eco-fascist national socialist who took advantage of New York’s strict gun control laws to pick a target that fit his racist agenda. Of course, Leftists don’t want us to focus on those little details, only that replacement theory was referenced and the Left says it’s right wing in nature.

Thus, Leftists use one of their favorite tactics to avoid responsibility for their actions, projection. And let’s just say the Left uses more projection than an IMAX theater here and in other areas. While the Left attacks Tucker Carlson, Donald Trump, and other favorite right wing whipping boys, the truth is far harder for them to swallow. So, instead of recognizing they’re wrong or that they had a hand in the problem, the Left blames others not even involved with the shooting for radicalizing the shooter. Mighty nice of them, don’t ya think?

Meanwhile, we still have to deal with the reality of replacement theory instead of passing it off as a partisan conspiracy theory. For that, we need to stand up to the racism of the Left, in large part due to the slings and arrows of outrageous Leftist name-calling. They will call you racist, white supremacist, Republican, MAGAt, or any number of disparaging names designed to minimize your effectiveness. Yes, they will sting emotionally and won’t match what you truly believe, but the best way to counteract that is to stand firm and remained unfazed by the Left’s attacks. It will confuse them and make them escalate to the point of insanity. Then, you win.

And that will hurt Leftists more than any arguments you can make against their accusations.

In the meantime, we need to curb the Left’s desire to marginalize whites, and one of the ways is simple: start fucking and having babies. Not just to reverse the declining white birth rates, but to freak out Leftists. Then, the next step is to become irreplaceable. I don’t mean sabotage others, but rather learn new skills that will apply to the modern workplace and society as a whole. And if the Left gives you pushback, tell them you identify as a minority and let them freak out even more!

And if that’s not enough to motivate you, nothing will!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

As the Little Dutch Boy can attest, a leak can be a pretty troublesome thing. And that’s exactly what we got this past week thanks to a clerk at the US Supreme Court. Normally, this would be as exciting as watching Al Gore painting grass, but this time the leak involved a certain controversial Supreme Court decision that both the Left and the Right freak out over: Roe v. Wade. While President Pudding Cup tries to figure out the context where someone would row or wade, the rest of us know it as the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion.

Yeah. We’re going there.

Roe v. Wade

What the Left thinks it means – the linchpin of women’s rights, especially personal autonomy

What it really means – a bad ruling made worse by politicians

Before we dive back into the muck, I have to admit I don’t like writing about abortion for a number of reasons. First, it’s a messy moral and ideological issue where there are always going to be more gray areas than black and white ones. Second, it’s such a charged issue that even the slightest bit of nuance, justified or not, can get people pissed off and ready to attack. Finally, there’s not a lot of funny in the termination of a pregnancy. Just ask Michelle Wolf. Having said all of that, the fact Roe v. Wade is back in the headlines and on Leftists’ mind…s(?) overrules any misgivings I have on the subject.

I’ve discussed my feelings on Roe and abortion in general before, but for those of you just joining us, let me give you the Cliff’s Notes version. Roe v. Wade was a bad Supreme Court decision based on provable lies designed to get a certain outcome the dishonest lawyers (I know I’m repeating myself) wanted. For that reason (and the whole killing babies thing), I am pro-life, but I also know my opinion means jack shit in the larger context. As much as I hate the notion of a woman getting an abortion, I hate forcing any other human being to live by my moral code just as much. This may make me seem wishy-washy, but it’s where I stand. You don’t have to stand with me, and I won’t hate you for it.

Unless you’re a Cardi B fan. Then, we might have issues.

Just kidding!

To bring everything back to the current day, the aforementioned leak suggests the Supreme Court is about to overturn Roe v. Wade, which made Leftists scream more than that one protestor did at Donald Trump’s inauguration. Since the leak became public, Leftists have been going from depressed to angry to motivated to downright stupid. And that’s just Elizabeth Warren!

To put it mildly, the Left has been overreacting to the point of hyperventilation on Twitter and other social media. It’s going to be the end of abortion as we know it! It’s going to create a Handmaid’s Tale style theocracy where women are merely receptacles without any autonomy! “Hook-up” culture will die out (and I wish I were fucking kidding about this one, but someone actually posted this idea online)! Yet, with all of the sound and fury, there is one fact the Left isn’t talking about: abortion isn’t going away if Roe gets overturned. All that happens is the decision whether abortion is legal will be left to the states, where I feel it should have been left in the first place.

But isn’t abortion favored by a majority of people, according to Leftists? Welllll…that’s one of those murky areas of the abortion issue. Polling data swings back and forth like a pendulum at different points in time. Sometimes, more people favor allowing abortion. Sometimes, more people favor restrictions on abortions. This tells us two things: 1) we are a conflicted nation, and 2) polling data on the topic are absolute shit.

For the sake of argument, let’s say the Left is correct about public opinion on abortion. Why wouldn’t they want a 50-state referendum on legalizing abortion? Simple. It’s because they would lose money and power in the process. Surprise, surprise, surprise!

Roe is the key to both for Leftists. Since the original decision came down, the federal government has been the only body calling the shots on abortion. The problem is it violates the Constitution, specifically the Tenth Amendment. Basically, the Tenth Amendment limits the power of the federal government to what is specifically granted to it. Anything that falls outside of that specific limitation goes back to the states and/or the people. And guess what Supreme Court decision defies that?

Can you say Roe v. Wade, boys and girls? I knew you could.

Normally, this wouldn’t be an issue for Leftists because they typically don’t give a shit about states rights, but with Roe…well, let’s just say it proves how little they care about states rights. Roe gives the Left the federal muscle to mandate abortion without having to actually make an argument in favor of the practice, as in the “settled law” approach. With the power to decide going back to the states, the Left will lose the one-size-fits-all-poorly approach and will have to make the argument to all 50 states. With some states like California, you could call it the “Yeah, We Want To Kill Babies In The Womb Bill” and Leftists would line up around the block to vote for it. With other states, like Texas, the argument would be a non-starter. The point is the Left would have to put actual effort into making abortion legal across the country, and given how they tend to be adverse to work…

Along with this, the Left would either have to raise and spend more money or budget existing funds to make the argument. Neither one of these is sustainable for very long because of the way most Leftists behave, but both would have to come to pass if Roe were overturned because Leftists would lose fiscal security that comes with not having to defend abortion to anyone but the faithful. No wonder Leftists are so up in arms…well, not really arms, per se, since they’re not fans of guns and the like, but that’s neither here nor there.

There is one factor the Left might have working in their favor even if Roe v. Wade goes the way of original stories on “The Simpsons.” Society has changed a lot since Roe was first argued and the fact it has repelled so many legal challenges over the years has made abortion more acceptable, or at least made people less likely to fight it. I’ll leave it up to you to decide whether it’s a good or a bad thing, but it is what it is. If you wear down people’s resistance enough, even the slightest push back will net the desired outcome.

This is what the Left is counting on as they try to codify abortion rights via legislation. Although I can’t say I’m a fan of the desired outcome, I can’t find fault with the process, aside from the aforementioned Tenth Amendment conflict. At least the issue will be brought up to a vote, which is a hell of a lot better than having 9 men and women in black robes that hide whether they’re wearing clothing underneath make the call. Instead, that decision will be made by hundreds of men and women who we will not wonder if they’re wearing clothes because very few of us would want to think of them naked.

Regardless of whether the Supreme Court upholds or overturns Roe v. Wade, we are still feeling the after-effects of the original decision and will continue to feel them for decades to come. Like eating at Chipotle, but with less vomiting. Where we go from here is anyone’s guess, but we shouldn’t automatically assume the worst on either side of the issue. Even with the most controversial issues, Americans have this amazing ability to adapt to and adopt societal changes given enough time. Hell, we turned polyester leisure suits from fashion statement to garage sale leftovers to popular Halloween costumes in my lifetime, so anything is possible!