The January 6th Committee has experienced a few problems bringing their case before the American people on national television. I mean, aside from not having much of a case to begin with. It seems the American people don’t care about what they have to say, judging by the ratings. But there’s a much bigger blow to their credibly than having Adam Schiff be a part of the proceedings.
It started with the Committee trying to convince us it wasn’t going to be a partisan witchhunt by…telling us repeatedly how non-partisan they were. Of course, this raised more red flags than a military parade in China. First off, too many of the particulars, including the two Republicans on the Committee, have already stated their objections to former President Donald Trump prior to the Committee’s creation. And by “objections” I mean “frothing-at-the-mouth insane partisan ramblings.”
Now, if this were anything other than a political sideshow, this might be seen as poisoning the well. Since it is a political sideshow, poisoning the well is not only allowed, but actively encouraged. After all, the Committee’s role is to get to the bottom of what happened without actually looking at all of the factors. And with House Democrats actively denying the picks of House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy on the notion the picks were active participants in the “insurrection,” it was always going to end up being a one-sided affair.
My expectations were low enough as they were, but fuck me with a pine cone, I never figured the Committee would figure out a way to limbo under them and still have room for beehive hairdos. Although I failed to predict the length the Committee would go to secure its place in Wasted Taxpayer Money on Stupid Shit Only a Fraction of People Care About history, there was no doubt in my mind it would happen.
I don’t mean to toot my own horn to people who thought the January 6th Committee was a bunch of fact-finders trying to make the case President Trump incited an insurrection, but…beep beep.
Should He Stay or Should He Go?
One of the most pressing political questions on people’s minds right now (aside from how much Nancy Pelosi has had to drink) is whether former President Donald Trump will run for President in 2024. That may be a closely guarded secret, even moreso than the Nancy Pelosi question. A lot of people are sure he’s going to run while others are convinced he’s either not going to run or will be in prison by 2024, thus making it a moot point.
The fact is no one knows for sure. I’m not even sure if Trump knows yet, but in the interest of whipping up more wild speculation online, I did some thinking on the subject and I think I have some points to consider. Granted, I’m not inside the former President’s head, so I can’t say for certain what you’re about to read is accurate, but I can tell you it’s bound to be a lot more accurate than any reporting done by Vox. (A low bar, sure, but hey, I gotta start somewhere.)
He’s Running
1) His base is still pretty strong – Contrary to Leftist belief, Donald Trump still remains pretty popular within Republican and conservative ranks. The fact he still polls higher than most candidates after being out of office is a testament to his staying power within the GOP. And his supporters are still on board the Trump Train, no matter what. Honestly, I’d have to go back to Ronald Reagan to find a Republican with that kind of supporter loyalty, which is a testament to Trump.
2) He’ll be running against a weak field on both sides – Let’s face it. Neither major party has a deep bench going into 2024. On the Left we have President Joe Biden, who I’m not sure knows he is President, and possibly Vice President Kamala Harris, whose word salads make Biden look like William F. Buckley. Although there may be more challengers to the left of Biden and Harris, they may not jump into the race out of fear of being Bernie Sanders-ed. On the other side of the aisle, no one seems to be jumping out as a front runner. There is talk of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis being a front-runner for the Republicans, but as of yet, there has been no confirmation he’s running. That leaves Donald Trump to fill the void.
3) Unfinished business – In recent decades, we’ve gotten used to Presidents serving two terms, which makes it easier for Presidents to postpone certain pet projects until later in his Presidency. With Joe Biden winning in 2020, that interrupts or completely scuttles Trump’s plans…or does it? If Trump feels he has more to do, he may throw his hat into the ring as a means to get things done, and with 4 more years, it will be interesting to see what he takes on and how quickly it gets done. Operation Warp Speed may get left in the dust.
4) Sticking it to the Left – If there’s one thing Donald Trump is good at, it’s tweaking the Left. If you though Leftists’ heads exploded the first time, wait until Trump runs again, even if it’s just to get a predictable response out of them. If life gave out achievements like video games do, Trump would get the Trolling Leftists achievement without even really trying.
5) New voting laws for old voter fraud – In the aftermath of the 2020 election, some Republican-lead states enacted new voting laws, much to the chagrin of the Left. In spite of their caterwauling, Republicans put together some pretty solid proposals to restrict voter fraud where possible while taking some of the Left’s concerns about access to the polls into consideration. Since Trump’s post-Presidency legacy has revolved around voter fraud, he may use this as a platform to reenter the Presidential race and whip up support for this pet project.
He’s Not Running
1) Been there, done that – Trump has already been President once, and it’s caused a lot of headaches for him and his family, due in no small part to Leftists. At this point, even he has to wonder if it was worth it the first time around. To run again and possibly win opens up old wounds, rekindles old rivalries, and creates another level of emotional strain. Being President even once isn’t wussy work, and it takes a strong resolve and a stronger family to do it twice. Since he’s been President once, there may not be a desire to do it again.
2) The DeSantis factor – I know I mentioned Ron DeSantis earlier as not being in the race yet, but the possibility of him entering the race can’t be discounted yet. Since becoming Governor, DeSantis has shown many of the positive traits Trump supporters love while mitigating some of the negative traits that hurt Trump. From a strategic standpoint, if DeSantis can deliver the Trump agenda without the drawbacks, it may be better for the former President to step aside and delegate authority.
3) He’s a known entity – One of the things that frustrated the Left in 2016 was how Trump was able to beat Hillary Clinton. Although he’s spent a lot of time in the public eye (sometimes for the wrong reasons), there were still a lot of question marks surrounding his political savvy. In 4 years, though, many of those question marks have been answered because we’ve seen how he governed. He no longer has the element of surprise he did in 2016. Without it, he is more vulnerable.
4) The Agony of Defeat – It’s no secret Donald Trump has an ego, as do most politicians. What sets him apart from most politicians is how much of his ego is wrapped up in what he’s done or able to do. It was evident from when he was dealing in real estate in the 80s, when he was starring in “The Apprentice,” and when he was sitting in the White House. As such, the 2020 election loss stung him. This sets up a conflict within himself should he run again. His ego will not accept him losing a second time, but it may force him to run again to avenge the loss. Regardless of the decision, the possibility of losing again may be a deciding factor in whether he runs in 2024.
5) Voter fraud is still a concern – In spite of the aforementioned new voting laws, Leftists still have ways to play the system, thanks to our old friend Uncle George Soros. As we saw in 2020, it’s not only important to have the votes to win, but to have people in place to certify you have the votes to win. That’s where Uncle George has placed a lot of his faith (and more than a few dollars and candidates). Even with the new laws, voter fraud may be a concern, one that Trump may not be able to overcome.
I’m sure there are some factors I’ve missed, but I think I’ve hit enough of the big ones to get people to think and offer up their own wild-ass speculations!
An Open Letter to Taylor Lorenz
Hi, Taylor! I hope this finds you well. I won’t take up too much of your time since you’re a busy little bee on Twitter.
We need to talk. Seriously.
Over the past month or so, you’ve managed to piss off a lot of people for all the wrong reasons. As a journalist, that’s not always a good thing. I mean, if you piss off people for the right reason, like exposing their corruption or dirty dealings, you’re doing it right. Well…how can I put this delicately…I know.
You’re not doing it right.
Yes, I know you’ve worked for the New York Times and the Washington Post, two major newspapers, but that doesn’t make you a journalist necessarily. Think about the personal assistants who run and get coffee. They’re not journalists, either. But as someone with a byline, you have a responsibility to the truth. Just like the personal assistants, you are expected to do the job right, but unlike the personal assistants, you open yourself up to lawsuits if you fuck up.
Just like you did in the aftermath of the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial. In reporting on the online content creators who did legal analysis, you claimed to have spoken to dozens of them. Welllll…two of those dozens exposed you as a liar, stating you didn’t reach out to them until after your hit-piece…I mean article was published. Oops.
Actually, not an “oops.” That’s a breach of journalistic ethics, if that even exists anymore. As hard as it would be for someone to overlook it, you continue to make it worse by blaming everyone else for your mistakes. Since you got called out rightly for your actions, you’ve played the victim, claiming there was “miscommunication” and a “bad faith campaign” that fueled the controversy. Even if we take your statements at face value, it doesn’t remove your responsibility since it’s your name on the byline.
The fact the Post tried to cover it up with stealth edits and nonsensical editor’s notes don’t help, either. When the Post‘s own media critic says the paper and you fucked up…ya fucked up!
The bigger problem for you is this seems to be your standard operating procedure. Whether it was the Libs of TikTok hit-piece…I mean story or the more recent clusterfuck, you’re quick to make the story about you and how you’re being attacked, thus making you a victim. You even have your talking points down. Whenever you sit down with a sympathetic ear, you talk about “bd faith campaigns” and “online harassment” from randos.
But aren’t you the technology reporter for the Post dealing with online culture?
The fact you’ve had that position at two major newspapers and yet don’t seem to understand the very subject matter you’re supposed to know about (i.e. the reason you’re drawing a paycheck) is a pretty big tell. You are the embodiment of the Peter Principle, only you suck at your job at every level. At this point, I’m not sure I’d trust you to get me a coffee, let alone write a published article. Count your blessings the Post doesn’t share my opinion, but at some point your career will reach a point of diminishing returns.
Let’s just say the fat lady is on in five.
Before you dismiss me as a “bad faith actor,” understand I studied journalism in college and actually hold a Masters Degree in it. I’ve walked beats, written articles under a deadline, and had to answer to editors for mistakes made. This isn’t a game for me; I genuinely want to see good journalism.
In looking at your background, though, I didn’t see where you took the same path. You have a degree in political science, which doesn’t disqualify you from a journalism career but doesn’t help establish even basic credentials. This isn’t me trying to be a gatekeeper, but rather me being a realist. From where I sit, you’re pretty much a blogger with an expense account.
Instead of listening to people like Brian Stelter (who is the journalistic equivalent of a potato), I hope you listen to what I’m about to say and take it to heart. You need to learn how to do your job before you do anything else. You’re young..ish, so you have time to take a journalism course or two from someone who has actually done the legwork. Granted, this might be harder than you accepting responsibility for your fuck-ups, but it will make you a better journalist.
Or at the very least, it will act like a jeweler’s cloth to expose the flaws in your current work.
Until then, please spend less time on Twitter and on making excuses and spend more time learning your craft.
Sincerely,
Thomas
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
The past seven days has been rift with excitement, high hopes, and general giddiness from the Left because of one group of imbeciles…I mean Congresscritters: the January 6th Committee. After two long and expensive years, we are finally going to get to the truth about former President Donald Trump and the insurrection that brought this country to its knees!
At least, that’s what we’re being told. And we know Leftists would never lie or get people’s hopes up for no reason. That reminds me, has anyone seen Robert Mueller lately?
While we wait for the aftermath of the committee’s prime-time extravaganza, let’s see if we can’t pull off a Carnac the Magnificent performance by looking at the committee as a whole.
the January 6th Committee
What the Left thinks it means – a bipartisan effort to hold Donald Trump and his followers accountable for trying to overthrow the government
What it really means – a waste of time and money to get back at Donald Trump and his followers for winning the 2016 election
If there’s one thing the government knows how to do, it’s how to waste money (although, taking away our rights through pointless regulation is a close second). One of the ways they do this, or both for that matter, is through creating special committees to investigate one issue or another. And if it’s a hot button issue, you can bet your bottom dollar that isn’t already spoken for by the IRS that someone in Washington will say, “You know, we should form a committee to investigate why dogs lift their legs to pee.”
I didn’t say they were good hot button issues.
In the aftermath of the “insurrection” on January 6th, Leftists came up with the idea to investigate why it happened and who was responsible for it. Of course, they already “knew” Donald Trump was involved because…well, Donald Trump. So, like they do with global warming/climate change/climate catastrophes/whatever buzzword is popular with the Green New Deal crowd this microsecond, they worked backwards in the hopes they would find something that would produce the necessary linkage between Trump and the events of January 6th.
And after almost a year of public statements, committee meetings, and promises to bring people to justice, the January 6th Committee has…a TV special. Not the good kind like “A Charlie Brown Christmas” or “Frank Zappa’s Polka-Palooza,” either. We’re talking “Al Gore Reads War and Peace Live” levels of crapitude. Listen, nothing says “this is not a serious bunch of folks” like getting a TV producer to help make the message understandable and appealing to the general public. Hell, most of the public today doesn’t even watch network TV for the same reason they don’t take a drink out of the toilets at Chipotle: they’re full of shit.
Much like the politicians comprising the committee, appropriately enough. Looking at their roster there is a who-cares of political operatives, puffed up egos, and useful idiots. And that’s just Adam Schiff, the House Democrat partially responsible for the dreadful first impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Oh, and I forgot to mention he leaks more than a saggy diaper.
But he’s not the only subpar superstar here. There’s also Jamie Raskin, the House Democrat partially responsible for the even worse second impeachment trial of Donald Trump. (I’m sensing a pattern here.) The other House Democrats on board aren’t much better, ranging from the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee (not a bad get, to be fair) to someone whose main accomplishment to date has been…being friends with Nancy Pelosi.
But don’t think the Democrats are the only ones having fun picking committee members! They have two Republicans, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, to give the illusion of bipartisanship without sacrificing any of the committee’s lack of reputation and gravitas. Yes, I know most House Republicans refused to assist with this clown show…I mean committee, but that’s not without reason. For one, the members House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy suggested were shot down by House Democrats because, and I’m paraphrasing here, they didn’t want conspirators to the crime investigating it. More importantly, however, most House Republicans see what Cheney and Kinzinger didn’t: their presence was meant to be a distraction to give the impression the committee was a true bipartisan effort.
This is where I have to step in and clarify a point that often gets misunderstood by Leftists. Not all Leftists play for the blue team. Some Republicans have adopted Leftist thinking and tried to mold it into the main party by any means necessary. The problem is not every Leftist Republican is as overt as Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski. Some of them like Florida Senator Marco Rubio seem like rock-ribbed Republicans, but would be just fine with Big Daddy Government as long as they are running it. Just look up his changing positions on “common-good conservatism” and tell me he’s not willing to be an ideological switch hitter if the power grab was right.
And now, back to my rant on the January 6th Committee already in progress.
Both Kinzinger and Cheney are on the committee to a) give the illusion it’s actually bipartisan, b) give the Left some measure of cover against legitimate complaints as to the committee’s political ends, and c) stick it to Trump Republicans. But it’s this last reason that seems to be the prevailing one. As I mentioned earlier, the January 6th Committee is one big “fuck you” to Donald Trump after he beat Hillary Clinton in 2016. We can argue from now until “Firefly” gets a second season about whether it was a good idea to elect Trump, but it cannot be denied the Left has a raging hate-boner for him and the people who support him. While the committee itself has their collective hands on the table, the Department of Justice has been arresting protesters for various crimes, some legit, most bullshit, and have been keeping them in custody indefinitely. Basically, they’re being treated slightly better than suspected terrorists at Gitmo. And unlike the suspected terrorists, these protesters are American citizens with rights that are being denied by the very government investigating their actions.
All because Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton.
This isn’t to say there weren’t some idiots who took things too far because, well, there were. Their crimes should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Where I draw the line is calling what the majority of protesters did (peaceably assemble and not cause a fuss) an insurrection as a jumping off point for a mockery of justice wrapped in national security bunting. The entire premise of the January 6th Committee is predicated on the idea there was an actual threat to democracy (which we’ve never had in America) as presented by these protesters.
And that, dear readers, is bullshit.
No matter what the January 6th Committee televised special says or shows, it’s hard to overlook the numerous problems the committee has created merely by taking a bogus narrative and running with it like it was being chased by the defensive secondary of the Los Angeles Rams. But the best is yet to come. After being hyped as the end-all-and-be-all of investigations into the January 6th situation, committee aides are walking it back slightly, saying the TV special is an “opening argument” according to the Washington Post.
Oh, good. There may be more of this shit coming to TV screens near you. Yay?
The biggest problem I have with the committee (I mean aside from the laundry list I’ve already spewed for your reading pleasure) is it doesn’t seem to be serious in its stated mission. The fact Adam Schiff is allowed to get coffee for the committee, let alone have one of the seats on it, should outrage anyone with two brain cells to rub together. In other words, non-Leftists.
And with the committee’s TV special, their lack of seriousness is confirmed. Why in the hell would they need to televise what most people already know if they’ve been following the story? Why has the investigation been solely in one direction while ignoring actions from Democrat leaders that exacerbated the situation? Did members of the federal law enforcement community infiltrate the protest and attempt to incite criminal behavior, as some have shown on video? Is it really an insurrection if no one actually tried to overthrow the government?
These are the questions (among many, many others) the January 6th Committee can’t or won’t answer. This tells me they don’t want to get to the bottom of what happened; the Left needs the overblown “threat” as a weapon to give the impression Trump supporters are threats to America that are on the verge of destroying the country, overthrowing the government, and green-lighting a new “Dukes of Hazzard” series! The horror!
The biggest problem the Left faces with the January 6th Committee is the same one they faced with both impeachment trials, the Mueller Report, and everything else they thought would end the Trump Presidency: they overpromised and underdelivered. Just about everything they threw at Trump was all sizzle and no tofu, and to be fair there wasn’t that much sizzle to begin with. This is merely the latest in a long line of failures that make the “Scary Movie” franchise look good, and that’s a tall order.
Fortunately for us, the Left is more than up to the challenge of finding new ways to disappoint people!
Ignorant Meme
There is a meme going around on Social Media right now that was so poorly thought out it just makes me laugh. Of course the useful idiots are posting and re-posting it every day.
So where to begin with the flaws of this meme? It obviously a half baked idea, much like most of the Left’s so-called “thoughts.”
Well we will start at the beginning.
Its a letter to the editor of a printed newspaper. I think only the Left still reads those rags. And without Social Media anything in a newspaper doesn’t stand a chance of getting any circulation in the world these days. Not a very good start.
Nothing is less patriotic than giving up your arms to another nations military. The is the definition of surrender. I don’t think that the author of the letter even knows what patriotism is or how it works.
Not a lot of Americans, patriotic or otherwise, even OWN an assault weapon. But this shows the ignorance of both the author and the Left who continue to put out this kind of garbage. They really mean any semi-automatic rifle, which is most of them. But none of them are assault weapons by definition.
Then how does the desired outcome happen? One cannot mail weapons or ammunition through international mail. That and sending American weapons to a foreign nation, you would need to send ammunition too otherwise it would be worthless.
To have them shipped, would be an expensive and logistical undertaking. Sending weapons to a foreign nation’s military would be a violation of any number of treaties and international agreements.
Thus causing the senders to be war criminals at the least if not plunging America herself into this war and escalating the scope of the conflict.
Again, the idea is bunk to begin with and there is no way to implement the idea either. What fools are those who believe this kind of nonsense.
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.
What is an AR-15?
Most people would say an Assault Rifle, after all that’s what the AR means. And they would be wrong. AR stands for ArmaLite Rifle, the original manufacturer of the weapon.
The AR-15 has been copied by multiple manufactures over the decades since its introduction in 1956. And are commonly called an AR-15 even though they are truly an AR-15 style rifle.
The term Assault Rifle is debatable. Since “assault” is an action and thus any rifle can be used in an assault and be called an assault rifle in my book. Hell you can have an assault screwdriver if you use one in an assault.
But this is how the US Military defines an Assault Rifle:
- It must be capable of selective fire. (that means Semi-Automatic, Fully Automatic, and Burst)
- It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle, examples of intermediate cartridges are the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62×39mm and 5.56×45mm NATO.
- Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.
- It must have an effective range of at least 300 meters (330 yards).
The Colt AR-15, the most common AR-15 rifle in civilian hands, is semi-automatic-only. It is not capable of selective fire and therefore NOT an assault rifle by definition.
Semi-automatic weapons are the most common form of firearms today in both handguns and rifles and they have been around for a century. Semi-automatic means you don’t have to cock the weapon every time you fire a round. The next round loads automatically for easy firing.
The Browning BAR MK 3 is the same as any AR-15. Except it doesn’t look like a scary military weapon. Which is really why some people seem to hate the AR-15 style rifle.
Firearm enthusiasts like the AR-15 mainly due to the weapons versatility and dependability. A tried and true design that takes a lot of punishment.
So it’s not really the weapon that is the problem. We have had semi-automatic rifles and pistols for more than 100 years at this point. Although we have had mass shootings documented as far back as the 1920’s. A time period of high crime, gangsters, and fully automatic weapons. I’m guessing that mass shootings go back to the beginning of firearms.
Yes the weapon makes it easier to kill innocent people. But it shouldn’t be punished, nor should law abiding people. The weapon is necessary for a free people to remain free against an oppressive government. When a government becomes contrary to the Will of the People. Guns are the first victims.
The TikTok War
If you can believe it, the conflict between Ukraine and Russia is now over 100 days old. What’s worse, I still have my Horrendous Withdrawal from Afghanistan decorations up!
For a brief time, it seemed Ukraineamania was running wild. Everybody and their grandmothers were putting Ukrainian flags on their Twitter profiles along with supportive phrases showing how much they support freedom because, well, freedom. Then, over time, the virtual support was still there, but the vocal support died out. Even the media moved on, save for occasional puff pieces on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that would make Teen Beat sue for copyright infringement.
It wasn’t until recently that I noticed the void of pro-Ukraine voices, and it got me thinking as to why. I came up with two possible reasons, one more plausible than the other given the American media. The first reason was the media was so heavily invested in backing Ukraine that they were hiding bad news to maintain the facade. Although this is true to form for the media (see President Joe Biden), I decided it wasn’t the case because it would require actual journalism to be done and today’s media just aren’t up to the task.
The other, more plausible explanation is the media stopped covering it like it did in the beginning, so people stopped paying attention to it. I mean, it’s not like there are people dying for their country or anything, right? Oh, wait…
This lack of attention isn’t just at the personal level, either. In the past 100+ days, has anyone who beat the drums of war like a Neil Peart solo come up with a concrete reason why the US has to get involved in the Ukraine/Russia conflict? If they have, they’ve hidden it pretty well. And, yes, I know “because freedom” is persuasive to Americans because we value it so much, but that isn’t a justification to commit to an action. If it were, US forces would have been deployed to a few African countries where young men are fighting for freedom against an oppressive government.
Funny how that works, isn’t it?
Seriously, though, the fact we don’t have any straight answers about our involvement in the Ukraine/Russia conflict, let alone the conflict itself, has been a sore spot for me since the beginning. If I am to support intervention in a foreign country, I kinda need a reason I can sink my teeth into intellectually. The lack of such a reason leads me to believe there isn’t a good reason to do it, so we’re left with appeals to emotion to pick up the slack. It works well for a while, but once the emotions die down, we’re still lacking a reason.
What’s worse is most people don’t see the issue. After all, we just had the Johnny Depp/Amber Heard trial and that was super-important! I mean, the legal implications may last for at least a week, maybe two!
The problem is this makes us look fickle in foreign affairs. It doesn’t seem to matter if Ukraine loses a significant number of people in this conflict because we’ve moved onto the next super-important issue (even if we haven’t updated our Twitter accounts yet). This turns the conflict into the geopolitical equivalent of a TikTok dance craze, which does a great disservice to the people we allegedly support.
Here’s where the shit really hits the fan. Our gradual disinterest in what’s going on in Ukraine helps Vladimir Putin because it gives him the belief we will lose our taste for war if he just waits us out. And the sad thing is he’s right. American attention spans are shorter than an ant’s inseam and we get attracted by a new shiny object/issue on the regular.
That’s right, kids. America has ADD.
In matters of pop culture, this isn’t a big deal, but on the battlefield it’s deadly. If we insist on fighting Russia via proxy, we need an explanation, and by my calculation, it’s overdue by, oh, 100 days. If there isn’t one better than “Ukraine Good, Russia Bad” or “because freedom,” then we need to rethink our strategy and justifications for getting involved. There have been too many wars in recent history that have ended badly because we didn’t have a real reason to get involved and were too stubborn to admit it.
So, let’s have it, so we can have it out once and for all. And let’s make it sooner rather than later in case there’s a new dance craze on TikTok.
Another Gun Grab Attempt
Here we are again. Another debate on the 2nd Amendment and gun ownership.
I have stated this many times before and I will state it again and again. The 2nd Amendment was written to ensure that We the People could take up arms and defend ourselves against the 2 greatest evils in the world. Our fellowman and the government.
The 2nd Amendment wasn’t to ensure one could go hunting. The Founding Fathers just got back from fighting a war against their government. The weapons owned by the citizens were at least the same if not better than the weapons issued to soldiers.
Time and time again our government has enacted laws on all levels; local, state, and Federal that violate the Constitution of the United States when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
This right has been infringed on time after time. And more infringements will not stop any form of mass shootings. Criminals by definition break laws. Infringements only help criminals and take away the rights of law abiding people who want to protect themselves and their families from harm.
Some may ask if I think a citizen of the United States should be able to own a fully automatic machine gun, or a combat jet fighter, a cannon, a battleship, or even an intercontinental ballistic missile. The answer is yes. We the People, should be able to have exactly what the government has for weapons. If you can afford it. Have it.
In a previous post I broke down the 2nd Amendment for those ignorant of history and language. I’m not going to say it again here, but I will link it so you can read it again.
If we take a look at mass shootings. We will find several things to be true. In most cases they all take place in “gun free zones”. Were only a posted sign keeps out weapons. No one who is going to kill innocent people is ever going to obey that signage.
Also in almost every case, the shooter turns out to be some kind of radical Leftist nutjob. A shooter is never a Bible-believing Christian or Republican.
And oddly the number of mass shootings tends to increase whenever the Democratic Party is in the White House or has control of Congress. Almost a conspiracy to try to create emotions in the public to infringe more on the 2nd Amendment.
The recent mass shooting in Texas is a horrible tragedy and loss of life that could have been prevented. Not by enacting more infringement laws against gun owners. But by taking an active roll in protecting our children and our fellow citizens. Our thoughts and prayers go out to the survivors and their families.
Schools need to be gun active zones. Teachers and other staff need to be armed and trained to effectively use a firearm in the case of a shooter entering school grounds.
Police and other protective agencies need to be properly trained to deal with a mass shooter as well. In the Texas case, the police did NOTHING for 40 to 45 minutes. Instead of going in and removing the threat.
These two minor changes could have saved the lives that were lost. Only the gunman would have been killed. Again, any death is a tragic loss of life but it would have saved many more.
Recently there was a mass shooting in West Virginia too. A gunman opened fire at a birthday party. In this case, a woman had a firearm with her and was trained to use it. And she did. She shot and killed the gunman saving countless lives in the process.
This is the very thing that we need to do. We cannot wait for the police to decide to act 40-45 minutes. This happened at Sandy Hook as well. And children lost their lives.
We need to end gun free zones. Enact Constitutional Carry in all States, since the Constitution already allows it. Find teachers and other staff in schools who would like to receive training in arms. And then arm them.
Then when a deranged madman comes on the school grounds to harm children and others. They are met with deadly force. Children are safe and learn that guns are an important life saving tool in the right hands.
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!