For those who haven’t already been bored to tears by it, the 1/6 Commission will be having more hearings in September because, as they say, more evidence is coming out. The fact it’s so close to midterms is a complete coincidence, I’m sure! And with each passing day, Leftists are salivating at the findings and testimony so far. Of course, a lot of both have been utter bullshit to date, but hey…
It’s time we had a serious conversation about government-run investigations because I’m not sure we’re getting our money’s worth, and I do mean our money. Even though it helps overall because it keeps some Beltway busybodies occupied for a time and, thus, prevents them from doing real harm, it’s getting to the point where the price tag no longer justifies the results.
Now, before you Leftists get your collectivist panties in a bunch, this isn’t something I’ve just discovered because of the 1/6 Clownshow…I mean Commission. In my lifetime alone, there have been untold number of investigations into just about every conceivable political scandal from Iran/Contra to 1/6, and not one of them has resulted in any tangible benefit to us. So far, the 1/6 Clownshow…I mean Commission is following the same playbook.
The heart of the problem is these investigations aren’t honest from the jump. Oh, you’ll hear supporters say they want to “uncover the truth,” but they don’t want to uncover all of it; just the parts that will help their political allies in the near future. These investigations are designed to uncover their truth, not the truth. And there is a big difference between the two. For one, the former has two more letters.
When you start off an investigation with a bias for or against one of the involved parties, the results are going to be tainted. It’s like the old computer term GIGO, or Garbage In, Garbage Out. You can’t expect a good outcome from bad faith. And with all of the blue ribbon commissions and Congressional investigations I’ve seen, bad faith is the coin of the realm.
Take the Benghazi hearings, for example. As much time and money as we spent on trying to get to the bottom of the deaths of four Americans due to the Obama Administration’s foreign policy leaders being dumber than a bag of hammers, nobody was held accountable. Nobody got fired, arrested, or thrown in Gitmo. One of the major players, Hillary Clinton, walked away without a scratch and managed to convince enough people she would be a great President in spite of the fact she already lost once before to Barack Obama, who was George Washington compared to the Hilldog. And no matter what happened, it is still considered to be a partisan witch hunt by the Left.
Therein lies the next problem with these types of investigations and commissions: it’s near-impossible to remove the ideological bent from the process. There could be a Congressional investigation into the best flavor of snow cone and someone could turn it into a political issue. (Of course, those people are secretly working for Big Cherry or Big Grape, but you didn’t hear that from me.) A big reason for this is that in Washington, everything is political, from the shoes you wear to where you get a tuna melt on rye. When everything can be turned into a political football, truth becomes a casualty.
The funniest part of these investigations to me is how the people behind them go out of their way to try to appear bipartisan by getting people allegedly from both sides of the aisle to participate. Think of it like Affirmative Action, but for less qualified people. It doesn’t matter if the participants hang with the Donkeys or ride with the Elephants if they all have a vested interest in achieving a common goal, which usually is to deflect blame from institutional fuck-ups and find acceptable scapegoats. This results in findings that are more watered down than mixed drinks in Amish strip clubs.
Anyone remember the 9/11 Commission? If you don’t, it’s no big deal. Their findings so laughable and obvious, they were akin to “Don’t stick your fork in the toaster.” And it was done precisely to avoid dealing with the real problems, such as the FBI and CIA not talking to each other on important matters like, oh I don’t know, international terrorists plotting to take over airplanes and crash them into government buildings. In fact, I think one of the 9/11 Commission’s findings was “Don’t let terrorists take over planes and crash them into buildings.”
Yet, with all of their sage advice, are we any safer flying? Sure, the TSA can still give us complementary rectal exams with each flight, but aside from finding the occasional polyp, the answer is a resounding no. So, this begs the question of why we spent all this money and time on what was a waste of both. And the answer is simple: because Congress wanted to give some political buddies the cushiest temp job ever. No results expected, no quality checks provided. Just show up, rustle around some papers, hold a hearing or two, and collect a fat paycheck in between media appearances to talk about how important the work of the commission is and how hard the members are working.
This does a disservice to all Americans. We trust our leaders to represent our best interests, and that trust gets abused more than Ike abused Tina. Yet, whenever there’s a new scandal that gains enough momentum to inspire politicians to do something, we play the same game over and over again and get the same results.
I know Leftists really want the 1/6 Commission to be different, but it won’t be. They’re already a laughingstock in a country that helped make Rebecca Black a music star, and it’s safe to say their results are going to be vastly disappointing to the hardcore “Arrest Trump” crowd. Nothing of significance will come of it because it’s not supposed to happen. All it does is give people with more axes to grind than a lumber camp a chance to get time in the spotlight, collect a paycheck, and look good to people who are already on their side in the first place.
Then, when the inevitable happens, people who put so much faith in the outcome will be pissed off and rant about how the guilty are going unpunished because [insert partisan squawking point here]. That makes for great Twitter engagement, but it’s piss-poor when it comes to actually accomplishing something.
Going forward, I would love to see Congressional investigations outsourced to independent investigators. Maybe someone like Columbo or Sam Spade with no real agenda aside from figuring out the guilty parties and bringing them to justice. Sure, they’re both fictional characters, but after seeing how real Congresscritters do things, we could do a hell of a lot worse than letting fictional characters run things.
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.
A Nuclear Iran?
While people’s attentions have been focused on the war in Ukraine (if their Twitter bios are any indication), there have been some big goings on in the Middle East, namely Iran. A recent story from The Jerusalem Post suggests Iran might either be close to or has nuclear weapon capability. Granted, this is a report from Iran itself filtered through Al Jazeera (the Salon of the Islamic world in your humble reporter’s opinion), so we might have to take Iran’s word with a Mount Everest-sized grain of salt.
However, I happen to take a slightly less optimistic view of this news. For a few years now, I have predicted Iran would go nuclear sooner rather than later, and it wouldn’t be for power generation as the Iranian government and their Leftist enablers in America would have us believe. Think about it for a moment. Iran has one of the largest oil deposits in the world under their feet, so why would they want to go nuclear?
Here’s a hint: they’re not trying to go green, kids.
The fact of the matter is Iran has had nuclear designs since former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (whom I affectionately call Mahmoud Imadinnerjacket) came onto the scene. At the time, Leftists swooned over Imadinnerjacket because he was critical of then-President George W. Bush. (That, and Leftists are massive dumbasses when it comes to the Middle East.) After a brief love affair, Leftists must have lost his number and promptly ghosted him. Either that, or it was his speech where he claimed there were no gay people in Iran (mainly because he killed them on sight). Six of one, half a dozen of another, I guess…
Anyway, we managed to stymie Iran’s nuclear development until President Barack Obama decided the people who loved to chant “Death to America” were trustworthy enough to honor a deal with us to not develop nuclear weapons in exchange for the easing of sanctions against them. Oh, and a tidy $1.7 billion in cash. No way that could backfire, amirite? Not with the brilliant foreign policy of John “I Was For Kissing Iran’s Ass Before I Was For It” Kerry!
As little faith as I have in Kerry’s ability to negotiate for a $5 foot long at Subway, I have even less faith in Iran telling us the truth. Not only do they have a vested interest in keeping their nuclear arms program on the lowest of down-lows, but they still see us as an enemy to be wiped from the face of this earth. Although with inflation these days, we may be downgraded from “Great Satan” to “Mostly Okay Satan” to save some money, but the point remains the same. We are less likely to see Seth Rogan winning a Best Actor Oscar than we are to making Iran our newest buddy.
Of course, no foreign policy blunder would be complete without some level of confusion. Although the Iran Deal promised it would prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, there is some controversy over whether Iran actually kept up its end of the deal. Of course, when these accusations went public, Iran claimed it was the coalition that put the Iran Deal together that reneged on the agreement, which left them free to continue what they were most likely doing in the first place.
Complicating matters further is the aforementioned announcement came with a threat to attack Israel (who actually is a buddy globally) if they attempt to stop Iran’s nuclear development. Historically, the US and Israel have been on good terms, but recently that hasn’t always been the case. Thanks to former President Obama, Israel has learned it can’t always count on us to back its play on the geopolitical stage. Even with Obama’s former Vice President at the helm, there haven’t been any indications President Biden will be recycling the Obama approach. Even so, I’m guessing Israel might still have a few sleepless nights worrying.
After all, the President is a guy who thought dividing Iraq into three separate states was a good idea.
Either way, there may be some out there who question the Jerusalem Post‘s reporting since they have a vested interest in parroting the official line of the country. This is a fair point, in my opinion, but it also applies to Al Jazeera. If bias is a disqualifying point for one side, it needs to be a disqualifying point for both sides. Of course, Leftists don’t want that since they have a hate boner for Israel. Not their money, mind you. Just the country itself. Plus, the Left has raved about Al Jazeera’s reporting for years now, which calls into question how objective they can be with the Jerusalem Post. (Not to mention whether they know the first thing about actual reporting.)
For me, it’s pretty much a wash. If we’re being honest (and I really have no reason not to be here), it’s clear both the Jerusalem Post and Al Jazeera have agendas, which will skew everything from hard news to the weather report if unchecked. So, which side is telling the truth?
That’s when I apply a little common sense to see if I can find the more plausible/likely scenario. Neither Israel nor Iran has completely clean hands, but Iran has been playing around in the coal mines from a transparency perspective. They have a long track record of not digging our scene, which gives them every justification in their minds to try to pull one over on us. What better way to do that than by developing nuclear weapons in direct defiance of our efforts and the Iran Deal we put in place?
Israel, on the other hand, doesn’t have any such motivation. They are stronger than they let on, but they still need our help to maintain that strength. And let’s not overlook the fact Israel has had nukes since the mid-to-late 60s and hasn’t once threatened to destroy us. That goes a long way with me.
When all these factors are considered, it’s more likely Iran has nuclear weapons, but has been slow-rolling us to give the impression they’re complying with the Iran Deal. There are just too many questions to give them the benefit of the doubt here.
And that should scare the shit out of us. The fact the prospect of a nuclear Iran isn’t even a blip on our proverbial radar is a bad sign foretelling a worse outcome unless we take it seriously.
In a society where we’re more worked up over the number of genders than we are a country that hates our guts and will be a nuclear power sooner rather than later, is it any wonder I think we’re doomed?
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.
No Communion for You
Back in May, the Archbishop of San Francisco, the Most Reverend Salvatore Cordileone, issued a public statement concerning a prominent member of his archdiocese; Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.
After making numerous attempts to have a private meeting with The Speaker and being denied at every turn. The Archbishop did the only sensible and correct thing under Canon Law. He denied communion to her within his archdiocese.
This is a simple corrective measure used by the Church to bring attention to the matter to a wayward member. This isn’t political or the weaponizing of the Church. It has been used for centuries to correct errors.
Nancy Pelosi claims to be a devout Catholic in public, as do many other politicians. But she doesn’t follow Church teachings and doctrine when it comes to abortion and other sins. And her refusing to have a meeting with her own Archbishop clearly shows she is unrepentant in this matter.
Some say that communion or the Eucharist is for everyone. This is not true at all. It is for the body of believers not to the ungodly. And even within a Catholic Mass, communion is offered only to other Catholics, not to Protestants who may be attending.
At the end of June, The Speaker was traveling abroad and she attended Mass at the Vatican. There she received communion from the head of the Roman Catholic Church, Pope Francis himself.
This snub against one of the Pope’s archbishops doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. I have written many times about Pope Francis and his Marxist roots. He is a full blown serpent in the heart of the Garden of Christendom. A false teacher, an anti-Christ, and a Leftist.
Bodily Autonomy
Once again the Left is shouting about “Bodily Autonomy” and how it is an essential unconditional liberty. This due to the the recent opinion of the Supreme Court stating that there were in error back in 1973 about abortion being a right.
Of course, just last year, when another movement picked up the mantra of “My Body, My Choice”. The essential unconditional liberty of Bodily Autonomy suddenly had conditions and didn’t apply to those who didn’t want to opt out of the Covid Jab.
This just shows how two-faced the Left really is. Bodily Autonomy only applies to having an abortion on demand. Any other use just isn’t allowed. Unless the Left also supports it.
If Bodily Autonomy was really just an essential unconditional liberty. Then it would apply to anyone who claims “My Body, My Choice” for any condition.
But in reality, it is not. There are many laws that say what we can do and what we cannot due with our own bodies. Yet the Left doesn’t go out of their way to attack any of those laws.
The Left is only about rules for thee and not for me.
#pyhrricvictory
After a long, hard battle, Elon Musk has decided not to try to buy the online cesspool that is Twitter. In reaction, the Board of Directors (i.e. the Twits in Charge) are taking him to court to force him to buy Twitter. While this is being used as fuel for the anti-Musk forces to mock and criticize him, there’s a bit more to it than they care to admit.
Now, I’m no businessman, but if you have someone willing to purchase your company for a significant sum of money that would rival the GDP of some small countries, there should be a built-in incentive to make the process as painless as possible. But since we’re dealing with Twitter here, we’re not dealing with smart people making decisions.
First, they took the firm stand they would not sell Twitter to Musk because they disagreed with his vision and ideology. (In other words, they were afraid he would overturn the virtual apple cart and reverse the bans of certain users the Left hated.) Because of this stance, they threw up more roadblocks than a road crew working straight commission. One of those roadblocks was not providing accurate information to Musk, which ultimately lead to him pulling out of the deal.
Now, the Twits in Charge are taking Musk to court…where this potential breach of contract can be litigated, i.e. exposed, and make it easier for him to get out of the deal. Yes, the discovery process goes both ways, as Twitter will be able to ask for information that will help their case, but given how badly the Twits in Charge have fucked up the deal so far, I have no doubt their lawyers might be as incompetent as the Twits in Charge are. I mean, they work for Twitter, for fuck’s sake!
Then, there’s the potential financial fallout to consider. If the court rules in Musk’s favor, Twitter loses out on a shit-ton (or for our Canadian readers, a metric shit-ton) of money not just from Musk, but from others. The reputational risk alone would be enough to tank Twitter’s future earnings, and it’s not like the Leftists who dominate it are going to be able to pony up enough money to keep it afloat.
If Twitter wins, the risks can be spread out to both parties, but it will be much harder sledding for them. After all, would you like to try to explain why they had to force someone to buy your company? Talk about your bad temp jobs!
While the Twits in Charge try to figure out how to get out of their personal Kobayashi Maru, I would avoid investing in Twitter for the time being. The platform is more toxic than a Super Fund clean-up site (albeit a lot less expensive) and the business model doesn’t seem to be all that stable due to the Board of Directors’ lack of vision and inconsistent/irrational decision-making. However, I do have something you can invest in while watching this train wreck of a flaming dumpster fire.
Popcorn.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Over the July 4th weekend, there was another mass shooting, this one in Highland Park, Illinois. The shooter (who will remain nameless because he’s a piece of shit) opened fire on a parade, killing seven and injuring several more. Although many people on both sides of the aisle expressed sympathy and some used it to advance the need for stricter gun control, some Leftists asked an unexpected question.
Where was Kyle Rittenhouse?
An odd flex, to be sure, but one not without a purpose.
Kyle Rittenhouse
What the Left thinks it means – a murderer who is the poster child for mass shooters everywhere
What it really means – a young man who beat long odds against Leftist disinformation
To gain the necessary context for the current discussion, we have to go waaaaaaaaaaay back to…2020. During the mostly peaceful rioting…I mean protesting in Kenosha, Wisconsin, Kyle Rittenhouse went to offer help. Armed with a medical kit and an AR-15, he waded into the middle of a devolving situation and attempted to prevent a flaming dumpster fire from causing property damage, both literally and figuratively.
After that, the rioters…I mean protesters started chasing him, some with the intent of using his head for a pinata. When it became evident the people chasing him weren’t going to ask if he wanted smores, but instead wanted to do him bodily harm, Rittenhouse shot and killed 2 people and injured a third in self defense. The subsequent trial acquitted him of any wrong-doing and Rittenhouse left the courtroom a free man.
Of course, that’s not how the Left tells the tale.
From the outset, Leftists attempted to paint Rittenhouse as a trigger-happy kid looking to get in the middle of the protest and start trouble. They went so far as to say not only was he guilty of murder, but he did so by crossing state lines with a gun he obtained illegally and with the sole intent of killing blacks. No amount of evidence, testimony, and a little thing the kids call common sense could sway them. To Leftists, Rittenhouse was worse than Adolf Hitler, Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, and Nickelback put together!
Naturally, when Rittenhouse was acquitted because a) the evidence, testimony, and common sense were on his side, and b) the prosecution lawyers were 20th degree black belts in dumbassery, Leftists couldn’t take it. After all the time and energy they spent to make him look guilty as hell, he walked. I’ve seen little league parents take losses better than Leftists.
If that were the end of the story, we wouldn’t still be talking about Rittenhouse and this would be one of my shortest Leftist Lexicon entries in history. But the Left has this core flaw: they hold a grudge. If you beat them in spite of their best efforts, they will never let you live it down, and everything they say and do to oppose you is justified in their minds. Just ask Clarence Thomas about his experiences being a Leftist target for close to 40 years.
With Rittenhouse, the Left have a ready-made whipping boy (as opposed to a Ready-Whip made boy) to bring up whenever there’s a shooting, no matter how tangential and strenuous the connection is. Given enough time, Leftists might connect Rittenhouse to another shooting because they both wear pants.
Note to Leftists: that was a joke, not a suggestion.
Since they’re already conditioned to believe the worst in Rittenhouse, Leftists have no problem extending their caricature to any situation they can use to perpetuate the myth. And each time the myth gets repeated, the truth gets further out of reach for everyone except those who have this stubborn belief the facts might actually matter when it means the difference between character affirmation and character assassination.
The thing that really pisses me off about the Left’s treatment of Rittenhouse is how dehumanizing they are towards him. Whether you agree with his decision to shoot three people, there is still a young man behind the rhetoric coming from both sides, a young man who made a difficult decision and has to deal with the consequences of his actions even if the legal consequences are a moot point. I don’t know him personally, so you can take my observations with a Great Salt Lake of salt, but the vibe I get from him isn’t one of a heartless killing machine full of rage and hatred. What I see is someone who has been through Hell and lived to tell the tale. No matter what, his actions have a psychological toll only worsened by misinformed judgmental assholes whose knowledge of the facts is scarcer than baby formula right now. Besides, I have the market for judgmental assholes cornered.
I know it’s dirt simple for Leftists to get hate clicks by taking as-subtle-as-King-Kong-in-a-neon-jumpsuit jabs at Kyle Rittenhouse, but it serves no substantive purpose. At best, you are only perpetuating the echo chamber. At worst, you are setting a young man up to fail so you can point and say “See? We were right all along!” when he inevitably fails. The difference is Rittenhouse isn’t a guy like George Zimmerman who was a fuck-up of a person before he got famous or infamous as the case may be. He’s a young man who tried to do the right thing in the midst of people actively doing the wrong thing. Of course, if he turns out to be Zimmerman 2.0 later in life, I will happily retract my statement because I’m not afraid to admit when I’m wrong. That’s more than you’ll get from any Leftist.
For now, though, linking him to every mass shooting is low-hanging fruit and intellectually lazy thinking, even in jest. Of course, if you’re serious, do us a favor and get some scissors with the rounded ends so you don’t hurt somebody, ‘kay?
Row v. Wade Overturned
On Friday, the 24th of June in the Year of Our Lord 2022, the United States Supreme Court issued a historic opinion.
The overturning of the 1973 opinion of Roe v. Wade. Stating that the United States Constitution does not confer a fundamental right to an abortion.
This opinion does not outlaw the practice of abortion. It does return it to the Several States where it rightfully belongs to be legislated.
Abortion was never a right. And the US Supreme Court and lower courts have a long history of implying rights under the Constitution that just aren’t there. There is no right to an abortion.
There is a right to privacy of course. This is protected in the US Constitution. But that doesn’t mean that any person can end the life of another yet to be born child without cause.
What is an exceptable cause? That is for the States to determine. Because the right to Life and due process are protected by the US Constitution.
There maybe some instances where abortion is necessary. This does not diminish the fact that it is ending another life in the womb. It just should never be preformed for trivial reasons.
Of course the idiots on the Left are shouting that this is only the beginning. And think that the High Court will also issue other opinions such as removing the right to vote from women as well.
This absurd and shows the ignorance of those who believe such nonsense. The right to vote is clearly written in the US Constitution. And the High Court cannot simply issue an opinion removing it any more than they can issue an opinion voiding the 2nd Amendment.