Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

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

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

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

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

filibuster

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not so much.

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

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

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

Yeah. We’re going there.

Roe v. Wade

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

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

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

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

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

Just kidding!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

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

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

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

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

Section 230

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Including twisting the rules of the online road.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

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

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

American Bar Association

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Last week the Biden Administration finally took action on an issue that consumed our nation’s attention. And I, for one, want to give the President credit due him for taking a bold stand against…ghost guns.

Confused? You should be. This was a new one for me, considering the only ghost guns I knew of came from the Ghostbusters and they were fictional characters. However, the Left wants us to believe ghost guns are a real threat to society, which obviously means it is…to Leftists.

ghost guns

What the Left thinks it means – a dangerous variant on the already escalating gun problem in America

What it really means – the inevitable result of gun control laws

To put an actual concept to the term, ghost guns are firearm kits or weapons that can be purchased online without a background check. What makes them so concerning to Leftists is the fact they are untraceable and lack a serial number, so they can’t be traced back to an individual. Although the Left wants to frame this as a public safety issue, there’s a more obvious explanation of why Leftists are freaking out about ghost guns.

Ghost guns avoid Leftist gun control laws and the licensing fees connected to them.

Whenever you come across a Leftist issue like this that doesn’t seem to make much sense to introduce at a particular time (so, basically, any Leftist issue), most likely it’s being brought up because of money, power, or both, since these are the motivating factors behind anything the Left does. Altruism doesn’t enter into the picture unless it’s spending other people’s money to accomplish it. They’re in it for purely prurient reasons.

Case in point: gun control laws.

Have you noticed the number of gun-related deaths in cities and areas with strict gun control laws? Why, it’s almost as though…criminals don’t follow laws or something! But instead of packing it in and realizing they are walking definitions of insanity, Leftists double down (or would it be double-barrel down) on more gun laws, knowing they don’t work as well as they want us to believe. But they do work in generating income and creating a power dynamic that allows the government to dictate to peons…I mean citizens. In some places, a cat can haz cheezburger before even law-abiding citizens can get a gun permit, and it’s even worse in “may issue” states where you can be denied a permit even if you jump through the legal hoops to get one simply because the government says so.

But remember, kids, Republicans are the ones who want to dictate to us how to live our lives because Leftists say so.

It is said necessity is the mother of invention, but being able to piss off Leftists is a pretty good motivator, too. Instead of knuckling under to Leftist demands, people have been figuring out ways to make working firearms and making money off it and keeping the Leftists out of the process altogether. It’s the American Dream as written by the NRA!

By making it more difficult to own firearms, making moves to make it harder and more expensive to get ammunition (which, by the way, is also a DIY project), and doing next to nothing about the proliferation of violent crime, Leftists laid the groundwork for ghost guns to be a thing. Nothing like a self-own to make a Leftist idea go up in flames like the Hindenburg.

Which brings us to another reason the Left introduced the ghost guns issue right now: the Biden Administration has been the political equivalent of a flaming bag of dog shit put on America’s front porch while Kamala Harris rings the doorbell. Between the never-ending Hunter Biden scandals and the numerous bouts of political, economic, and foreign policy incompetence, Joe Biden needed a win. Unfortunately for him, this ain’t it. Most people don’t know even know what a ghost gun is, but the President decided to make it the focal point of a Rose Garden event. It’s like letting Hannah Gadsby headline a comedy show, or the opening of a Blockbuster Video for that matter: those who know are already going to go, but most people won’t and there’s not enough interest to attract them.

I know this is going to be a risky prediction to make, but dammit I really think this one’s going to pan out. Any laws or regulations concerning ghost guns is going to fail. I’m no Nostradamus, but given the track record of gun control laws and their failure to address gun violence in any meaningful way, I’m confident this will end the same way and for the same reason: Leftists don’t think far enough ahead to see the fatal flaws of their ideas. Which makes it better for us because a) it lays the groundwork for those ideas to be challenged and eventually defeated, b) it gives us ongoing topics for blog posts, and c) it provides endless opportunities for humor!

Unlike Hannah Gadsby.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

This week the Left experienced a great disturbance in the Farce…I mean Force, as if thousands of voices cried out and were silenced. Did they finally see what was on Hunter Biden’s laptops? Did the Socialist Socialite decide not to run for office again? Did Nickelback announce a new album? Nope! Something far, far worse.

Elon Musk bought nearly 10% of stock in Twitter, giving him a seat on their board.

The Leftist meltdown has been a joy to behold because it gives us an insight into how little the Left understands the underlying concepts at work here and how they’ve managed to screw up something so simple. Plus, it’s funny watching Twitter Leftists with hair color matching their blue checkmarks get triggered.

Twitter

What the Left thinks it means – an influential social media platform run by a private company

What it really means – the online equivalent of a SuperFund clean-up site

Now, for the “Star Wars” fans out there, I was tempted to compare Twitter to Mos Eisley (a.k.a. “a wretched hive of scum and villainy”), but that wouldn’t have been fair. Mos Eisley is far less toxic than Twitter and I don’t want their Chamber of Commerce on my ass for comparing the two.

Anyway, as you might have guessed, I have a pretty low opinion of Twitter, and that’s not without reason. The primary reason for this is the multitude of really dumb things said on it that other Twits…I mean Twitter users think are profound and worthy of further investigation. I point you in the direction of the Tweets of Bette Midler, Keith Olbermann, and my personal favorite Cher, among many, many others. Politicians, celebrities, athletes, and political and social movement spew whatever comes out of their pointy little heads and the world can see it. I know sunlight is the best disinfectant, but too many Twits…I mean Twitter users are using it as a spotlight.

Granted, that is more of a personal thing with me, but Twitter’s application of its own Terms of Service is more far-reaching. Since the advent of President Donald Trump, Twitter and other social media companies have taken it upon themselves to act like information gatekeepers, fact checkers, and Internet cops all in one. And they were as effective as the Weekly World News, PolitiFact, and Paul Blart all in one. From holding conservatives ultra-accountable for infractions (real or imagined) that Leftists get away with repeatedly without consequence to out-and-out banning accounts for “misinformation” for the unforgivable sin of providing information about COVID-19 that wasn’t getting covered otherwise, let’s just say Twitter’s track record in applying inconsistent standards, let alone consistent ones, isn’t good.

Then, there’s Hunter Biden and his laptops. Twitter and other social media actively ran interference for President Joe Biden by punishing people and organizations who decided to, you know, pay attention about something Leftists didn’t want to address right before the 2020 Presidential election. But Russiagate and its offshoot Pissgate are given a wider berth than Michael Moore at an all-you-can-eat buffet. But it’s not like Twitter has been slow to restore accounts they erroneously termina…oh, wait. We’re still waiting on Twitter to man up and restore the accounts.

Let’s just say I’m not holding my breath on that.

Having said that, Elon Musk jumping into the Twitterverse and buying enough stock to make the world take notice may turn out to be a bigger blessing than the Left wants to admit. Within the past few days, he has already shown to be an active listener to the users and actively ask them if they wanted an Edit feature added to Twitter. You would think he was handing out free tickets to a Scandinavian orgy the way Twitter users responded. Whether that comes to fruition is yet to be seen, but I’m going to guess Musk is going to bring Twitter into the 20th Century by allowing something Microsoft Word has had since, oh, Bill Gates had a decent haircut.

As you might expect, Leftists aren’t happy that Musk is getting involved in Twitter because they’re afraid he’s going to change the current model, which is “Let Leftists have all the perks, privilege, and protection while fucking over everyone else.” Who knew such a short-sighted approach would have negative consequences? Even the threat of Musk making slight changes to how the Terms of Service is applied has Leftists screaming about how fascist he is. I mean, more than usual.

For years, Leftists have relied upon Twitter being a private company as a defense against anyone accusing the social media giant of censorship and violation of free speech rights. To be fair, though, they do have a point. Twitter is a private company and can write and enforce whatever rules they want. But with that flexibility comes an expectation to enforce the rules evenly. Even with my already low expectations of Twitter, the brain trust there keeps figuring out ways to limbo under them when it comes to enforcement.

Ah, but there’s the rub. Under the current status quo, Leftists have all the power, thus turning Twitter into an echo chamber of Leftist ideas. Even the most extreme ideas are held on equal footing with merely stupid Leftist ideas, all because a good chunk of Twitter employees think it’s their job to promote “right” thinking. Put another way, these folks are the Ministry of Truth in the cyber world. If someone they agree with says 2 + 2 = 5, you had better be ready to Tweet it without question.

That should scare you more than Elon Musk scares Twitter.

While the Left tries to figure out how to hold onto their Ministry, we can enjoy the shitshow for what it is: well, a shitshow. As far as getting a Twitter account or maintaining it, I would hold off for now if only to see what Elon Musk does with his newfound social media power. I wish him all the best, regardless of what he does, because he’s going to need all the good vibes he can get.

But, to be crystal clear, I won’t get a Twitter account until someone adds a lot of chlorine to the social media swimming pool.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

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

Bingo.

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

taxation

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

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

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

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

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

Leftists use taxation as a purely punitive measure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Leftist Lexicon W0rd of the Week

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

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

woman

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

What it really means – an adult biological female

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

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

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

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

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

treason

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

What it really means – actions that undermine Leftist ideals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matt Romney, as in Mitt’s son.

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

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

Or Mitt Romney, but I repeat myself.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

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

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

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

protest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just ask CNN or its new owner, Nick Sandmann.

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

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

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

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

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