When you think about it (and I do because I really have no life), the English language has a lot of words and phrases that come from combining two words or concepts. Some of them work, like “ginormous” which combines gigantic and enormous which are synonyms for “big.” Others, like “jumbo shrimp” or “House Intelligence Committee,” don’t work so well because they contradict each other.
This week the Left rolled out a new phrase to describe a threat they see underneath their beds, that being “Christian nationalist.” Whether this phrase is the next “ginormous” or “House Intelligence Committee” has yet to be seen, but I think it warrants a deep dive to give us a better perspective on this new turn of a phrase.
Christian nationalist
What the Left thinks it means – the newest threat to our democracy, conservatives who believe Christianity should be the primary inspiration for our government
What it really means – a turn of a phrase that shows the Left knows nothing about either
Although Christian nationalism has only recently come into focus, the concept has been around for a few years. In fact, the Leftists at the New York Times have linked it to the rise of Donald Trump, mainly because it seems the faithful and the nationalist in America flocked to his message. Which, of course in the hivemind of the Left, makes them domestic terrorists in training. In fact, if Christian nationalists aren’t stopped now, we could find ourselves in the midst of another rise of Hitler…or is the The Handmaid’s Tale this week? In either case, it’s bad.
Or is it?
I won’t pretend there isn’t the possibility of bad outcomes with Christian nationalism, mainly because there are people willing to twist Christian doctrine towards political ends because, let’s face it, there are some asshats out there. Having said that, I’m not sure Christian nationalism is as much of a threat as the Left would lead us to believe. Imagine that. Leftists overstating a problem to whip up hysteria and fear for political gains. Who would have thunk it?
Anyway, we need to look at both parts of the phrase to understand what the Left is trying to portray as a threat and whether the threat is credible. First, let’s look at Christianity as a whole. After all, nothing like pissing off as many people as possible, right?
Although individual faiths and mileage may vary, the Bible is pretty clear on matters of governance: governments are established by God’s will, as outlined in Romans 13:1-3:
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended
Notice something that’s missing in that passage? A reference to nationalism. Well, that, and a good meatloaf recipe, but that’s a discussion for another time.
Although God teaches us to follow the law, there is still an acknowledgement of the possibility of wicked men and women getting into positions of power and making laws that go against the Word. And, remember, this was before Las Vegas was built. As a result, Christians are also taught to focus not on the world of Man, but on the world of God because we are taught Man is sinful and imperfect. And anyone who has followed politics in the past few decades can attest to both being true.
So, where does nationalism come into play? As noted above, the Bible doesn’t mention nationalism, which puts it clearly in the world of Man. The best way to describe it is what you get when you inject steroids and PCP into patriotism. It goes beyond merely loving one’s country and into a belief the country itself is the best in the world under any and all circumstances. The only problem with this idea is it assumes the country cannot make mistakes and always does the right thing. Again, see the past few decades of American politics for proof this ain’t the case.
When you combine Christians and nationalism, you get…a confusing mess. On the one hand, the faithful are to accept the government we have because God put the elected officials there (that, and the dead voters in Chicago in Illinois Democrats’ cases) and Man is imperfect. On the other hand, nationalists believe the country we have is perfect and should be the model for everyone else to follow. Maybe it’s just my weird way of looking at things, but wouldn’t nationalism mean its proponents put the country, ruled by imperfect people, above God? And wouldn’t that make Christian nationalism contradictory?
Why, yes. Yes on both counts.
But the Left doesn’t want us to think that hard about it. Just accept Christian nationalists are super-duper dagnasty evil and be done with it. There’s a tiny problem with that, however, and it stems from how the Left sees religion as a whole.
The religious have been stereotyped in pop culture as being so uptight not even WD-40 could loosen them up. Oh, and that each one is a super goody-two-shoes who are also flaming hypocrites on any and all subjects. Of course, if you are a person of faith who just happens to vote straight-ticket Democrat, you’re doing right by your Lord and by your party. Hmmm…didn’t Jesus say something about not being able to serve two masters?
Why, yes. Yes He did. Matthew 6:24 for the people praying along at home:
No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.
Although the verse specifically mentions money, the same principle applies to politics, which also involves money these days. Even so, the point remains. You cannot serve God and Man at the same time without running into the kind of theological and moral quandaries only Man could invent for ourselves. And you thought Elon Musk was clever!
However, this doesn’t prevent the Left from perpetuating the stereotypes they’ve spent decades perfecting. They rely on it to make any openly Christian politician look two-faced and phony, and it works for the most part thanks to tactics from what’s become a Bible of sorts to the Left, Rules for Radicals. One of the rules boils down to making your opponents live up to their own standards, which gives Leftists plenty of political fodder to use when the opponents don’t. By building the “Christians are moralizing hypocrites” strawman, the Left have an easy way to knock down people of faith.
Then, they put a little more English (that’s spin, not the language) onto it by lumping Christians in with nationalists to create a Frankenstein’s Strawman of undesirables. And linking it to Donald Trump? That’s your trifecta of fuckery there, kids!
Here’s the funny thing, though. The Left’s knowledge of Christianity and nationalism don’t go much beyond the stereotypes they build. I’m as shocked as you are to learn Leftists are lazy thinkers, but I think we can overcome the surprise and disappointment.
Christianity is much more than an ideology or a political faction. It is a way of life. The faithful take God’s Word to heart and try to live their lives in a Godly way while knowing they will fail. And it’s not a cult mentality, either. If you stop and get to know Christians, you’ll find they’re not that different from most regular people (which excludes Leftists since, well, they ain’t regular). They worry about the future of the country like we all do from time to time. They want to be able to put food on the table and roofs over their heads. And, yes, they want politicians to represent their interests in office.
But does that mean Christian nationalists are evil? Not really. Maybe confused or unclear about what the Bible teaches, but not evil..yet. There are Fred Phelps types out there who have no problem twisting the Bible into hateful rhetoric, and here’s the part Leftists don’t get: Christians are taught to look out for these types and not follow. And given the Westboro Baptist Church has fewer members than Republican hosts on MSNBC, I don’t think they’re as pervasive a force as they and the Left think they are.
Which leads us to question whether Christian nationalism is a problem. Well, this is going to shock you, but I’m going to say they aren’t. We’re not dealing with a massive movement that attracts people on a daily basis, but rather a few cranks who think their combination of Christian faith and nationalism is the only way to go.
And the Leftists who are giving them more attention than they warrant.
That’s right, kids. The Left has a vested interest in getting people to worry about Christian nationalists, and it boils down to money, power, and division. Just like with mass shootings, Leftists need there to be unrest caused by people they deem undesirable to gin up nightmare scenarios that never seem to come true. Remember, these are the same Leftists who told us Donald Trump would get us into a war with China. And as we found out recently, apparently that was Nancy Pelosi’s job.
Regardless of what, if any, faith you follow, it should concern you Leftists are working so hard to make you afraid of a theocracy that has been threatened for decades, but has yet to materialize in any way. What are they trying to hide or divert our attentions from, exactly?
Oh, yeah. Leftists suck at governing.
If your track record was as much of a flaming bag of dog shit as Joe Biden’s, wouldn’t you try to invent an enemy to bash?
Tag: leftist lexicon
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
There’s a word Leftists don’t want to use right now, and for once it has nothing to do with Donald Trump. They’ve spent the better part of a year downplaying it, pretending it isn’t a thing, talking up how good the economy really is, and gaslighting anyone who doesn’t buy the happy talk or the memory-holing of this one little word.
Recession.
The Left may not want to talk about it, but we’re living it right now, so we need to be brave enough to tackle it head on.
recession
What the Left thinks it means – an economic downturn caused by Republican/conservative economic policies
What it really means – the direct result of shitty federal financial decisions
You know a situation is bad when the Left has to try to redefine a term it’s been using for decades to attack conservative Presidents. Right now, the Left has been running interference, saying the actual definition of a recession is much more nuanced and complex. In fact, it’s so nuanced and complex that not even Leftists can define it yet, but they know enough to tell us we’re not in one.
Meanwhile in the real world, there is a pretty simple definition. I’ve provided a link to a more detailed explanation, but the short version is two straight quarters (or six months, if you’d prefer) of economic downturn. And no matter how many Leftist fact rejecters…I mean checkers say otherwise, we are hip deep in an economic downturn. How do I know?
New York Times pundit and resident laughingstock in economist circles Paul Krugman.
See, Krugman says we should ignore the definition of a recession that’s been used for, oh, decades and use one that doesn’t make the Biden Administration look like dumbasses. And, remember, kids, this asshat is a Nobel Prize winner, as every Leftist looking to appeal to authority on economic issues will tell you.
But, the thing to remember is he’s wrong. A lot. I’m talking more than the world’s worst TV weatherman. He’s even had to admit he got a lot wrong about the current situation because no one could have predicted everything that’s happened recently, like Russia invading Ukraine and supply chain issues.
You know, shit economists are supposed to account for when making projections?
The easiest rule to apply to Krugman and most Leftists pontificating about economics is to listen to what they say, do the exact opposite, and rake in the cash. And in this world where almost nothing is a sure bet, this is the exception.
Of course, there is a political angle to denying the economic reality. With the economy diving more than Jacques Cousteau, voters are looking for answers, or at the very least somebody to blame. And who has been in power since things have gone south? Why, it’s Democrats and Leftists! Typically midterm elections aren’t good for the party in power, but add in a recession, inflation, and supply chain issues, and Democrats will be lucky just to walk away from the 2022 elections holding onto even some semblance of political power higher than It Takes a Village Idiot.
Therefore, the Left has a vested interest in muddying the waters and telling us we’re stupid if we don’t listen to them. If they can make enough voters believe the economic hellscape we’re living in right now a) isn’t happening, b) is happening, but is Republicans’ faults, or c) you’re a racist, Leftists can preserve their power for a little while longer. If they can come out of the midterm elections with a respectable showing (i.e. not being tarred and feathered), they can use that as momentum going into 2024 where they will have to defend 4 years of moronic decisions made by a man best suited to be retired, not President.
Good luck with that.
The downside to this approach is our pocketbooks have more of an impact on our voting decisions than some high-minded rhetoric by lowlife politicians. If we’re having trouble making ends meet as a direct result of the bad decisions of our elected officials (like, you know, not paying attention when their decisions wind up hurting voters’ pocketbooks), it tends to turn off a lot of potential voters. However, sales of torches and pitchforks may skyrocket. Invest wisely, my friends.
While our elected officials on the Left tell us the economy is fine, it’s important to remember they don’t know what they’re talking about because a) they can’t feel their way to a strong economy, and b) they really don’t know/care about the struggles John Q. Public face since they’re getting rich by doing next to nothing. All they care about is maintaining their cushy lifestyles by any means necessary. And if they have to roll up their tinted limousine windows to avoid looking at it, they will.
At least until it’s time to lobby for votes.
Ignorance can be excused to a point. (Exceptions may apply. I’m looking at you, Socialist Socialite!) Callousness cannot. Right now, it’s hard to tell which one is driving the Left’s obsession with not facing the economic reality facing us right now, but neither one makes them look very good.
If there are any Republican candidates reading this, let me give you an idea for a campaign ad. Just point to the high gas prices, high grocery costs, and low-IQ responses to them and say, “If you’re sick of this, vote for me and I will work to undo it all.” If you don’t win by at least 50 points, it will be a surprise.
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.
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.
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?
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
The Leftist losing streak at the US Supreme Court continued last week, much to the consternation of Leftists used to getting their way through judicial fiat. In a 6-3 decision, the High Court ruled the government (and any extensions of it under current, and quite wrong, interpretations) could not prevent an individual from personal prayer. To anyone who can read the First Amendment, this was a simple case to decide.
To the Left, it was a violation of the Constitution, more specifically the separation of church and state. Granted, we may have covered this topic before, but the fact the Left continues to bring it up tells me they didn’t learn the first time. So, strap in, kids. We’ve gotta take another swing at this.
separation of church and state
What the Left thinks it means – religious matters have no business in government matters
What it really means – the government can’t establish an official religion
For as smart as the Left claims to be, they consistently get the Establishment Clause wrong even though it’s pretty clear. Here goes:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
There’s more to the First Amendment, but the purposes of this sketch, this section is the relevant part. Notice the first four words, “Congress shall make no law.” Those four words put the Establishment Clause into a specific framework, one where, well, Congress is prohibited from passing a law that meets the specific criterion outlined in the First Amendment.
At least, that’s the way it was until Leftists told us what James Madison wrote isn’t really what he meant. Thanks to groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, the Establishment Clause has been expanded to include any entity that gets federal funds, such as public schools. Although I have yet to see Mrs. Miller’s first grade class draft legislation, I’m willing to entertain this line of logic.
But with one caveat the Left doesn’t want to grant: using the entire Establishment Clause. Remember, under the Left’s thinking, a public school is an extension of the federal government, so praying in schools would be a violation of the First Amendment. However, the Establishment Clause also states the government can’t stop someone from exercising his or her religious beliefs, which means public schools aren’t allowed to stop someone from praying.
Checkmate, bitches.
What’s worse, the entire concept of the separation of church and state doesn’t even exist verbatim in the Constitution. Oh, it exists as a concept, but nowhere in there will you find “separation of church and state.” That turn of a phrase came from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote and, surprise surprise, the Left used to extrapolate a simple concept into a gross misapplication.
And even then, the Left doesn’t apply their own standards equally. I know, I was shocked when I realized this, too! Anyway, the Left has used the separation of church and state primarily against Christians to curtail their religious expressions. These restrictions go from the ridiculous to…well, the more ridiculous. But when it comes to, say, Muslims, those restrictions aren’t even considered. If anything, Leftists will tie themselves into rhetorical pretzels to state teaching about Islam in public schools isn’t a violation of the separation of church and state because it’s being done purely as an educational exercise.
But a high school coach quietly praying after a football game without requiring anyone else to join in is a Golden Gate Bridge too far?
No matter how far you follow the Left’s thinking on separation of church and state, it will eventually lead to an intellectual dead end. You know, like “The View.” It’s not without reason, though, and that reason (oddly enough) is an appeal to emotion. The Left wants us to believe any outward show of Christian faith is forcing religion down people’s throats which creates a victim, albeit often an unwitting one. Thanks to the ACLU, people putting up a Nativity scene in a public square is an affront to all religions, so communities either have to dump the Christian imagery (their unstated preference) or allow all religions to put up holiday decorations (a nightmare for city maintenance workers). Because the latter is so labor-intensive (and the ACLU is more sue-happy than an injury lawyer working straight commission), communities opt to forego any religious icons on public property.
And remember, kids, this is all based on an idea that’s not actually in the Constitution itself.
Although the separation of church and state is a no-brainer for Leftists, it actually creates a series of problems. Imagine that! Leftists not thinking ahead! Anyway, if the Left really wants there to be no intermingling of church and state under any circumstances, we’re going to have to remove some laws from the books. Granted, they’re not major crimes like murder or theft, but…oh, wait. Yes they are! It’s hard to deny the religious influence on some of the laws we have, but that doesn’t stop Leftists from doing it or outright ignoring the issue altogether.
Then, there’s the matter of representation. Sure, instituting pure separation of church and state will get rid of Christians, but it will also get rid of…many members of “The Squad.” After all, Islam is a religion, right? So, buh-bye Ilhan Omar! So long Rashida Tlaib! Oh, and let’s not forget government officials who believe in the Jewish faith. Shuffle off to Buffalo, Chuck Schumer! Bid farewell to Bernie Sanders! It would get to the point only atheists would be in office, and given some of the hardcore atheists I’ve seen online, we might be better off governing ourselves.
Even if Leftists aren’t listening to reason, we should encourage them to really push for separation of church and state at every level. You know, just to see their faces as Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden will have to resign. In the meantime, the best thing you can do is to know your rights. That makes it easier to fight for them when the time comes and to know when others are trying to undercut them.
And this last part is really fun, too. Leftists expect Christians to shy away from letting other religions celebrate on public grounds. To be fair, there are some Christians like that, but most of us tend to be pretty open to letting other faiths have their time in the sun (especially sun worshipers) because we realize freedom of religion is a two-way street instead of a cul de sac (which is French for “sac of the cul). It doesn’t have to be either-or. In fact, I have four words for any Leftist who demands all religions get equal time in public schools.
Your terms are acceptable.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
If you heard some shouting coming from the vicinity of Washington, DC, lately, you might be surprised to learn it wasn’t Leftists this microsecond. With the help of 14 Republican Senators, a new gun control bill called the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act will be brought before the Senate for debate and what proponents hope will be passage. That number swelled to 15 when it was brought to a vote, ensuring the bill’s passage and sending it to the House of Representatives for a vote. As you might expect from a government body who can’t balance its/our own checkbook, it’s a mixed bag of good ideas (more funding for mental health in communities) and letting-Eric-Swalwell-write-anti-spying-legislation-level bad ideas.
One of the items in the bill is an idea that Leftists have been promoting for a couple of years now called “red flag laws.” Where does this idea fall on the good-to-Swalwell scale? Let’s find out!
red flag laws
What the Left thinks it means – laws designed to prevent potential shooters from committing mass shootings before they happen
What it really means – the latest in a long line of gun control measures destined to fail
Without going too far into the weeds with terminology, here are the basics behind red flag laws. If a gun owner takes actions that suggest he or she will harm himself/herself or others, family members and/or law enforcement can ask a judge to intervene and prohibit the gun owner from accessing his/her guns. This is meant to be a temporary measure so the gun owner can get the help he/she needs to deal with the issues that raised the red flags in the first place. Surely this is a good idea, right?
Take a drive over to the road to Hell and let me know what you find.
Aside from the obvious “Minority Report” vibe, there are more than a few things wrong with red flag laws. The biggest issue is the fact just about anything can be seen as a trigger (see what I did there?) to raise red flags. If you suddenly do a lot of searching on the Interwebs for guns, that can be a red flag. If you suddenly do a lot of searching on the Interwebs for yoga, that can’t be a red flag, but it may certainly put your Man Card in jeopardy. That applies to you, too, ladies.
If anything can be a red flag, than everything can be, which creates an environment where a gun owner who has not committed a crime is automatically assumed to be the next mass shooter with zero hard evidence. Maybe the gun owner was trying to do comparison shopping for his or her next purchase and decided to look up gun reviews online. Or maybe he/she had a question about legal modifications for a gun or rifle he/she already owned. To the Left, these are red flags that can cause the legal ball a-rollin’.
And that’s where things get really messy, legally. The concerned family member or law enforcement officer goes to a judge to issue a temporary injunction on the basis of public safety. Oh, I forgot to mention this tiny detail: the gun owner doesn’t even need to be at the hearing for the injunction to be approved.
Hey, wait a minute. Isn’t there something about the accused being able to face his accusers in some document that’s fairly important to Americans? Well, there is the Sixth Amendment that deals with criminal trials requiring a swift trial before a jury of one’s peers, so that doesn’t necessarily apply here. However, there are several good arguments to be made with the Seventh and Eighth Amendments that would apply. The Seventh secures the right to a jury trial “In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars…” (which would cover pretty much all firearms, especially with inflation these days, amirite) and the Eight states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Although the Sixth Amendment argument is more emotionally compelling, the stronger case is made with the Seventh and Eight Amendments in my opinion.
You can quit laughing now.
Still, the fact a gun owner can have his/her guns taken by a judge, even temporarily, without an opportunity to offer a defense isn’t a good look. It’s made worse by the idea there are some judges on various benches who would rubber-stamp any possible red flag as legitimate. Subscribe to the wrong political ideology, express your freedoms in a way someone else doesn’t like, take your Starbucks without whipped cream and sprinkles, order the wrong color wine with your meal, the possibilities are endless. And they’re also very stupid and easy to abuse. All it takes is one pissed-off ex who carries a grudge and a pro-gun control judge to get your property taken from you without recourse, all without you committing a criminal or civil infraction.
All in the name of public safety. Preemptive public safety, that is.
Or at least that’s what fans of red flag laws will tell you. How are they doing in practice? Welllllll…that’s a bit of a hard one to answer. Currently there are 19 states with red flag laws in place, as well as the District of Columbia. As of this writing, the jury is still out on whether red flag laws are effective in dealing with potential mass shootings, which makes it hard to make the argument they work. After all, in order to confirm the effectiveness of said laws, the shooter would almost have to admit he or she was dissuaded from shooting people because of the red flag laws. And last time I checked, I don’t think that’s happened yet, if ever. However, red flag laws have had a definite impact on…suicide attempts, which represent a significant portion of annual gun deaths. Although this is a good thing, it’s not evidence of the laws’ effectiveness against mass shootings.
By the way, Illinois has red flag laws in place, but they still have several shootings every weekend. Why, it’s almost as if…people who are bound and determined to ignore the law will…ignore the law! In some cases, a desire to skirt the law makes lawbreakers creative. Right now there are any number of ways to avoid red flag laws altogether, including buying black market guns or hiding existing guns well in advance so they wouldn’t be confiscated. No matter how different red flag laws are from previous gun laws, they will invariably end in failure and fatalities.
Which is precisely what they’re intended to do.
Government isn’t in the problem-solving business because a) they don’t know how, and b) solving problems leads to less power and money going to politicians. Politicians need there to be mass shootings to justify power grabs disguised as long-overdue gun safety measures. But with each law that gets passed, we get further away from actual safety and personal freedom.
And red flag laws are waaaaaaaaay off in Leftist field, which is just down the road from Totalitarianville on the bad side of town.
All is not lost, however. Oklahoma actually has an anti-red flag law on the books, which is a step in the right direction. Any law that forces law-abiding citizens to compromise basic Constitutional rights on the promise of safety without a guarantee of it needs to be counteracted within the system of government. Even so, we cannot rely on the courts for favorable rulings, especially when you consider there will be a sitting Supreme Court Justice who couldn’t define what a woman is in spite of being one. If you hear of a politician pushing for red flag laws where you live, speak up and challenge the idea.
And if you’re in a state where any of the 15 Republican Senators who voted to pass the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, give them hell for not standing up for Constitutional rights.
And you can tell them I sent you.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
There are a lot of things to worry about in today’s world. Inflation more out of control than Lindsey Lohan and Charlie Sheen going on a bender with Dennis Rodman in Amsterdam. The potential for international war. Having to decide between paying for food or paying bills. The possibility of another “Scary Movie” sequel. It’s enough to drive one insane!
In my case, it’s closer to a walk around the corner than a drive, but the point remains.
One of the concerns the Left has had on its hivemind recently has been domestic terrorism. In the aftermath of January 6th, Leftists have sounded the alarm bells to watch out for sketchy men and women attempting to derail the country, threaten our democracy, and be general nogoodniks. Without the proper context, though, one cannot begin to grasp the issue. Unfortunately for Leftists, someone has been paying attention.
domestic terrorism
What the Left thinks it means – a movement motivated by hate and a desire to ruin our country through violent means
What it really means – a term that’s being thrown around more than a football at a Brett Favre barbecue
Politics, by its very nature, is an ugly, spiteful thing. In years past, Democrats and Republicans were divided on policy, but united in their desire to bring out the best in America and face any crisis together. As the statesmen of the past gave way to the current crop of short-sighted, reelection-minded egomaniacs with the morals of an alley cat, politics has gotten uglier, more spiteful, and a lot more personal. It seems as though even basic concepts, like, oh I don’t know…not talking about sex to kids still eating their boogers, are grounds for controversy, passionate screaming matches, and general bad behavior.
This eventually leads to asshats deciding to take matters into their own hands, often botching the effort to change public opinion. Anyone heard from Astroturf…I mean Occupy Wall Street lately? Unless they’ve decided to hitch their shopping carts to movements like Black Lives Matter or Antifa, they’re pretty much irrelevant and invisible these days. But their stench lingers…
What could be relegated to a few loud cranks you’ll find in just about any organization is now quickly becoming the unifying core of swaths of the population looking to change the status quo. This leads to an “ends justify the means” approach to political discourse, which opens the door for domestic terrorism.
Before we dive any further, we should define what terrorism is. There are a few variations on a theme depending on where you go to look up the definition, but there’s a unifying concept: the use of fear as a coercive agent. When you really think about it, fear is a powerful motivator. Just look at the caterwauling that has come since the leak of a memo suggesting the US Supreme Court would look to overturn Roe v. Wade. It was the leak that launched a thousand donation requests. And with the recent attempted assassination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, it also seems to have launched a lot of evil.
Yet, the actions of the attempted assassin are not seen by the Left as an example of domestic terrorism because…the end justifies the means. Leftists are fighting to protect the “right” to kill a baby in the womb, so they will get as dirty as they want to make it happen.
That brings us to a little pro-baby death group called Ruth Sent Us. They sprouted up after the aforementioned USSC leak and sought to protest for abortion rights by showing up at certain Justices’ homes, namely conservative Justices. And they went so far as to publish these Justices’ addresses, creating an element of intimidation or, dare I say it, fear. If you get a chance to read up on Ruth Sent Us, I suggest keeping a barf bag handy because they’re nucking futs.
Compare that to the January 6th protesters. To listen to the Left talk (and, really, why would you), these people were mere microseconds away from destroying the country by protesting an election they felt was stolen from then-President Donald Trump. Some protestors broke the law (which is bad enough as it is), but all of them are being painted as domestic terrorists. Whether they are is a matter of debate or, in the case of Leftists, incessant screaming.
Maybe it’s me, but it seems we don’t have a firm grasp on what constitutes domestic terrorism. The same Leftists who have their collectivist panties in a wad over January 6th are the ones excusing/justifying what Ruth Sent Us did (and screaming bloody murder over the threats being sent at the members of Ruth Sent Us for being degenerate fuck-knuckles). By viewing it through a partisan lens and taking on the same “ends justify the means” mentality, groups on both sides of the political spectrum are making things worse.
And, yes, I am “both sides-ing” here because it’s true. Several studies done in the past few years show at least some Democrats and Republicans believe force is necessary sometimes to protect their interests from outside forces (namely their ideological opponents). That’s sketchy in and of itself, but when you consider how creative people can get with the rules when they lack even basic standards, we’re entering a whole new level of clusterfuckery.
One that has the potential to be deadly.
That’s the part that really scares me. I’ve had a lingering dread for the past several years that America is one major manmade tragedy away from coming apart faster than the seams of an extra-tight dress worn by Melissa McCarthy. And with the possibility/likelihood of government law enforcement agents infiltrating some groups with the express intent of getting them to act up, that incident may be coming sooner rather than later.
That’s why it’s important we understand what domestic terrorism looks like and agree upon what constitutes it. Partisanship has no business in this process because it blinds us to the facts. Whether it’s a Leftist or a Rightist, domestic terrorism is a non-starter with me and is a tacit admission you have no legitimate arguments to speak of and, thus, can be disregarded.
Now, here’s the part neither side who advocates for the use of domestic terrorism for political ends realizes. If you justify it against others, it can be justified against you on the same grounds. And if you bitch about it when it’s done to you, you become a flaming hypocrite. At least, if I have anything to say about it and access to a flamethrower.
Be glad I don’t have the time to fill out the necessary paperwork to get the flamethrower permit.
In the meantime, we should be aware of the depths some people will go to score a political or ideological ends and not succumb to the temptation to give in. If something feels wrong, it probably is, and you shouldn’t do it. Because a) it will lead you down a path you won’t like, and b) eventually I will have the time to complete the paperwork.
And you wouldn’t like me when I have a flamethrower.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
The past seven days has been rift with excitement, high hopes, and general giddiness from the Left because of one group of imbeciles…I mean Congresscritters: the January 6th Committee. After two long and expensive years, we are finally going to get to the truth about former President Donald Trump and the insurrection that brought this country to its knees!
At least, that’s what we’re being told. And we know Leftists would never lie or get people’s hopes up for no reason. That reminds me, has anyone seen Robert Mueller lately?
While we wait for the aftermath of the committee’s prime-time extravaganza, let’s see if we can’t pull off a Carnac the Magnificent performance by looking at the committee as a whole.
the January 6th Committee
What the Left thinks it means – a bipartisan effort to hold Donald Trump and his followers accountable for trying to overthrow the government
What it really means – a waste of time and money to get back at Donald Trump and his followers for winning the 2016 election
If there’s one thing the government knows how to do, it’s how to waste money (although, taking away our rights through pointless regulation is a close second). One of the ways they do this, or both for that matter, is through creating special committees to investigate one issue or another. And if it’s a hot button issue, you can bet your bottom dollar that isn’t already spoken for by the IRS that someone in Washington will say, “You know, we should form a committee to investigate why dogs lift their legs to pee.”
I didn’t say they were good hot button issues.
In the aftermath of the “insurrection” on January 6th, Leftists came up with the idea to investigate why it happened and who was responsible for it. Of course, they already “knew” Donald Trump was involved because…well, Donald Trump. So, like they do with global warming/climate change/climate catastrophes/whatever buzzword is popular with the Green New Deal crowd this microsecond, they worked backwards in the hopes they would find something that would produce the necessary linkage between Trump and the events of January 6th.
And after almost a year of public statements, committee meetings, and promises to bring people to justice, the January 6th Committee has…a TV special. Not the good kind like “A Charlie Brown Christmas” or “Frank Zappa’s Polka-Palooza,” either. We’re talking “Al Gore Reads War and Peace Live” levels of crapitude. Listen, nothing says “this is not a serious bunch of folks” like getting a TV producer to help make the message understandable and appealing to the general public. Hell, most of the public today doesn’t even watch network TV for the same reason they don’t take a drink out of the toilets at Chipotle: they’re full of shit.
Much like the politicians comprising the committee, appropriately enough. Looking at their roster there is a who-cares of political operatives, puffed up egos, and useful idiots. And that’s just Adam Schiff, the House Democrat partially responsible for the dreadful first impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Oh, and I forgot to mention he leaks more than a saggy diaper.
But he’s not the only subpar superstar here. There’s also Jamie Raskin, the House Democrat partially responsible for the even worse second impeachment trial of Donald Trump. (I’m sensing a pattern here.) The other House Democrats on board aren’t much better, ranging from the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee (not a bad get, to be fair) to someone whose main accomplishment to date has been…being friends with Nancy Pelosi.
But don’t think the Democrats are the only ones having fun picking committee members! They have two Republicans, Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, to give the illusion of bipartisanship without sacrificing any of the committee’s lack of reputation and gravitas. Yes, I know most House Republicans refused to assist with this clown show…I mean committee, but that’s not without reason. For one, the members House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy suggested were shot down by House Democrats because, and I’m paraphrasing here, they didn’t want conspirators to the crime investigating it. More importantly, however, most House Republicans see what Cheney and Kinzinger didn’t: their presence was meant to be a distraction to give the impression the committee was a true bipartisan effort.
This is where I have to step in and clarify a point that often gets misunderstood by Leftists. Not all Leftists play for the blue team. Some Republicans have adopted Leftist thinking and tried to mold it into the main party by any means necessary. The problem is not every Leftist Republican is as overt as Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski. Some of them like Florida Senator Marco Rubio seem like rock-ribbed Republicans, but would be just fine with Big Daddy Government as long as they are running it. Just look up his changing positions on “common-good conservatism” and tell me he’s not willing to be an ideological switch hitter if the power grab was right.
And now, back to my rant on the January 6th Committee already in progress.
Both Kinzinger and Cheney are on the committee to a) give the illusion it’s actually bipartisan, b) give the Left some measure of cover against legitimate complaints as to the committee’s political ends, and c) stick it to Trump Republicans. But it’s this last reason that seems to be the prevailing one. As I mentioned earlier, the January 6th Committee is one big “fuck you” to Donald Trump after he beat Hillary Clinton in 2016. We can argue from now until “Firefly” gets a second season about whether it was a good idea to elect Trump, but it cannot be denied the Left has a raging hate-boner for him and the people who support him. While the committee itself has their collective hands on the table, the Department of Justice has been arresting protesters for various crimes, some legit, most bullshit, and have been keeping them in custody indefinitely. Basically, they’re being treated slightly better than suspected terrorists at Gitmo. And unlike the suspected terrorists, these protesters are American citizens with rights that are being denied by the very government investigating their actions.
All because Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton.
This isn’t to say there weren’t some idiots who took things too far because, well, there were. Their crimes should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Where I draw the line is calling what the majority of protesters did (peaceably assemble and not cause a fuss) an insurrection as a jumping off point for a mockery of justice wrapped in national security bunting. The entire premise of the January 6th Committee is predicated on the idea there was an actual threat to democracy (which we’ve never had in America) as presented by these protesters.
And that, dear readers, is bullshit.
No matter what the January 6th Committee televised special says or shows, it’s hard to overlook the numerous problems the committee has created merely by taking a bogus narrative and running with it like it was being chased by the defensive secondary of the Los Angeles Rams. But the best is yet to come. After being hyped as the end-all-and-be-all of investigations into the January 6th situation, committee aides are walking it back slightly, saying the TV special is an “opening argument” according to the Washington Post.
Oh, good. There may be more of this shit coming to TV screens near you. Yay?
The biggest problem I have with the committee (I mean aside from the laundry list I’ve already spewed for your reading pleasure) is it doesn’t seem to be serious in its stated mission. The fact Adam Schiff is allowed to get coffee for the committee, let alone have one of the seats on it, should outrage anyone with two brain cells to rub together. In other words, non-Leftists.
And with the committee’s TV special, their lack of seriousness is confirmed. Why in the hell would they need to televise what most people already know if they’ve been following the story? Why has the investigation been solely in one direction while ignoring actions from Democrat leaders that exacerbated the situation? Did members of the federal law enforcement community infiltrate the protest and attempt to incite criminal behavior, as some have shown on video? Is it really an insurrection if no one actually tried to overthrow the government?
These are the questions (among many, many others) the January 6th Committee can’t or won’t answer. This tells me they don’t want to get to the bottom of what happened; the Left needs the overblown “threat” as a weapon to give the impression Trump supporters are threats to America that are on the verge of destroying the country, overthrowing the government, and green-lighting a new “Dukes of Hazzard” series! The horror!
The biggest problem the Left faces with the January 6th Committee is the same one they faced with both impeachment trials, the Mueller Report, and everything else they thought would end the Trump Presidency: they overpromised and underdelivered. Just about everything they threw at Trump was all sizzle and no tofu, and to be fair there wasn’t that much sizzle to begin with. This is merely the latest in a long line of failures that make the “Scary Movie” franchise look good, and that’s a tall order.
Fortunately for us, the Left is more than up to the challenge of finding new ways to disappoint people!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
After every mass shooting (except for the ones that occur nearly every weekend in Leftist utopia Chicago), Leftists bring up the need for “common sense gun control.” Of course, they never come out and say what that would look like, but, dammit, they care!
With the most recent shooting in Uvalde, Texas, though, Leftists changed tactics. Instead of calling for gun control, they’re now calling for gun safety. On the surface, that’s a move in the right direction since it seems to be an area of common ground between gun owners and gun control advocates.
If you’re expecting a “but” here, you should. There’s more to this concept than the Left wants us to know.
gun safety
What the Left thinks it means – a movement to curb gun violence as much as possible
What it really means – repackaged gun control
Advertisers love to play with phrasing to get consumers to believe a certain product is better than another or to gin up new interest in an existing product. That’s why you see “new and improved” in ads and on packaging. The idea is to get you to think a certain way that will either reinforce your current buying habits or get you to consider changing them.
The same principle is at work here. By switching from a pointed phrase (“gun control”) to one that seems more neutral (“gun safety”), the Left is hoping you will consider changing your opinion on gun control. After all, who wouldn’t be in favor of gun safety? Maybe Alec Baldwin, but he’s an outlier.
The thing is gun safety means different things to different people. Most gun owners already practice gun safety, such as not pointing guns at others and keeping guns and ammunition secured and stored in separate places. These are actions people can do themselves without having Big Brother giving us direction on how to do it. And considering the federal government has utter morons running departments, if not full branches, maybe we don’t need their help.
To Leftists, gun safety has nothing to do with what individuals can do, but rather what the government can do because they believe government is the source of all good (except if that government is run by those evil Republicans who take money from the National Rife Association to prevent meaningful and sensible gun laws from being passed). That’s why all of their solutions to the gun problem revolve around passing more laws, banning more guns, and demanding more from gun owners than they expect from the criminals who commit gun violence. But there is one common thread throughout these efforts.
Leftists don’t know shit about guns.
That fact alone should render their opinions on gun safety as irrelevant as Joe Biden’s teleprompter. Yet, with their emotional appeals whenever a shooting happens, no one stops to think whether we’ve tried some of these suggestions before. News Flash: we have. And it hasn’t stopped mass shootings at all. What it has done, however, is make the vast majority of mass shooters legal gun owners. That’s right. Most of the mass shooters (outside of Chicago, of course) have passed the background checks the Left have demanded. What’s next? More background checks to make up for the background checks we were told would stop mass shootings and didn’t? More hoops for law-abiding citizens to jump through that criminals will ignore?
The truth is the Left needs there to be more mass shootings to justify their power grabs in this case and to protect themselves from the inevitable backlash once enough gun owners get tired of being treated like potential criminals for merely wanting to own firearms. Now, if you’ve been paying attention (and I know you have), this runs counter to what the Left is saying they want now, gun safety. Banning certain guns doesn’t make them or us safer. The same with background checks, limits to ammunition purchases, or the number of bullets a gun or rifle can shoot before needing to be reloaded. In fact, nothing they’ve proposed have anything to do with safety, but everything to do with controlling people.
Just as it was intended.
There is one thing the Left can do to show their commitment to gun safety, that being offering gun safety training. Of course, they’ll have some competition from…the NRA. Yep, that same NRA that is super-duper evil and wants to kill schoolchildren so Bubba can have an AR-15 (according to the Left). Why haven’t gun safety advocates on the Left come up with something similar?
Because it’s all about getting rid of guns altogether. Oh, sure, Leftists won’t come out and say it unless they’re in friendly company, but that’s been their goal for a while now. No matter how they rebrand their approach, the endgame is always get rid of guns.
So, what do we do? Call out the newly-minted gun safety crowd and ask them what they’re going to do about actual gun safety and not the laundry list of Leftist demands that always come out after a shooting. And don’t let them get by with bullshit answers, either. Press them like they want to press gun owners to comply. Then, when they fail (and they will), point it out and tell everyone who will listen about their real agenda.
But if you want to really push for gun safety, Leftists, I have a piece of advise. Don’t arm yourselves. Leave it to the police to protect you. You know, the police you want to revamp/defund and have called racists with badges?
Have your next of kin let me know how that works out for you.