In defense of blogging

I do not do much social media.  I am not on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, or any of the popular platforms of the day.  I get that in a way that hinders my ability to communicate, but it also saves me a hell of a lot of time on a lot of insipid nonsense.  I started this blog in large part because I kept coming back to foundational arguments in comments I made on sites like Breitbart and Twitchy, and I wanted a way to preserve my longer and more thought-out postings that still allowed me to share them.  Nothing like putting a 750 word comment in a 12-hour-old article that everyone has already read and commented on only for it to never get so much as a view, let alone an upvote.

So this thread by John Hayward kind of feels vindicating to me.  Hayward is someone whose work I enjoy and respect immensely but who I’m often only able to keep up with via his Twitter feed, and while ironically enough I am not a fan of Twitter threads in general, this one really does speak to the dying art of argument and persuasive writing I’m trying to engage in here.

First tweet as a teaser:

Advertisements

If wishes were horses

As you can probably tell if you have read any of my recent posts, one of my personal bedrock issues is gun control.  As such I want to be clear about a few things.  I do not now, nor have I ever personally owned a gun.  I have been advised by multiple law enforcement officers whom I have met through my line of work that I SHOULD own a gun, but it just hasn’t been practical so far.  I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the NRA or any other gun rights advocacy group.  Might be something to bear in mind when you’re looking at the NRA’s numbers, just so you know.

I have given a long explanation of the Second Amendment before, what its plain and obvious purpose was, why it has nothing to do with muskets, hunting, or even self-defense, and why it has everything to do with the preservation of individual liberty against an ever-expanding government.  I stated in the course of that explanation that none of that matters.  It’s all true, it’s all important, it’s all foundational stuff, and yet none of it matters nearly as much as the simple inescapable fact that gun control does not work.  It does not make anyone safer.  It in fact does the opposite.

If we had reason to believe that gun control could actually work, then this entire argument would be different.  We don’t.  Look, I’m fine with background checks.  I’m NOT fine with contrived “waiting periods” but I agree that looking into a person’s background to make sure they have not had their right to own a firearm revoked is a reasonable and sensible thing to do.  I don’t think that actually infringes upon the right of any person to keep and bear arms.  If you’re a convicted felon, technically that means at law that you are no longer a full citizen.  You violated the social contract and forfeited some of your rights as a result.  I don’t want felons voting and I don’t want them carrying guns.  Likewise, if you have been diagnosed with a serious mental illness to the point where there was probable cause to detain you in a hospital against your will to make sure you didn’t hurt yourself or anyone else, once again, you are legally incompetent.  That means once again that you are not capable of exercising all of the rights of a free citizen.  You ought not be voting, you probably shouldn’t be entering into any contracts without someone looking over your shoulder, and you ought not be carrying a gun.

But if you just felt depressed or anxious and went to see a doctor to help with that, there’s no reason why your right to own a gun ought to be restricted.  If you were just accused of domestic violence and nothing came of it, likewise, there’s no reason why your right to own a gun ought to be restricted.  But we’re getting off into the weeds here.

If “gun-free” zones actually kept guns out of schools and theaters and military bases, then they would make at least some sense.  We have seen they do not.

If strict gun control up to and including gun bans actually kept guns out of the hands of criminals, then bans might be worth talking about.  They don’t.  They never have and they never will.

If restrictions on bump stocks and extended magazines actually kept them from being used to hurt innocent people, then there might be a conversation to be had.  They don’t.  Often the very existence of these items and accessories demonstrate the utter futility of banning things you think are scary, because they only exist as workarounds to bans and restrictions on other weapons.

We are talking about the equivalent of trying to cure cancer by injecting the patient with ebola.  Not only will it not work, it makes the situation worse.  We have seen time and again that this does not work.  The one and only thing that DOES work, we have tied our hands against, and that is being prepared.  That is allowing good guys with guns to be ready to stop monsters rather than hoping they will obey one law in among the dozens of others they brazenly violate.

To put it another way, the NRA and gun rights proponents are not for one second saying that our right to own a firearm is more important than the life of anyone else.  To us it’s not a choice because we live in the real world.  We know we cannot wish the bad things away, we can only prepare as best we can and be ready to respond when our preparations inevitably end up not being good enough.  It infuriates me to see teachers whining about not wanting to be “forced” to carry a gun or others saying our schools “do enough” or idiots actually claiming that someone with a handgun has no chance against someone with an AR-15.  “Don’t arm me.”  You’re all too happy to disarm me, but if you don’t want a gun, no one has ever suggested you need to have one.  Just don’t tell Coach Feis he can’t have his or Cadet Wang he can’t carry one.  “They do enough!” If they want my kids in their classroom under their rules and they’re not doing everything they can to make them safe (not FEEL safe, actually BE safe) then no, they are in fact NOT doing enough.  I’d rather these hardworking teachers have an option other than using their own bodies as bullet sponges.  And really, an AR-15 is not some magical vibranium shield that grants its owner the power to throw lightning bolts around corners.  It’s a simple semiautomatic rifle typically chambered in .223 rounds that shoots one bullet every time you pull the trigger.  That’s it.  In an indoor short-range situation, a handgun has many advantages over the AR-15.  But you’d never know that listening to the gun grabbers who believe the AR-15 is more or less a minigun that grants superpowers.

Am I making myself clear?  If gun control could work, we would have something to talk about.  It can’t.  It won’t.  It never will.  You could ban every gun in existence and they would not disappear.  Seriously, they’re not magical, they’re not that complicated to make.  The only people who would not have them would be the people who obey the law.  And as long as you keep taking them away from more and more law-abiding folks in more and more places, then evil or crazy people who do not care about breaking one more law in among the dozens they break when they go on these rampages will continue to commit these horrific acts, and the victims like Coach Feis and Cadet Wang will have nothing to stop them with but their lives.  Demanding that politicians “do something” won’t change that any more than wishing for a horse will let a beggar ride.

 

EDIT: Shortly after posting this I saw the news that President Trump is directing the DoJ to ban “bump stocks.”  It won’t help, it won’t stop bad people from getting them, and it won’t take any of the heat off from the gun grabbers.  I talked about how this would be a bad move months ago.  As big of a Trump fan as I am, and remain, I am disappointed.  Not so much because I give a good damn about bump stocks, but because I expected President Trump to be smarter than that.

Stay on target

As usual, the left is out continuing to try to score points off a school shooting, using the same tired and baseless arguments they always make.  I know it feels like forever ago but this is the same stuff they pulled in the immediate aftermath of Sandy Hook, except that was a little bit more concerning since we had a Democrat president and a Democrat Senate versus John Boehner and the SurrendeRepublicans.  We weren’t so sure our boys would hold the line but they did.  We’re getting to the “let’s make a few victims into spokespawns” phase of the program, and since grieving parents didn’t do the job last time, they’re going to drag out a cluster of super-woke, perfectly diverse kids from the school to make instant celebrities out of.  I mean really, look at the pictures of these poor manipulated children–you have a token white male who always sits in the back, a Hispanic kid, an ethnic lesbian, and a white feminist with the problem glasses.  They look like the next dream team from SJW Marvel and they’re here to preach to us about how bad guns are.  They’re here to scream obscenities and shout down intelligent points that don’t fit their narrative, while they parrot La Resistance’s talking points and sound nothing like people who are hurting.  They’re out to happily do the bidding of the gun grabbers who intentionally got their friends killed, and they’re defiantly declaring “you’re either with us or against us.”

If you want to take the side of the people who set you up to be slaughtered, then I don’t want you on my side.  I’m with the kids who are telling the news that their football coach could have ended this rampage if only he were permitted to have his sidearm.  Moving on.

Really, the stupidity from the useful idiots (and their bloodthirsty statist overlords who actually know full well the evil they’re committing) is more of the same stuff that isn’t worth responding to, but nonetheless once again we find ourselves in the position where we have to.  The good news is that this is easy to do.  We’re not only getting the usual “arming teachers is insane” nonsense but we’ve advanced to the point where gun grabbers are pitching the idea that someone with a handgun has no chance against someone with an AR-15.  Um…an AR-15 does not surround you in a vibranium bullet shield nor is it a “machine gun,” and really, in a lot of situations you’d be better off with a handgun.  Hunting rifles typically have better range while handguns are easier to move around and take cover with.  Another choice bit of idiocy is this idea that it only took 3 minutes for the shooter to get his gun.  Folks…I can’t get through the checkout line at Wal-Mart with a half-cart of groceries in three minutes.  That’s an out-and-out lie.

I have two pieces of advice for anyone who sees fit to argue with these blood-soaked animals over the next few days.  One, as always, don’t get into a link war with them–they have already spread and disseminated their bulls**t far and wide, they have their go-to fake stats in hand and ready to go, and they will bury you with their bogus “information.”  You can spend a whole day debunking their source (or just three minutes, which is usually all it takes to point out the gaping flaw) and no sooner will you move on than someone else will post the exact same fake source.  Don’t bother trying to cite to authority when you can shut them down with facts, logic, and reason–and really, gun grabber arguments are easy to do this with.

Two, don’t get too far out in the weeds.  I’m pushing it a little with my emphasis on the motivation behind gun control and the real reasons gun grabbers don’t care about kids, but I do that because once you see it through that lens everything falls into place, and also, I do it to hit back at these sick statist bastards.  Don’t apologize, don’t concede a single point, but don’t swing wide into “Hitler confiscated guns” or “the Founding Fathers wanted us to have guns.”  I’m not saying these points are not true or important, but in this context I believe it’s crucial to hammer the point that gun control laws do not work.  Even if you don’t get into the increasingly obvious fact that such laws are not MEANT to make people safer, it’s important to point out and never get diverted from the fact that every single one of these mass shootings happened in a “gun-free” zone.  From there you simply demolish and ridicule the absurd idea that arming teachers would somehow require all teachers to carry guns (no retards, but right now you’re requiring all teachers to be helpless useful victims) or that someone with a weapon is more likely to hurt themselves in this situation or whatever other foolishness they come up with.  Stick to the issue that’s grabbing everyone by the heartstrings and use it to flip the tables on them.  Don’t back down, don’t get diverted.

Finally, it seems that at least some of these gun grabbing monsters have decided it’s a good idea to trot out the “nobody wants to take your guns!” nonsense again.  The Assault Weapons Ban was a thing.  Also, when you go into these “gun-free” zones, the government does in fact take your guns.  And the only reason they haven’t taken any more than they already have is because we have stopped them.  We have said no even as they wailed “SHAME!” at us.  And we will continue to stop them.

1st and 2nd

Words that leftists should not use, chapter 28

Update on the future of this series: I have about ten more words on my short list and a few others on my kinda-sorta list, plus you never know what might pop up in the course of any given week that ought to get its own WTLSNU entry.  So unless I get some feedback saying “okay, we get it, you’ve made your point, can you do something else now?” I expect this series will continue up to between 35-40 words.  I’m also more than happy to take requests for words that any of my readers think leftists ought to stop saying because they do not mean what they think they mean.

Today’s word is another of the left’s recent favorites, brought to mind not only by the Florida shooting story but also in hearing about the dismissal of the action brought against Google by James Damore after he was fired for putting scientifically sound “hate facts” into an infamous memo.  This memo dared to suggest that–*gasp*–men and women are biologically different and might have different strengths, different weaknesses, and different interests, and this might affect their career choices and job performance!  How DARE he.  So the word for today is “unsafe.”

I’m not going to go to the dictionary for this one because this is a word that is so simple it doesn’t need Merriam Webster to help you out, unless you’re a leftist of course.  An all-too-familiar refrain from the snowflake left in recent years has been to complain about situations from college campuses where dangerous speakers like Milo Yiannopoulos or Ben Shapiro are allowed to speak, or job situations where people tried to improve the work environment by utilizing actual scientific facts and reason (which of course reinforce gender stereotypes and are therefore misogynistic and patriarchal).  The core of the temper tantrum invariably comes back to the snowflake in question claiming “I feel unsafe” or “this creates an unsafe environment for education/work.”  Hence the need for “safe spaces” with beanbag chairs and coloring books and puppies…for grown adults or college students (which believe it or not used to be considered grown adults too).  “Unsafe” in this context plainly does not mean “in danger of physical harm,” which is the actual definition of the word, but instead means “in danger of having to allow someone to have a different opinion from me” or “in danger of facts existing that I do not like.”  In the case of college students this results in fraternity events being cancelled over a banana peel in a tree, or riots ensuing when a conservative speaker comes to give a presentation, or administrators being bawled out in public over their failure to “create a home” where the precious snowflakes can “feel safe.”

Hmm…I seem to remember when I was in college that the idea was to learn and expose myself to knowledge and ideas, and it wasn’t supposed to be “home.”  Of course that was the Before-Time, the Longlongago.  Yet I seem to recall being able to walk past the people giving speeches I didn’t care to hear or didn’t agree with and not suffer injuries.  Hell, I sat and listened to them on occasions too numerous to count and all my limbs are intact, and I don’t have PTSD whenever I see someone approaching a microphone.  I also spent two years working for a hard leftist company, and I was obligated to sit through plenty of seminars and speeches where the horsecrap flowed like a river.  In no way was I ever “unsafe,” nor was anyone else.  And frankly, if you feel “unsafe” because someone (who isn’t even your boss) used scientific data to demonstrate that you’re more likely to be neurotic, and because of that you decide you shouldn’t apply for a promotion… um… I’m just spitballin’ here… but maybe that indicates you’re, I don’t know, kinda neurotic?  But I’m getting off topic.

Of course the snowflakes do not complain about what actually DOES make them and students nationwide actually “unsafe,” and that would be the dangerously perverse laws that render schools and colleges and other places “gun-free” massacre zones.  If anything is making these students “unsafe,” it’s the fact that they’re piled together into places where their football coaches and JROTC cadets have to leave their legal weapons at home, and everybody just waits for the day someone who has already broken dozens of laws and intends to break dozens more walks through the front door with intent to do harm and not live to see tomorrow.  But hey, these indoctrinated children don’t complain about that, about something that actually makes them unsafe.  They don’t complain that they and their friends and teachers are out there like sitting ducks in neat little rows, waiting to become politically useful tear-jerking corpses for the gun grabbers to stand on.  No, they’re more worried about Ben Shapiro or Milo Yiannopoulos or Ann Coulter or Jordan Peterson hurting their feelings with their wrongthink, that makes them feel “unsafe.”

Next week, next word.  See you then.

d2990f288466b231a02e6de452f36e9a011ac3eabd16b9cb6d3e2a7e36c87b1d

As a matter of fact, I DO need one

guncontrol

In the wake of every politically useful tragedy, the left comes out with the standard lines and talking points that their mind-numbed followers can remember easily and parrot on cue to think they’re clever.  One of their favorites whenever there’s a shooting is “nobody needs assault rifles,” usually along with some ignorant posturing about accessories like high-capacity magazines or scopes or silencers plus some historically illiterate nonsense about how the Second Amendment was meant for muskets.

I could rebut this fascistic nonsense by pointing out for the millionth time that the right to self-defense which the Second Amendment recognizes pre-dates not only the Constitution but organized society.  But I don’t have to–both the Second Amendment and the laws of this country (code and caselaw) expressly recognize the right of self-defense.  It’s a valid defense in any criminal court.  Its origin is more or less semantic.  I could point out that the purpose of the Second Amendment had nothing whatsoever to do with hunting or ensuring that the “militia” had weapons and I could cite to multiple quotes from the Founding Fathers making it clear that the purpose of enshrining the right to keep and bear arms was to keep the government in check.  I could show that the writers of the Constitution plainly meant for private citizens to have access to and be able to legally possess ANY kind of arms that the government and the standing army could, not so the yokels could go shoot American soldiers but so the government never takes it into its head to have American soldiers go shoot Americans.  But that’s the point where the left sticks their fingers into their ears and acts like you’re being a crazy conspiracy theorist.  I could go into a longwinded explanation of why the term “assault rifle” is practically meaningless and how “semiautomatic” does not mean what the left thinks and how rifles and automatic weapons predate the Civil War, but again, that just prompts the gun grabbers to move on to another wail and really doesn’t prove a lot more than their base ignorance.  And I could, once again, show through historical facts and just basic logic and reason that gun control laws and “gun-free” zones only disarm people who are not going to break the law, and therefore people who intend to break the law are not stopped or even slowed down, and oh yeah, almost all of these shooters are leftists if not registered Democrats but not one is an NRA member.  I’ve done that before, and I’ll do it again, but that’s not what I’m here to do today.

Because the argument that “nobody needs an assault rifle” ties directly into the foundational problem of leftism that I described in my last post.  Who do you think you are, and what right do YOU think you have, to tell me, as a law-abiding, tax-paying citizen, what I do and do not “need?”  The paternalistic left loves to do this.  They fell all over themselves telling me as a young healthy person of the male persuasion that I “need” to buy exorbitantly overpriced and unusable health insurance that covers mammograms.  They love to tell me I “need” a low-flow toilet or I don’t “need” a 32 ounce soda or an incandescent light bulb.  And before someone gets smart and brings up drugs, as long as I don’t have to pay for or put up with it, I really don’t care what horrible things you want to put inside your own body, but that’s a discussion for another time.

Frankly, you not only have no business telling me what I do and do not “need,” but you’re also grievously wrong about that.  The JROTC student who died helping other students escape from the shooter, he needed an assault rifle.  Gun grabbers would not let him have one but they sure did a great job keeping guns out of that school, right?  The football coach who shielded students with his own body, he needed an assault rifle.  And to be perfectly blunt, it’s because of bloodthirsty statist monsters who do not care how many bodies they have to stack up in order to achieve their dream of universal firearm confiscation that I need an assault rifle too.  They will not stop at “assault rifles.”  They never stop.  If they got their way, soon enough it would be “no one needs a semiautomatic handgun” or “no one needs more than six rounds in a magazine” or “no one needs to own more than five/three/one gun” until you get all the way down to “no one needs to own a gun,” after which there’s a whole litany of things they’ll decide you “don’t need” now that you have no say in the matter.  Nevermind that restriction upon restriction won’t stop bad things from happening, no matter how many links are put in the chain, and regardless of whether or not ever-expanding laws are actually enforced.  Enforcement is not the issue if your goal is to get law-abiding people to give up their guns because by definition law-abiding people obey the law. 

So yes, fascist gun-grabbing fools, I DO “need” an assault rifle, and it’s because of monsters like you.  You’ve demonstrated countless times now that you do not care how many innocent people have to die for you to get your way, and I’m not willing to depend on your good humor to determine whether I “need” to keep my freedoms.  I need it because you have enabled animals like this school shooter and are either honestly or willfully ignorant of the consequences of your actions.  I need it because you are out breathlessly celebrating an opportunity to advance your blood-soaked agenda.  I need it because you and yours routinely call for me and mine to die horribly.  I need it because even in the most free society ever envisioned in the history of mankind our founders were not wrong, and no government can ever be completely trusted.  I need it because despite your asinine talking point everyone around me will be safer because I have it–no, children, although your reaction to a crisis situation may be to wet yourselves and shoot your own foot off, I am not more likely to do harm to myself with my own firearm.  Projecting your own incompetence is not an argument.  I need it because I do not answer to emotional nitwits like you, and I don’t ever intend to.  Most of all, I need it because what I do and do not need is none of your goddamned business–and I mean for it to stay that way.

The foundational problem

At its heart, the problem with leftism that all of its failings are built upon is the foundational idea that, if you can just pass enough laws, if you can just give the government enough power, and if you can just shackle free people tightly enough, you can prevent bad things from happening.  You can make it so floods and hurricanes don’t happen.  You can stop businesses from being unkind to people for reasons you don’t approve of.  You can make rich people (relatively speaking) give money to poor people so the poor people aren’t poor anymore.  You can force doctors to provide health care and insurance companies to pay for it.  You can make every workplace so sterile and safe that no one will so much as get a paper cut nor will one wisp of smoke or gas or one drop of toxic chemicals ever go anywhere but exactly where it is meant to.  You can stop mean, evil, or crazy people from hurting anyone–and you don’t have to hurt them to do it.

But the flaw in this foundation is that none of this is true.  The world is full of chaos and human nature is selfserving and tends toward being a jerk when left on its own.  Weather happens.  Accidents happen.  Unforeseen circumstances happen.  Health fails for no good reason.  Losses happen.  Tragedies happen.  People act in their own interests and don’t care who they hurt in the process.  You can either live in your fantasy world of contrived problems and misbegotten ineffective “solutions,” or you can look at the world for what it is, accept it, prepare to deal with it, and in the process work towards making it better.  Leftists live in that fantasy world.  I often ask why they choose to live in their delusions when their imagined world is so awful, what with the sky falling and everyone being a racist and so on, but I know that the answer is so they can give all power and glory to the almighty state, and then daddy government can fix it all for them.

Daddy government can’t stop bad things from happening.  It can, however, stand in the way of a lot of solutions.  I posted this several months ago, right after the Texas church shooting, and the longer I have had to consider the point I made the more I am convinced of it.  One has only to look at the glee and excitement coming from social media and the Democratic party as they trip over each other trying to score political points and revivify the gun control narrative one more time.  Incidents like today’s shooting in Florida are not bugs in the system but features.  Schools are not “gun-free” killzones by accident, but by design, and that design makes terrifying sense when you understand that the point of gun control laws is not to make anyone safer, not children, not teachers, not anyone.  The point is to confiscate guns.  It follows then, that if “common sense” laws and background checks (that these left-aligned monsters invariably violate) were to actually make people safer, then there would not be as many politically useful shooting incidents, and the gun grabbers cannot have that.  So the laws, and/or the enforcement or lack thereof, must actually make people LESS safe if they are to achieve the desired result.  Especially innocents.  Especially children.  And this is what is happening with “gun-free” zones.

I cannot reiterate this point often enough or clearly enough: the gun grabbing left is intentionally putting American children in danger in order to take away legal American guns, and they will keep pushing policies that result in the deaths of American children until they get their way.  They are literally holding our children hostage, and every time we fail to accede to their demands another hostage dies–and they’re thrilled to death to rub it in our faces.  They WANT more school shootings because they know that gets people’s attention and makes them emotional, and emotional people do irrational things.  They WANT innocent victims to pile up.  They WANT horrific things like this to happen because these tragedies are useful to their agenda.  They just want the guns.

We can continue to pretend that tightening the chains around free people will make them safer, when in reality that only takes away both their safety and their freedom.  Or we can accept the world we live in and be ready to deal with it, with armed security or teachers and principals packing heat, or hell, let law-abiding students carry concealed when they’re of age and/or have taken appropriate safety classes.  Maybe then we can figure out what’s at the root of this kind of depraved behavior and fix it.  But for God’s sake, quit falling for the plainly bogus idea that gun control proponents care one bit about the safety of people they’ve never met, or that your child’s life means anything to the gun grabbers unless they can dance on his grave and use his death to blame the NRA for the laws the NRA didn’t pass and didn’t fail to enforce.

A new curiosity

I check my blog stats fairly regularly.  It’s very interesting to me to see what grabs people’s attention and from where, especially when I see a big spike in views and visitors (I still don’t know what happened to get the Califexit song off and running but hey, it was fun while it lasted), but anything out of the ordinary will get my attention really.

It’s not unusual for me to see views pop up from Canada or Western European countries, but over the past several days I’ve seen visitors from Ghana.  Not just oneoffs and not just one, either.  I can’t help but be curious how they found me or what made them decide to come back.  So, whoever you are, welcome and I hope you enjoy your stay.

Little things like that remind you just how great a time it is to be alive.

The words I use

I saw someone on Twitchy use one of my terms the other day.  I don’t know if this was purely coincidental or a result of reading it in one or more of my own comments but thinking about it and looking back through some older posts here, I’ve developed something of a lexicon.  This is not by accident.  Words are powerful tools and I try to use them as such.  I thought it might be helpful to anyone who stumbles across either this blog or my comments on Twitchy to know what I mean when I use my own terms for things or people and where the terms come from.

Dr. Pantsuit: This of course being Her Inevitableness, which is my former word for Hillary Clinton.  I’m told that Kurt Schlichter’s name for her is “Felonia von Pantsuit,” which I find very amusing especially since I like Schlichter’s writing, but my term and his are completely unrelated.  I just got tired of typing “Her Inevitableness” and after a one-off post last year where I imagined her as a Nintendo game villain and the final boss MAGA Man had to defeat, the name stuck.  I think it fits nicely.

Whatshisname: Like Dr. Pantsuit, this is a successor term to a prior dismissive term I used for our last President.  I never (or seldom, I can’t recall what I might have typed on occasion so don’t bother “debunking” this) used many of the more insulting monikers for him, I just called him Barry.  Figured it was appropriate to use a childish nickname he himself went by.  But a while back (and if I recall where I’ll link up the post) I concluded that that failure’s fifteen minutes had gone on eight years too long already, and I didn’t want to waste another moment of the great new day on remembering the jerk who made the huge mess we’ve managed to crawl out of.  On top of that, a hate-filled narcissist like him expects and thrives on criticism and insults.  To him and his devoted cultlike followers, even righteous anger is just proof to him that he’s gotten to you and his mission is accomplished.  But what people like him cannot stand is to be ignored and forgotten.  So I started referring to him as Whatshisname.  Believe it or not, this has actually resulted in me being more able to put him and his abhorrent legacy behind me.  I suggest you try it.

The Unaffordable Don’t-Care Act: This is kind of a tangent off the last one.  Yeah, it’s a lot harder to type than “Obamacare” or “the ACA,” but I’m not going to do a whole lot better with “Whatshisnamecare” and I’m not going to call the ACA something it’s not, which is “affordable” or anything to do with “care.”  I’ll spend a few extra keystrokes to be accurate.

Zombie NeverTrumpers: Again, I did a whole post about how despite being unceremoniously dumped into the dustbin of history, for some inscrutable reason, the supposedly “principled conservative” NeverTrumpers just refuse to die.  They just keep shambling forward, looking and waiting for their chance to declare “I tolllllld you soooooo…” and evidently more interested in being proven “right” about President Trump than they are about the things the President has been able to accomplish (and still is going to accomplish).

Senator Hillarytoo: This refers to New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, the current occupant of the Senate seat that Dr. Pantsuit carpetbagged her way into before she was promoted to a cabinet post that she was likewise unqualified for.  Hillarytoo is a bubbleheaded twit but she’s frequently floated as a possible contender for either the Democrats’ vice presidential slot or even as a candidate for president, largely because in a lot of ways she is almost a clone of Dr. Pantsuit, minus about twenty years and forty scandals.  Seriously, it seems they’re trying to line her up in the groove Dr. Pantsuit left behind her and that would be her sole and only “qualification.”

Fake News Jim: CNN’s Jim Acosta.  A title bestowed by President Trump himself.  “You are Fake News Jim.  You are Fake News.”

LGBTZ4QQQBatmanSymbol: When I first started using this expression to refer to the ever-expanding silliness of the left’s favorite acronym, I think it actually stopped at “Q.”  It’s gone from being funny to being prophetic (and also still pretty funny).  At least I know where mine came from:

I’ll update this if I add or remember any other terms I use a lot.  If you control the language you control the argument.

Anglo-American jurisprudence

“When you lose it’s a technicality.  When you win it’s a cornerstone of Anglo-American jurisprudence.”

In a semester full of memorable lines from a memorable man, this one from my criminal procedure professor stuck out.  He was a hard-bitten, crusty old Marine, leftist to the core (except he liked guns), with a rabid and irrational hatred for the death penalty.  He ran my law school’s capital case defense clinic and hosted not only talks and seminars but also whole conferences about abolishing capital punishment.  He also kept up his leftist cred in other areas such as feminism and envirofascism, but as a criminal law practitioner he was absolutely brilliant.  He literally wrote the book on criminal procedure in his state.  And HE referred to our legal and law enforcement system as “Anglo-American jurisprudence.”

So as the lunatic left throws their daily conniption over Jeff Sessions addressing the National Sheriff’s Association and referring to the “Anglo-American heritage” of the office of sheriff, here’s a hint: that’s something lawyers do.  Because it’s not the slightest bit racist, it’s just a historic fact.  Our entire system of justice is based off the British system.  The word “sheriff” is uniquely English.  Our common law is lifted directly from the British common law.  It has nothing to do with being white.  It has everything to do with being British and American, hence the term “Anglo-American.”  It did not come from the Germans, from the French, from the Norwegians, from the Russians, from the Greeks, from the Ethiopians, from the Egyptians, from the Japanese, from the Aztecs, or from the goddamned Klingons.

Good gravy people, before you freak out about a word or a phrase you don’t understand, it might be helpful to go figure out what it means.  But then, that would involve not throwing your daily tantrum and calling Jeff Sessions a racist on a regular basis so I guess it’s right out.

No children, Haiti is not great at all

A couple of weeks back, overstuffed fool Conan O’Brien put out a few pictures of himself on vacation in Haiti.  He was swimming in the Caribbean and enjoying the amenities of his five-star hotel in one of the nice parts of the island that the inhabitants keep cleaned up and pretty for tourists because they’re desperate for American dollars.  And you know what, good on him, hope he enjoyed his vacation and pumped some money into the local economy.  But O’Brien had the nerve to send those pictures out in response to the now-legendary “s**thole” comments and to assert that “it didn’t look like a s**thole to me!”

To which the only possible reply was this:

d5718ca141cefdcefd34edffa9cff02ce55bb99e829034a39339a2e6a42be4f4

Good old Ernie, taught generations of kids how to facepalm.

Well, it seems that this level of tone-deaf ignorance is somehow contagious.  Now other rabid Hollywood leftists have begun taking selfies wearing t-shirts that claim “Haiti is already great,” disgusting jackass Bill Maher being at the forefront (and wearing the T over what appears to be a button-down underneath, keepin’ it real there Bill).  This would of course be the same Bill Maher who thinks it’s funny to crack jokes over and over about an inappropriate relationship between the President and his daughter.

So let me tell you a story.  When I was about 11 or 12, my little brother and I took pieces of tar paper, a few broken shingles, some irregular cuts of particle board, and a few other scattered building material scraps left over from building our family’s actual house, and built ourselves a clubhouse in the yard.  It was about 4x4x5 feet, I couldn’t stand up straight in the thing or I’d get roofing nails in my scalp, and every wall had gaps or holes of some kind.  Not bad for a clubhouse.  Well, around that same time my grandfather was going on mission trips to Haiti to help build schools and medical clinics and churches.  When he saw our little improvisation he told us that a “house” like that would be an upgrade for many of the people he worked with down there.  He made multiple trips and my cousin went with him a time or two and told us quite a few harrowing stories–the funniest one was finding the chicken feet in the stew pot.

Look people, Haiti is not great.  It’s not even close.  Pretending that it IS great so you can virtue signal about it not being a s**thole is about as stupid as it is counterproductive.  Sending back your vacation photos from a Caribbean island where you enjoyed the best the country had to offer and claiming that “it all looked great to me” is like going to a Cubs game in a chartered jet and a private limo and claiming that “I didn’t see anybody get shot in Chicago so it must be just fine!”  But I guess these lefties have to tell themselves that it’s all great there in order to excuse and forget about how much relief money was supposed to get to them through the Clinton Crime Family Foundation that never made it.  Taking a sidelong jab at President Trump, that’s just a bonus to them.  Who cares if their narrative bears no resemblance to the truth–since when does that matter?