Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

I know Christmas is over, but I wanted to take a moment to talk about holiday traditions. For some, it’s caroling and eggnog. For others, it’s decorating the tree and driving around to see all the houses lit up and decorated.

For Leftists, it’s telling conservative Christians they’re not following Jesus.

This year, though, the Left put a little twist on their annual airing of grievances not directly connected to Festivus. They outdid themselves by making so many bizarre and illogical statements about one third of the best power trio that isn’t named Rush.

So, grab yourself your cousin’s killer eggnog made with lighter fluid and prepare for a trip from the ridiculous to the sublime…ly ridiculous.


What the Left thinks it means – a possibly fictional figure worshiped by rubes who can’t even follow his teachings

What it really means – a religious, possibly historical, figure who Leftists still can’t figure out

Leftists are of two minds (or would that be brain cells) when it comes to Jesus. Many don’t believe He existed. Others think He was a progressive. Others think He was a socialist. He was black. He was an immigrant. He was gay.

And just when you thought they couldn’t add more, the Left found a few more. This year’s additions are Jesus was Asian, a Palestinian refugee, technically Palestinian, had a “trans body,” and even had a CNN religion reporter claim He would have been buried under rubble if He were born today.

Give them a year and they might say Jesus was a gender fluid wheelchair bound crossdressing furry who believed sex with minors was okey-dokey.

And people wonder why I laugh when Leftists say they’re smarter than us?

I will admit I’m not a theologian (although I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night), but you really don’t have to be to understand who Jesus was. For those who believe, He is the son of God who died for our sins. For those who don’t (and not a flaming Leftist), He was a man whose influence is undeniable and provided a decent guide to living a good life. For those who pretend to believe, He’s a good source of cash.

I’m looking at you, Joel Olsteen.

So, how do Leftists get it so wrong when it comes to a simple Jewish carpenter? A part of it is how they view Jesus, not as a religious figure, but as a tool to bash believers. Some of this is easy to understand, as the Left’s main religion is bureaucracy. When you put your faith in the size and scope of government, you don’t want competition, especially not from the Son of God.

But the Left doesn’t need to believe in Jesus for Him to be useful for their needs. That brings us back to an old friend, Saul Alinsky and his “Rules for Radicals.” In particular, let’s look at Rule 4:

“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

When Leftists bring up how they believe Jesus would have acted, they’re using Rule 4 with the expected outcome being the conservative Christian either shutting up completely or giving a defensive answer the Left can then use against him/her. (Spoiler Alert: still 2 genders.) That’s why they keep making up stories about who Jesus was: they need Him to be their religious tofu and take on the traits the Left want Him to espouse.

The problem with this tactic is two fold. First, these are interpretations by people who may or may not have studied the Bible closely enough to be knowledgeable (which, surprise surprise, goes against Uncle Saul’s second rule “Never go outside the expertise of your people.”) As such, saying Jesus was gay because he hung out with 12 disciples, for example (all the while ignoring the women who also followed Him), shows a fundamental lack of understanding of the source material. Therefore, why give credence to a group keeps getting facts wrong in an attempt to shame you into becoming a Leftist?

This second one relies more on logic, namely we can read what Jesus said. Granted, there are language translation and theological/political issues that make a straight one-to-one interpretation harder than figuring out why people care Taylor Swift is dating Travis Kelce. Having said that, you can compare translations and get the gist of what He was saying. Even if you aren’t a Christian and/or conservative, you can still read the Bible and compare it to what the Leftists are saying to figure out they’re full of…well, since this Lexicon entry is about Jesus, I’d better not swear.

The way the Left keeps reinventing Jesus reminds me of the Buddy Christ from Kevin Smith’s “Dogma.” In the film, the Catholic Church “retires” the Christ figure they used for centuries and replaced Him with a friendlier version. This winds up backfiring, causing two fallen angels to bring back God’s vengeance on humanity. I won’t spoil the movie in case you want to see it, but I encourage you to watch it with a careful eye and ear because Smith brings up some valid criticisms of how modern Christianity is practiced.

Still looking at you, Olsteen!

In the interest of fairness, I admit the Right uses Jesus in a similar way, suggesting he’s fair skinned and closer to Edgar Winter in hue than Bishop Desmond Tutu. Where the Left and Right diverge is in sheer volume of attempts to use Him as a political cudgel. Where some members of the Right will smack you with the Son of God once in a while, the Left uses Him as a cat-o-nine-tails. And if you remember the Crucifixion, you know why that analogy is fitting and quite possibly will get me a one way ticket to Hell.

Speaking for myself, I’ve always seen Jesus as apolitical. He wasn’t concerned with who won elections or how the government should use the power the people gave it. His eyes were always on something more substantial: being a sacrifice for all of our sins. Any politician who tries to tell you he or she can make you a better deal is a liar, but I repeat myself

The greatest irony in all of this is the Left wants Christian conservatives to live up to rules they either don’t believe in or have no concept of how to follow. And that’s the one lesson they always get wrong: we can never be like Christ completely because we are flawed. We mess up all the time, unlike Jesus who was perfect from conception. The best we can hope for is not to mess things up too badly, and even then we are forgiven. It’s the simplest of truths to believers, and the simplest of things to disregard if you’re not down with the divine elements of that concept. Just don’t use Jesus as a theological Louisville Slugger, okay?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

If you heard a loud squee recently, it came from the collective orgasm the Left had after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled former President Donald Trump could be removed from the 2024 ballot. The reason cited (and gobbled up by every Leftist like a crack whore looking for a fix) was the “insurrection clause” of the 14th Amendment due to what the court found was Trump supporting an insurrection on January 6, 2021.

Even though there’s a lot of debate over whether January 6th constituted an insurrection (short version: it wasn’t), there was no surprise the Left would try this tactic, and it would be a matter of time and/or court shopping to find a bunch of black robed dupes willing to do what Hillary Clinton couldn’t: visit Wisconsin more than once. Oh, and beat Donald Trump.

This gives us a chance to take a closer look at the “insurrection clause” to see what all the hubbub is.

“insurrection clause”

What the Left thinks it means – a provision in the 14th Amendment that disqualifies Donald Trump from running in 2024

What it really means – more proof the Left can’t read the Constitution very well

The 14th Amendment covers a lot of ground, but the part the Left has focused on is Section 3:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

And when you consider the Left believes Trump supported the January 6th “insurrection”, it’s not hard to come to the conclusion they did. Too bad that conclusion makes zero sense when the facts are examined.

I’ve discussed the “insurrection” previously, but the TL;DR (Too Long; Didn’t Reblog) version is January 6th wasn’t an insurrection because it doesn’t fit the legal definition of one. Furthermore, there’s an extreme leap of logic that has to be made to make the argument, namely the “insurrectionists” who were there to support Donald Trump would have needed to be in favor of overthrowing him for it to be an actual insurrection. After all, Trump was still President that day.

But leaps of logic alone aren’t enough to totally mock the Left’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Nah, we also need to mock their inability to read the damn thing from top to bottom. For this, we need to look alllllllll the way down to Article 1:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The case that originated this clusterfuck of a legal decision is Anderson v. Griswold, which brought up the question of whether Trump could be disqualified from the ballot under Colorado law. Although each state has the power to determine its own election laws, the application of law in this case runs afoul of the very Amendment being used to deny Trump his name on the ballot.

Remember that pesky thing called due process, kids? Yeah, it wasn’t used here. Trump wasn’t a direct party to the lawsuit, but his right to due process was violated in that he was essentially convicted of insurrection without every being charged or convicted of it. The special counsel’s indictment doesn’t even charge him with it! Also, he has yet to be formally charged with it!

So, what did the court do? Determined he was guilty because…fuck if I know.

The reason they gave was a “preponderance of the evidence,” would could mean anything from a hand-written letter on White House stationary signed by Trump saying “I’m going to incite an insurrection today, and it will be the best insurrection ever,” to the court not wanting mean tweets anymore. As of yet, I don’t think we’ve seen the evidence the court referred to, and I’m tempted to say we’re not gonna because that might expose the entire ruling for the farce it most certainly is.

Back to the point about due process. Insurrection is a federal crime, which means only the government can bring the charges. Since that hasn’t happened, the Colorado Supreme Court wouldn’t have the standing to bring the charges, and without there being an actual charge or conviction, there can be no application of the 14th Amendment. And without there being an actual trial (sorry, Ted Lieu), Trump was denied due process. Not even a fucking stupid statement from Colorado’s Secretary of State declaring Trump guilty of inciting an insurrection will overcome that.

How fucked up is this situation? A former Trump lawyer not known for sucking up to him after being let go says the US Supreme Court could rule 9-0 to overturn the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling. And this is a guy who has said Trump was “toast” in his criminal indictments.

If this wasn’t bad enough, there’s even some debate over whether the “insurrection clause” would even apply to the Presidency. Given how loosely the law has been interpreted to disqualify Trump, I’m sure the Left would be willing to stretch the logic so much Reed Richards would need a chiropractor. In my non-legalese reading of it, I can see where it could be, but it’s not nearly as much of a slam-dunk as the Left thinks it is. There’s just enough wiggle room for Trump to argue it doesn’t apply (even though the arguments I’ve put forward above about the lack of due process would be stronger, but I’m not advising him).

Then, there’s Section 5:

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

What the Colorado Supreme Court did completely ignores this part of the Amendment used to remove Trump in the first place. Congress didn’t disqualify Trump via legislation (and, to the Leftists reading this, this is not an endorsement of such action being taken). It was done by a majority of judges who are clearly incapable of ruling within the confines of the law. Leftists may be okay with it, but wait until it gets turned around on them.

If this decision is upheld by the USSC, it sets precedent, which can be used to disqualify politicians from both sides based solely on a politically-convenient interpretation of “insurrection” and a process where a favorable court decision is more certain than if you asked Hunter Biden if he wants crack for Christmas. Let’s take our good friends from the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest from that bastion of progressive living, Seattle. What the group did and advocated could be considered an insurrection (personally, I don’t, but for the purposes of this sketch let’s say I do). Using the Left’s argument here, no one who participated in CHOP would be eligible to run for public office.

And neither would any of the politicians who supported CHOP.

Then, all it would take would be a Republican with more balls than sense to find a court in Texas that would rule so and before you can say jurisprudence, a good chunk of Democrats would be out of a job. And it would be thanks to the Left’s “Orange Man Bad” rhetoric.

Okay, I’ll admit this sounds too good to be true because, well, Leftists have more double standards than they have genders (this just in…still 2), but it would be detrimental to the country as a whole. It would be weaponizing the legal system to get what an ideologically-driven segment wants. Or, as the Left calls it, Tuesday.

Regardless, the “insurrection clause” being used in Anderson v. Griswold shows a level of desperation on the Left because they know Puddin’ Head Joe is slightly more popular than an anal cavity search done by Willie “Giant Hands” McStuffins, and his accomplishments on issues that really matter to the people are sparse at best. He can’t run on the economy (but he can run from it), foreign policy, or any of the kitchen table issues that Joe Six Pack and his family worry about on the daily. But at least he can run on being the first Administration to hire incompetent and dishonest trans people, amirite????

To try to curtail a possible Trump 2024 victory, the Left counted on the courts to eliminate him from the running before the caucuses and primaries could begin. If the High Court (as opposed to the court in Colorado who appeared to be high when they rendered this dumbfuck decision) rules according to the law, there should be no doubt it will get overturned. If they rule according to political ideology, it will get overturned most likely, but it will have the stink of partisanship all over it and the Left will redouble their efforts to expand the court.

And, yes, my irony meter overloaded after typing that.

In the end, it should be noted there’s a reason the “insurrection clause” is rarely used and/or prosecuted: because there’s a fine line between legitimate protest and insurrection. Redressing grievances with the government is protected by the First Amendment. Acting out in a way that threatens the very fabric of our government isn’t. To conflate the two for the purposes of electoral victory is dishonest, detrimental, and a dick move.

If you read this before Christmas, I wish you the happiest of holiday seasons.

And if you read this after Christmas, I wish you the happiest of post-holiday sales.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

It wasn’t that long ago that Harvard was seen as one of the upper echelons of intellectual pursuit. Only the smartest, most well-off students could even breathe the air on campus, and only the best of the best of the best could graduate. Then something happened.

Harvard got stupid.

Nothing drove this point home more than a recent Congressional hearing involving Harvard President Claudine Gay and her inability to articulate the simple concept that wishing death on anybody is bad. Oh, but it gets a lot worse, as we’ll explore later, but it’s worth reviewing the fall from grace and bringing a whole new meaning to the Harvard Crimson.


What the Left thinks it means – an excellent university where free speech and activism are embraced

What it really means – a diploma mill for well-heeled Leftists

Although Harvard is in the spotlight for being absolute dipshits, it’s not lost on me the fact higher education in general has gone to hell, and I may not mean figuratively here. Not only has the Left set up camp on campuses (or would that be campusi?), but their influence on academia has created a self-perpetuating hug box/bubble where only the “right” opinions can be heard.

Since the start of the Israel/Gaza conflict, campuses/campusi like Harvard saw tensions rise, as well as the number of anti-Jewish incidents. On the one hand, you have Jewish students and their supporters, and on the other, Leftist freaks who see Israel as the aggressor and as an apartheid state. On a side note, “The Apartheid State: not a good state slogan.

Anyway, this created a razor thin line for school administrators to tread. If they showed even the slightest bit of support for Israel, the Leftists would cause as much chaos as possible at the bare minimum, and given the fiery but mostly peaceful Summer of Love 2020 edition that chaos could be (and probably would be) destructive. If they sided with Gaza, they would run the risk of losing donations from Jewish supporters.

Which means the administration did the stupidest fucking thing they could and caved to the Leftist mob.

If that wasn’t bad enough, President Gay’s response to questions about whether wishing death to Jews was against their policies caused Harvard to lose $1 billion and inspired calls for Gay to resign. More on this debacle later.

I’m not a Harvard graduate, but I think I could have crafted a better response than Gay gave. Let’s see…

Harvard University respects both the importance of free speech and the delicacy of the current situation in Gaza. As President, I cannot in good conscience allow calls for violence against any group on campus, as it is inconsistent with not only the spirit of the freedom of speech, but also the culture of intellectual vigor I strive to foster at Harvard. What happened on my campus is abhorrent and I denounce it fully.

Seriously, was that so fucking hard????

Granted, this would have pissed off campus Leftists, but it would have struck the right tone and avoided a lot of backtracking and “clarifications” from Gay. Besides, if you wanted to disperse a crowd of Leftist protesters, you could always carpet bomb the protest with job applications. Or carpets, if you’re so inclined.

After that shitshow of a Congressional hearing, Gay faced new scrutiny, namely that of her academic accomplishments. Seems she may have plagiarized parts of her 1997 dissertation and other papers she copied…I mean wrote. Of course, Harvard downplayed the severity of the matter, calling it “a few instances of inadequate citation…” which is fancy talk for “yeah, she fucked up, but we can’t really punish her for what she did because it would make Leftists fuck up the campus.” Even some of the people she copied tried to downplay it while acknowledging it was plagiarism.

Even so, the Left went into damage control mode by supporting Gay in her time of self-imposed need, but claiming…get this…rules against plagiarism are racist. And I’m sure it has nothing to do with the fact Gay is a black woman and, thus, would be covered by the Left’s new rules on plagiarism. It’s just a coincidence…

On the plus side, Gay is qualified to go from substandard President of Harvard to substandard President of the United States, thanks to the Puddin’ Head Joe standard.

So far, Gay still has her job, which speaks volumes to how far Harvard has fallen as an institution of higher learning. At this rate, they might be at best an institution of middling learning, but that reputation is going down faster than a hooker going for a world blow job record working straight commission. Is a diversity hire worth this much trouble? Not only is Gay inept, inconsistent, and a plagiarizer, but her continued presence as anything other than a former Harvard President negatively affects the Harvard brand.

Consider if you will the fact Harvard has a website that not only defines plagiarism and outlines a clear policy, but openly discusses why plagiarism is a bad thing. The fact the President of this university is allowed to violate these standards and gets Leftist support for it would be humorous if it weren’t so disgusting. Throw in Harvard’s tone-deaf response to the anti-Jewish sentiment on campus and we’re looking at the point of no return to turn things around. Harvard, if it weren’t already FUBAR, would be sending Change of Address cards announcing their new address in downtown FUBAR.

Although the financial hit Harvard has taken so far is a start, it’s going to take a lot more to remove the stench from the burning dungheap Claudine Gay and the Left created. To start the healing process, Gay should be fired and replaced with someone who would run the campus competently and apply the rules consistently across the board. I would volunteer for the job, but I don’t want it. Although it would be fun to make Leftist heads explode when I apply the rules to them, I have more important shit to do.

You know, like making a bag of microwave popcorn without it burning.

In the Meme Time

Another Leftist meme. This time they have gotten everything wrong. Usually, they have some truth but not this one. It’s completely false.

First of all the image doesn’t depict a nativity scene at all. This looks more like people traveling somewhere. To be a nativity scene it must show the process or circumstances of being born. There is no birth scene here. This is not the scene right after birth either.

The creator of this meme, and the useful idiots that propagate it, are woefully ignorant of the term “nativity” and the story of the birth of Jesus from the Gospels.

Secondly, what they are actually trying to say is also a false narrative as well. I have written about that before in a similar posting.

This meme is a total fail.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

With all of the chaos of world events and the holiday season, it’s easy to miss pretty important things, especially if the federal government gets involved. And especially if Puddin’ Head Joe is involved.

After not wanting to take on rising drug prices because we had other things to spend money on, like a war an ocean away where we don’t have a direct interest in either side winning (but only a complete moron would do tha…nevermind), Puddin’ Head Joe is finally addressing it. By trying to exert federal power to address it. More specifically, Puddin’ Head Joe’s clown car…I mean Administration has put together a plan to use something called “march-in rights.”

Well, that doesn’t sound ominous!

Needless to say, I have questions. And statements. Oh, and jokes!

march-in rights

What the Left thinks it means – a measure that will allow the government to control drug prices if federal funds were used to develop the drugs

What it really means – a way for the Left to screw up worse than they already do

The origin of march-in rights was the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980. The TL:DR version: this law set up conditions where some entities outside of the public sector could develop inventions they could patent and monetize while receiving federal funds. But there’s a catch, one Leftists have been pushing to use. Under certain circumstances, the government can “march in” and take over, making changes the outside entities may or may not agree with, but have to abide by because…they took federal funding.

Yep. Completely innocuous. Nothing unsavory could happen.

Hell, even someone from Harvard Medical School says there’s nothing to worry about because it’s just the federal government exercising its rights in an agreement. And since it came from Harvard, we know it’s…probably bullshit.

For those of a small government mindset like your humble correspondent, this is the ultimate nose in the tent situation. If you take federal funds to develop a product, that shouldn’t automatically give the government the authority to come in after the fact and screw shit up on a whim. Or as the Puddin’ Head Joe Administration puts it, “extreme, unjustified, and exploitative of a health or safety need.”

Once a government official who may be confused about the number of genders (spoiler alert: still 2) determines this threshold is met, the federal government can swoop in and allow third parties to make the products, in this case drugs, cheaper. On the surface, this doesn’t sound like a bad idea. We all like to save money, especially if we have multiple high-cost prescriptions. So, why do I get the feeling this isn’t going to wind up being as much of a benefit as we’re being told?

Let’s see…Obamacare, the PATRIOT Act, the EPA, the FDA, the USPS, Amtrak, student loans…

For the Leftists out there, these are all things the government has told us would help us, but wind up being really fucking expensive without much actual benefit. But as long as we print the money to keep them rolling, the Left don’t care!

To the Left, money means power, and the most powerful currency in the country is government money. It’s the carrot, the stick, and the whip. It can entice people to act a certain way, as well as to punish wrongthink. And once you take the federal government’s money, you are its bitch until you can find a way out from under its thumb. And, trust me, they won’t make it easy.

Even if the Puddin’ Head Joe Administration figured out how to get its head out of its ass and make march-in rights work with drug costs, there’s going to be a major shift in contract law, especially with federal contracts. If the government decides what you’ve worked on for years runs afoul of what it thinks the fruits of your labor are worth, march-in rights give them the authority to alter whatever agreement you had. And with the criteria as presented being so vague, it could be for any reason it wants, as long as the government can justify it. I don’t know about you, but that’s fucking scary to me.

And it gets worse! Since the government can print money, it doesn’t have to play by the same laws of economics the rest of us do. Government isn’t in the money-making business. If they experience a loss because one of their ideas go tits up, they’ll print more money to cover the loss. And since they’re the only game in town for a lot of things they do, they don’t have an incentive to keep costs low to attract customers. We need what they provide, so they set the prices and the service level and if you don’t like it, fuck you!

There is another aspect to march-in rights that concerns me greatly. If Puddin’ Head Joe is successful here and the courts don’t uphold any challenges to the application, this opens the door for other government-funded projects to be subject to the whims of bureaucrats. You know, like…oh, let me just pull something out of my ass quick…the Internet? A pretty good case could be made that the Internet as we know it came from the Department of Defense, thus it was funded by the government and anyone else who distributes it can expect a knocking at their chamber doors and told what to do going forward or else.

The Corleone family would have killed for this kind of power. Oh, wait…

The point is we can’t let the possibility of lower drug costs blind us to the reality. If you give the government an inch, they’ll take a few thousand miles and then tax you up the ass for it. March-in rights are the governmental equivalent of a Faustian deal: you’ll almost get what you want but not ever get it completely, and you will pay dearly for it.

Like eating Chipotle, only without botulism.

Extremist Makeover: George Santos Edition

In case you haven’t heard, the House career of New York Representative George Santos came to an end recently. Yes, a man who dressed in drag, claimed to be Jewish and tried to explain it away by saying he was Jew-ish, and being a Leftist target for lying to voters (which would be a boon for Leftist politicians) was expelled by the House for…ethics violations.

Yeah. I laughed a lot when I heard that, too.

Anyway, Santos is out of a job and will need to rehabilitate his image. And me, being the equal opportunity helper that I am, I think I have just the thing to do just that.

Let’s start with the basics. George Santos is damaged goods. He’s been caught in a number of questionable situations with varying legal implications. He’s done some sketchy things with finances and broken the law doing it. In short, he’s more radioactive than Chernobyl.

So, what makes me think I can fix his image? Because I’m just stupid enough to try, dammit! And because there’s an obvious solution that will clear everything up and make Santos untouchable in Leftist circles.

All George Santos needs to do is say he self-identifies as Hunter Biden.

Think about it! The First Crackhead has all the sympathy from the Left, and they will circle the wagons at the first sign of criticism. After all, he’s a private citizen…who just happened to use his dad’s name and connections to get jobs an untrained chimp would be more qualified for than he was. You know, just like you and me!

Well, George Santos is in the same boat. He’s a complete scumbag (without ever trying to buy a dime bag) who is utterly irredeemable. No one would trust him to run the fryer at the local McDonalds, let alone anything above that pay grade. But qualifications don’t mean a damn thing if you’re connected to the Bidens! I mean, look at the patriarch!

Plus, there’s the added bonus of holding the Left to their bizarre mindset regarding personal identities. I mean, if a 6’6″ former linebacker wants to be called Loretta, the Left says we have to accept it. So, if George Santos says he identifies as Hunter Biden, the Left won’t have a leg to stand on (not that they usually do, mind you, but work with me here).

And the best part about it? Santos will get all the Leftists defending him without him having to commit the crimes Hunter has! He may still have to atone for the crimes he committed, but he can apply Leftist logic (a contradiction in terms) to the situation and the Left will have to defend him or be exposed as hypocritical idiots.

I’m pretty sure the Left will choose the latter option, but I can dream, right?

In the Meme Time

Yet again the Left gives itself another opportunity to be ridiculed. And this is one of the dumbest memes I’ve seen in a while. And like most Leftist memes. There is always that hint of truth to make you question your believes and to fool the mass of useful idiot.

First up is the Truth. Alchemy is not taught alongside of chemistry. Well no shit. This gives the meme that initial credibility to make the rest of it sound correct but it doesn’t when you actually read it with a bit of knowledge and logical thought.

Alchemy isn’t taught alongside of chemistry because alchemy is the precursor to chemistry and other areas of modern science. We generally don’t teach the precursors to something that has a modern version. And certainly not alongside it’s modern version.

Astrology isn’t taught alongside of physics. Well of course not. Astrology has very little to do with physics as a whole. Maybe alongside of astrophysics would be acceptable when there is talk of planetary motion. But nothing else within astrology is related to physics at all. Unless you count metaphysics. It a bad comparison.

But unlike alchemy, astrology itself is still taught in the schools of metaphysics. To make the point more sound it would have been better to state that astrology is not taught alongside of astronomy. That would be accurate but the Left doesn’t like doing things that are logical, accurate, or true.

Also, unlike alchemy, astrology is still used today by millions of people. From the lowest poor and enslaved to the highest leaders of many nations and the wealthiest of people. And they use astrology to make decisions that impact not only themselves but others as well.

Most of our modern sciences had their roots in the 18th or 19th centuries. That’s the 1700s or 1800s for those not paying attention. A good number of these early scientists were priests or monks. Exploring the natural world and the heavens to glorify God and His creation.

So the atheist who states that creationism shouldn’t be taught alongside of biology is half right. Creationism is part of every scientific area of study. It is an integrated and inseparable part of biology and every other science.

I’m sure the author quoted in the meme, if they are indeed even a real person, truly meant to beat down on Creationism vs Evolution. Where Evolution is just a theory. It is not fact or even proven at this point. But Creationism is absolute.

God created the heavens and the earth. God created the vegetation that grows upon it. God created the fish of the seas, the birds of the air, and the beasts of fields and wildlife. And God created man in His own image.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Another week, another bunch of economic bullshit coming from the Puddin’ Head Joe Administration, and from the man himself. Seems Bidenomics isn’t working out the way Leftists thought, so they decided to take decisive action and…gaslight the fuck out of us!

Adding insult to injury came a tweet from Puddin’ Head Joe’s account suggesting any company not lowering prices to match lower inflation rates was guilty of price gouging. Although this squawking point hasn’t gotten spread around yet (with help from social media influencers who know less about economics than Puddin’ Head Joe), I figure I’d try to cut it off at the pass so you know just how full of shit these folks are.

price gouging

What the Left thinks it means – when greedy corporations charge more for goods and services than the market allows

What it really means – when Leftists don’t like you making more money than they think you deserve

Before we delve into the unintelligent muck of Leftist thinking on price gouging, let’s set a baseline. There are a lot of definitions and examples, but this one from EconomicsHelp.org makes the most sense to me:

Price gouging is a situation where business take advantage of an external crisis to charge excessive prices for basic necessities – selling the goods significantly above their usual price.

Granted, there are a lot of subjective terms at work here, but you get the idea. It’s not a controversial position to say price gouging is bad, mkay?, but the way the term gets applied is getting more ridiculous than the social media posts of those trying to tell us Bidenomics is working. But at the very least, Puddin’ Head Joe admitted Bidenomics is a crisis, albeit unwittingly…which is pretty much how he does anything these days.

One of the Left’s favorite targets for accusations of price gouging is Big Oil. During the height of lockdowns, Leftists said oil companies making record profits was proof of price gouging. Of course, there’s a tiny problem with this: namely, the lack of any fucking proof in their statements of proof. A much larger problem, though, is the lack of any knowledge of how economics works.

There’s this little thing the kids like to call supply and demand which is constantly in play regardless of circumstances. In times of scarcity of either side of this equation, prices are going to go up, which means the more people buy, the more money companies make. So, even though the aforementioned oil companies made record profits, it’s more due to the law of supply and demand than it is breaking price gouging laws. Then again, if Leftists knew one-tenth of a fuck about economics, they wouldn’t be Leftists. Or they’d be really rich Leftists.

Unfortunately, most people know less about economics than Leftists do, so they buy into the “Big Corporations Bad!” mindset more easily than getting a crackhead to accept free crack. (By the way, how ya doin’, Hunter?) The Left may not know much about how to make an economy work, but they know how to play on the emotions of the public to get them to grab the torches and pitchforks whenever the Left says gas prices are too high. Of course, if state and federal governments would drop the gas tax, prices would be more affordable, but we can’t have nice things.

Put another way, Puddin’ Head Joe is counting on the public to be dumber than he is and blame high prices on the faceless corporate overlords. And there’s a good chance he’ll be right.

Or will he? Public opinion of Bidenomics sank faster than my interest in listening to “Last Christmas” by Wham this year. Or any year, for that matter. Voters have soured on how Puddin’ Head Joe has handled the economy, which is already getting Leftists scared at the possibility of President Trump 2.0 and offering up conflicting advice from continuing to run on Bidenomics to trying to rebrand it to make people aware of what it’s actually done. And a part of that strategy seems to be to blame others for the shit they caused.

Now, in the interest of fairness, the government can’t control inflation, which is the real bugaboo right now with the economy. However, it can affect it through various means, such as legislation, regulations, and, of course, fucking things up and blaming others for it. Of course, the smart thing for the government to do at a time of inflation is, well, not to do the shit that’s causing inflation to go up. But, this is the federal government we’re talking about here, so the smart thing isn’t on their agenda.

And speaking of agendas, claiming businesses are engaging in price gouging is part of the Leftist agenda. Leftists believe there is a finite amount of money (while they spend it like there isn’t), and that translates to power. If Leftists can’t cuck you into giving away your money to the government (see Bill Gates), they will use any force they can to control the money going into a company (see Elon Musk and the Social Media Platform Formerly Known as Twitter). And here’s the twist: no matter how much money you give to the government or to Leftists, it’s never enough. You’ve just made yourself into an eternal sucker that the Left will always go to for money. It’s like being the parent of an entitled college student, but with less laundry.

This is where the accusations of price gouging come into play. By accusing businesses of being too greedy, it not only shifts the blame away from those who are actually responsible for it, but it puts pressure on the businesses to respond. And when someone with the governmental force of Puddin’ Head Joe tells you to lower prices, you’re expected to listen. Damn overhead costs and being able to recoup some of the costs of doing business! You either follow along with the plan or you get called out for being a greedy meanie-head!

This is why some people aren’t made for the private sector. Or the public sector for that matter.

Leftists are notoriously bad at economics, so it’s no wonder they resort to emotional manipulation tactics to get people to get angry at companies for trying to make a living in a shitty economy. Although there are cases when companies do jack up prices beyond what they realistically could, not every company is doing it. It’s like calling someone a racist; it’s a serious enough charge with implications on multiple levels, so it shouldn’t be thrown around like beads during Mardi Gras. If Puddin’ Head Joe has any evidence, I’m willing to look it over and determine if it’s actual price gouging or a lame-ass excuse for fucking up the economy.

Something tells me it’s going to be the latter.