Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

It wasn’t a good week for Leftists, especially one Rep. Jamaal Bowman of New York. In spite of an…well, unintentionally hilarious rally with the Socialist Socialite prior to Bowman’s primary, he lost by 17 points to his opponent, George Latimer. Who knew being actively anti-Semitic in a city with a sizable Jewish population would work against him?

I mean aside from anyone with a functioning brain.

That brings us to Rep. Cori Bush of Missouri, who is trailing her primary opponent by a slim margin. In an attempt to hold her role in the Squad and explain why her fellow Squad member went down harder than a fishing lure throat lozenge, she went all Cynthia McKinney and blamed the Jews, and more specifically the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC as the hip kids call it. Surely, such a group must secretly be working with the GOP to unseat the Squad because Rep. Bush said so!

Well, Rep. Bush, the truth is a lot more complicated than you think, but as a favor to you, I’ll try to dumb it down so you can keep up.


What the Left thinks it means – a corrupt Far Right lobbying group that has turned Democrats and Republicans into Jewish sympathizers

What it really means – a bipartisan group that may want to reconsider its donations going forward

To hear the Squad and many of their fellow dumbasses talk, AIPAC is pure dag nasty evil. After all, AIPAC supports that pure dag nasty evil apartheid state, Israel! How can anyone with a shred of decency support such a country, especially within the boundaries of the US of A?

Yeah, that’s where things get complicated. AIPAC isn’t some right wing dark money group that targets anti-Israeli politicians. Their support list is quite bipartisan, including former Speaker of the House and current drunk around the House Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and Ted Lieu. In fact, AIPAC has given more money to Democrat candidates and causes since 2018.


Of course, we’re dealing with Rep. Bush here, who claimed to have healed people by touch alone through faith without any evidence. But Party of Science, kids!

Meanwhile back in the real world, it’s not hard to understand why the Squad has a hate-boner for AIPAC. Contrary to what they say (which is usually so dumb it makes Joe Biden’s last debate performance look positively fucking brilliant), they hate Israel and Jews at their cores. While previous politicians have done a good job at balancing their public beliefs and their private beliefs, the Squad are honey badgers: they just don’t care. When the Good Lord gave out fucks about Israel, the Squad asked for and got none.

Turns out they also passed on brains, but that’s another story.

The truly scary part of this movement against AIPAC is how rapidly it’s being picked up by fellow Leftists who share the same opinions as the Squad. As support for Palestine grew on college campuses, so did the hatred towards anything and anyone Jewish. That manifested itself in many ways, not the least of which being rhetoric that would make The Protocols of Zion look tame and rational.

And remember, folks, these are the assholes who will be running the country at some point.

This puts Democrats in a bit of a bind that no amount of kosher food and yarmulkes can fix. The embedded leadership is pro-Israel or at least smart enough not to let their true feelings slip in public. The up-and-coming politicians may or may not share those sentiments, but as long as they keep getting elected and reelected, at some point the balance will shift and AIPAC will become yet another part of the Vast Right Wing Dark Money Koch Brothers Fox News Donald Trump Conglomerate.

Of course, this further justifies AIPAC’s existence because they like to keep the relationship between America and Israel as good as it can be. So, when the Squad says and does the shit they do, AIPAC has a vested interest in defeating the Squad at the ballot box. With Bowman’s crushing defeat, that’s one down, too many more to go.

On the surface, this might give Rep. Bush’s comments about AIPAC some credibility. Yes, they did spend money to unseat Bowman, but did it have an impact? Not so much. Before AIPAC spent one cent on the Bowman race, internal polling data showed he was already down by 10 points. That grew to 17 points by April of this year. Although AIPAC could have had a hand in it, the more likely reason is…Bowman was (and still is) an unlikable asshole.

You would think the Left would have learned its lesson after their previous unlikable asshole Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump. I mean, they are smarter than us. Just ask them!

To their credit, The Nation summed up the shitstorm Bowman created and why AIPAC isn’t to blame. And although I’m sure they wouldn’t like to be associated with me, I can’t find fault in some of their conclusions. In true Leftist style, they couched their factual observations with more predictable anti-AIPAC/anti-Israel squawking points that could have come straight from the Squad themselves.

Given this, AIPAC might need to reconsider who gets donations from them going forward. I mean, it’s bad enough to have Adam Schiff and Ted Lieu in Congress, let alone getting your campaign donation checks. But as bad as they are, they are going to be far better than who may replace them when the time comes. Aside from a few hard right cranks, most on the Right agree with the notion Israel has a right to exist and, thus, appreciate what AIPAC is trying to do. And considering the Right are the ones with easy access to weaponry, AIPAC could do a lot worse in the support department.

But the best part of the Squad’s anti-AIPAC rhetoric? It proves the political version of the Horseshoe Theory since the Socialist Socialite got some fan mail in the form of a message on the Social Media Platform Formerly Known as Twitter from…noted but not that noteworthy right wing nutjob Nick Fuentes. Of course, the Socialist Socialite rejected his message, but if AIPAC can bring together two opposites like this, we should celebrate it! Hell, let’s make it a national holiday!

Call it When Stupid People Hate the Same Things Day!

The “Fix” Is In

To call President Brick Tamland’s performance during his first debate with Donald Trump a disaster would be an understatement of Godzilla-like proportions. And not the good Godzilla, either. I’m talking the shitty 90s version of Godzilla with Matthew Broderick that sucked ass.

Anyway, the Left is in panic mode and throwing out ideas on what to do from here, and one of those involves throwing out President Tamland off the ticket for 2024. As much fun and chaos that would ensue from this, I have to put on my conspiratorial hat for a bit to wonder if this wasn’t a plot to get the President off the ticket and find a replacement that would fare better against Trump.

At this point, I will warn you this is pure speculation on my part. I have no inside sources speaking on terms of protecting their identities and I’m not clever enough to invent such sources myself, so take what I’m about to say with as big a grain of salt as you want. Just make sure you take your blood pressure meds before you do.

Anyone with functioning eyes, ears, and brain can see President Tamland isn’t quite as lucid as he seemed to be in 2020. Part of this can be attributed to him being Methuselah with hair extensions. As we age, our mental faculties may take a bit of a dip. This isn’t always the case, but with the President, I think the dip is much more pronounced than it was a few years ago. And let’s not kid ourselves. Being the President adds years to your life, even after only a little bit of time in the position. If you take up the mantle, you had best be ready for the toll it will have on you.

Granted, I’ve never seen President Tamland as particularly bright before now. He’s always come off to me as a used car salesman with a broad smile, a welcoming demeanor, and the ability to schmooze his way into a deal that will leave you heaving off the lot in a rusted out Yugo with a transmission being held together by bubble gum, some chicken wire, and a blessing from the Pope. He’s definitely a people person, which will take you far in politics.

But this year, being Not Trump isn’t going to cut it.

Under the guidance of President Tamland, we’ve had severe inflation, an economy that can’t seem to make up its mind whether to be shitty or super shitty, and the bungling of issues here and abroad. His track record as President has been arguably one of the worst in modern history on many levels, so much so that we’re willing to give a convicted felon another shot at the White House because he doesn’t seem that bad compared to the dumpster fire we’re currently experience.

In political terms, President Tamland has served his purpose, which was to defeat Trump. If he did a couple of good things here and there, it was gravy. But now, he’s becoming more of a liability than Hunter Biden, and that’s saying something!

Here’s where the numbskullery…I mean skullduggery comes into play. President Tamland wants to be President again, not because he’s particularly good at it, but because he really can’t do anything else. The dude has been in public office for almost all of my life, and I am not a young man at this point. If he were to leave the White House voluntarily or otherwise, what could he realistically do? Teach a class on how to be a fuck-up and get paid big money for it?

By the way, I think that course is already being offered next semester at Harvard.

As a result, President Tamland has dug in his heels and refused to accept any advice to pack it in, retire to Connecticut, and regale his grandkids with stories about how Corn Pop was a bad dude. Early on in this election cycle, the Left were okay with it for the most part, aside from the usual rabble rousing from the Squad and other like-hiveminded Leftists. Even the media got involved and tried to downplay what we were seeing as nothing major. The President is as sharp as he ever was (see my previous comments about him and why that’s not a compliment). Anybody who says otherwise is ageist, a right wing smear monger, or out and out lying to you.

After the debate, these same folks were singing a completely different tune.

And that’s all part of the plan. Remember, President Tamland’s team set the ground rules for the first debate, so there’s a part of me thinking it was a set up from the jump. Even the people closest to the President have to have seen his decline, even if they don’t want to admit it. In order to keep their jobs in what they hope would be a Tamland-in-name-only Administration, they needed an out. The debate was that out.

And the best thing about it for them is it was a no-lose situation. If Tamland performed the way he did, they could make the argument he shouldn’t be the nominee anymore. If he did better than expected, they could run to the media and say “We told you so!” without missing a beat or raising even the slightest doubt as to his capabilities.

Now, thanks to President Tamland making Kamala Harris look brilliant, the door is wide open for new faces to throw their hats into the ring. And with the right amount of prodding, President Tamland might even step down of his own volition. A perfect solution to an imperfect problem right?

Yeah, not so much.

The current Democrat Party is a loose-knit coalition of special interest groups who are willing to set aside personal differences to achieve an ideological goal, at least in theory. In current practice, however, the party has more cracks than Hunter can smoke in a weekend. With morons like the Squad squabbling with the party leadership over candidates who don’t meet their progressive litmus tests, getting a new candidate to replace President Tamland is going to be daunting. And the rank and file are starting to agree more with the Socialist Socialite than Nancy Pelosi, which means the possibility of there being a political turf war that results in the nomination of a candidate nobody likes, but has to run to preserve democracy or some shit.

That means Kamala still has a chance to be the Presidential nominee!

This also opens up a lot of questions about the quality of candidates willing to step up and most likely lose. The only thing bigger than a politician’s closet full of skeletons is his or her ego. Any Democrat who decides to try to win the nomination is going to have to be able to deal with President Tamland’s fuck-ups in a way that doesn’t affect future potential runs. And with the bozos on deck, from California Governor Gavin Newsom to Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, I’m not sure they have a viable Plan B. Their best course of victory might be to forfeit.

Or they could just run Hillary Clinton again.

Even after all of that, even if they find a candidate willing to be the whipping boy (or girl) to Trump, there may be convention headaches not related to partying with Nancy Pelosi. The way Democrats run their conventions makes as much sense as Calvinball. The states have delegates, but the party also has superdelegates who can override the will of the delegates. After all, we can’t have people actually affect who gets to be the nominee, amirite?

If there is a fight between a candidate chosen by the delegates and a candidate preferred by the superdelegates, there is going to be chaos on the level of a Michael Bay movie, possibly with fewer unnecessary explosions. Hopefully, the party leadership is smart enough to find a way out of this…I can’t even type the rest of that sentence with a straight face. If they were smart enough in the first place, they would have convinced President Tamland to serve only one term.

Now, we get a little further into the weeds, so I’ll try to be brief here. When there is a convention where candidates are voted in, there is a process that has to be followed. If there needs to be a deviation of that process, the majority body has to agree to it. Before any speeches are given or video montages rolled, there needs to be a vote. Otherwise, it’ll just be night after night of “Trump Bad!” So, you know, pretty much the entire Tamland campaign strategy to date. Without agreement, there can be no nomination. No nomination means no candidate. But it doesn’t mean we won’t get night after night of boring speeches that will only appeal to the faithful. I don’t foresee this part being a big problem under the circumstances, but it could still happen.

And perhaps the biggest headache facing Democrats if they go through with replacing President Tamland: state election laws. Each state sets up its own laws regarding how elections are run, how one qualifies to be on the ballot, and the like. And, yes, there are time limits to these things. If a candidate isn’t officially a nominee by the time these deadlines come and go (as what almost happened to President Tamland in Ohio), the states may have to revisit whether he or she qualifies to be on the ballot.

And guess which party controls the majority of the gubernatorial seats in this country. Can you say “Republicans,” boys and girls? I knew you could. Add into the fact many of these Republican Governors also have Republican majorities in their legislatures, there might not be a lot of leeway given to the potential Democrat nominee if it’s not President Tamland.

But simply, this is a problem that would make Rube Goldberg and M.C. Escher scratch their heads in confusion and disbelief. All because a man in serious mental decline wouldn’t take no for an answer.

Sucks to be you!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

In case you’ve been living under a rock or on the campus of UC Berkeley, you’ve heard President Brick Tamland is old. How old? I wish I could say this is a set up to a Johnny Carson-esque joke, but I can’t. He really is old, and it shows.

Or, it would show if Leftists were honest about it. Instead of admitting President Tamland is so old he makes Strom Thurmond look like a newborn (and, to be honest, I’m not sure the President wasn’t at his baptism), they’re going with a different approach: pretending everything we’re seeing isn’t real. In fact, the Tamland Administration has come up with a new term to describe it, that being “cheap fakes.”

Given the inflation caused by the Administration, I’m surprised anything is cheap. But it’s a good jumping on point for this week’s Lexicon.

cheap fakes

What the Left thinks it means – the results of right wing media distorting videos to give the impression the President is feeble and not capable of being President

What it really means – Leftists trying to gaslight us more than Victorian times

The Left knows the President has issues, and by issues I mean subscriptions. He mumbles incoherently like he’s taking diction lessons from Ozzy Osbourne. He loses track of where he is in speeches, even reading directly off the teleprompter when it was more instructional. He freezes in the middle of sentences and stares blankly into space. He wanders off and has to have others help him get to where he’s supposed to go. He’s even fallen up stairs. Not down, up!

But Orange Man Bad, amirite?

No matter what video evidence there is (and how many videos show the same deteriorating conditions), the Left has an answer. They provide statements from numerous sources, including Republicans, saying President Tamland is as mentally sharp as ever. They compare the President’s mental ability to Donald Trump’s. And now, they’re saying it’s all fake.

It’s at this point I’m throwing the brown bullshit flag. It’s one thing to have it happened once in a while. We all get old and occasionally forgetful. It’s another thing altogether to dismiss multiple televised and live instances to consider it to be a total right wing conspiracy with altered footage, distorted camera angles, and selective still shots to make President Tamland look bad. He’s doing that well enough all on his own, so he doesn’t need the Right’s help.

But the Left’s response to people noticing President Tamland is shakier than Rosie O’Donnell eating Jello on the San Andreas Fault during a 7.8 earthquake is a tell. As you’ve seen in previous Lexicon entries, the Left has no problem doing what they’re accusing the Right of doing. Fuck, Media Matters has made a tidy career of doing just that. Then, there’s documentarian/all-you-can-eat-buffet enthusiast Michael Moore, a reliable Leftist liar.

And don’t get me started on the Left’s “very fine people on both sides” lie.

The Left has no problem lying when it suits them, so when they call actual video footage of President Tamland acting like a broken down animatronic robot from the Hall of Presidents a cheap fake, it’s pure drive in movie level projection, baby!

That’s not to say the right-leaning news organizations aren’t prone to distortion when it suits a narrative, mind you. Fox News has seen legal repercussions from lying, as has Alex Jones. And, for what it’s worth, I don’t trust either of them (although the video of an Alex Jones rant turned into a folk song is pretty funny). But it’s Hank Johnson opinions on Guam levels of stupid to say the Right is on par with the Left when it comes to distorting the truth. Dishonesty against political opponents is the coin of their realm.

Oh, and being absolute fucking idiots.

And they’re being absolute fucking idiots here. Instead of saying “Yeah, President Tamland is a PR disaster that shits himself on the regular, but he’s the best candidate we have,” the Left will continue to blame right wing disinformation and expect us to either cower in fear or question what we clearly see time after time after time.

What they don’t expect is for people across the ideological spectrum to see President Tamland’s decline and express concern he may be too old and incapable of being President. It’s getting harder and harder for the Tamland Administration and its lapdog media sources to tell us what we clearly see isn’t what we’re seeing and there’s a perfectly rational explanation for everything. They haven’t come up with this rational explanation, mind you, but they insist there is one.

Of course, this wouldn’t be a Leftist Lexicon entry without exposing at least some Leftist hypocrisy. Back in the mid-to-late 80s there was another President who was accused of being in cognitive decline while in office. That man was Ronald Reagan. Media outlets at the time questioned his mental acuity and there is some debate as to whether Reagan had Alzheimer’s Disease while in the White House. At that time, more than a few of the Leftists now saying President Tamland isn’t experiencing any decline in his faculties were suggesting Reagan was incompetent. They’ll deny it, of course, but it happened. I was fucking there. And they continue to do it.

But when it’s one of theirs (or two if you count Dianne Feinstein), such concerns are brushed aside. All for political gain.

Fuck that shit! We are seeing a man who shouldn’t be running a lemonade stand let alone have access to the nuclear codes getting worse and worse at a job that has physical and mental strains attached to it. And the worst part is I can’t even be mad at President Tamland for it. He’s being used by others as a figurehead while the real shitty work is being done behind the scenes when it’s not being done in his pants. This is elder abuse, but with global implications.

And the people using President Tamland as a meat-shield don’t care. They care about us noticing his mental decline repeatedly and deciding he should be home, not in the White House. And that’s utterly fucked up when you think about it.

So, save me the “cheap fakes” bullshit. Not only is a stupid turn of a phrase, but it reveals how little you really think of the President as a human being. The more you run interference for the guy, the worse it gets for you.

But look at the bright side. After this Administration gets tossed out on its asses and all the bullshit gets exposed, they will always have a seat on any panel on MSNBC.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

It’s been a busy couple of weeks as political figures and politically adjacent figures have had their days in court and come out with convictions (the legal kind, not the moral kind). First, we had former President Donald Trump get convicted on 34 felony counts in a trial even Stevie Wonder could see was legally shaky. Because he’s a legal scholar, you guys. Surely, there’s not another way you can interpret…ohhhhhhh! Moving on before I get in more trouble.

Then, President Brick Tamland’s son, Hunter Biden, caught three felony convictions for lying on federal gun forms to illegally obtain a firearm while being a drug abuser. Wait a minute…I thought stricter gun laws were supposed to prevent this kind of thing! But that’s a blog post for another time.

In both cases, the Left cheered the rule of law. After all, both had their days in court and they met their fates. So, there’s nothing more to say, right?

Wrong, because if there wasn’t anything more to say, this would be a really short Leftist Lexicon entry.

rule of law

What the Left thinks it means – a fundamental principle where everyone is treated the same in the eyes of the law

What it really means – a fundamental principle where everyone should be treated the same in the eyes of the law, but isn’t

For all of their faults, the Founding Fathers understood the potential for dishonest people to put their thumbs on the scales of justice. That’s why they included specific limitations in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights to mitigate those instances whenever possible. Granted, I’m not sure they could have foreseen the sheer scumbaggery of some legal “professionals” (I’m looking at you, Michael Avenatti), but they did the best they could with the scumbags of their era.

What they didn’t foresee was the power of politics and wealth on judicial proceedings. In some cases, the guilty are set free because they could afford better lawyers. In others, the innocent get railroaded because of factors beyond the facts of the case.

And then we have the Donald Trump and Hunter Biden cases. Since I’m not a lawyer, I won’t pretend to know all the ins and outs of the proceedings, but I can speak to what I know.

You can stop giggling now.

With the Trump trial, there was a clear bias against him starting with Alvin “Not One of the Chipmunks” Bragg. Bragg is one of those District Attorneys that has to be elected rather than appointed, and he ran on a platform of holding Trump accountable, as did the other candidates he ran against. New York Attorney General Letitia “I’m Not Rick” James, who was also elected on a platform of getting Trump, didn’t help alleviate questions of impartiality.

Of course, there was Bragg’s move to elevate Trump’s crimes, which were misdemeanors under the law, to felonies because…reasons, I guess? Actually, I’m not even sure he knows why other than it’s what he promised to do when he ran for District Attorney. All I know for sure is there were shortcuts taken to achieve the end goal. And gain the fawning adoration of Leftists and media folks (sorry, for repeating myself). Of course, those shortcuts may lead to not only an appeal, but the entire verdict being overturned, but hey. Bragg and James made good on their campaign promises, so all’s good, right?

I quote the great philosopher Lana Kane from “Archer”: Noooooooooope!

The thing about the rule of law that sticks with me is it isn’t about the final verdict so much as it is about how that verdict is reached. There is a process that has to be followed to ensure there is as level a playing field as possible for all parties. When political and media parties get involved, that playing field gets less even than highway lines painted during a 5.8 earthquake.

But it isn’t a one-way street. While rushing to prosecute a former President because he happened to beat an unlikable candidate in 2016 certainly shows the effects of political biases on legal proceedings, the same can be seen when political biases are used to slow down proceedings. That brings us to Hunter Biden’s recent convictions.

The Constitution guarantees the accused the right to a speedy trial, but when your daddy is the President, that speedy trial gets slower than Al Gore’s speech on Ambien. And it’s even worse if you’re the one taking the Ambien.

Although Hunter’s gun case is the one we’ve just experienced, he’s also on the hook for possible tax crimes. And thanks to his daddy and his lackeys in the IRS and Department of Justice, there were delays in prosecuting the Huntster. Oh, but that didn’t stop that same DOJ from dragging its feet of clay in prosecuting Hunter’s federal gun charges as well.

Does that sound like the rule of law being respected to you? If so, seek help.

Although the delays are humorous in a way because President Brick Tamland is bragging about pushing for stronger gun laws, it doesn’t speak well of his efforts or the rule of law when people under his…well, I wouldn’t call it leadership so much as being lead-ership are throwing a Sahara Desert’s worth of sand in the legal machinery to avoid embarrassment. Of course, if these folks really cared about not causing President Tamland to be embarrassed, they wouldn’t have allowed him to run for a first term, let alone a second term. Oh, and here’s another tip for the President: if you want to avoid embarrassment from your family, don’t let your son be a fucking crackhead!

What the Left’s approach to the rule of law is if you make the laws you make the rules, which is admittedly the way things have gone in recent years. From a political perspective, it’s ruthless, cutthroat, and devoid of a moral framework, which means it’s perfect for today’s government. But when the political makes a move into the judicial, it doesn’t work so well because invariably you are going to run into people who try to stay true to the words and the meanings of the law. That’s why Leftists hate originalist Supreme Court Justices. If you believe the law is written in stone, there isn’t any wiggle room. If you believe the law is written in erasable marker, you can create your own wiggle room and get rid of it when it’s no longer necessary.

The Left does have respect for the rule of law when it comes to precedent, namely any precedent they agree with. For decades, the Left relied on precedent to force through whatever it wants from abortion to gay rights to Affirmative Action. After all, if you get a court to agree with your interpretation of the way things should be, it’s all the Left needs to turn it into 50 more things tangentally related to the original decision because precedent.

The problem with precedent, though, is it can be overturned by later rulings. Take Plessey v Ferguson, for example. The court wrongly decided state discrimination laws did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment as long as things were “separate but equal.” Of course, they never were, but still. Just because Plessey was precedent doesn’t mean it was good precedent. Then, Brown v Board of Education pimp-slapped “separate but equal,” thus relegating it to law texts, history books, and the occasional blog post by some asshole trying to make a point about the rule of law.

The Left’s situational love of the rule of law is telling, and it’s not telling us anything good. When an ideology bases its appreciation for it on whether it gives them a desired result, the rule of law becomes more of a club than a scale, which cheapens it. The good news is the highest court of the land is in the hands of people more inclined to respect it than use it like a cheap hooker. And the greatest part of it all? Leftists paved the way to make it happen!

Thanks, Harry Reid!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

With the Presidential election a little under 5 months away (I’m surprised I didn’t hear more about this), all eyes are on the election process as much as the two major party candidates running (or in President Brick Tamland’s case, stumbling). While the Left has been repeating “Trump is a convicted felon” until their face turns blue…r, they’ve also been raising concerns about election interference. After all, our elections are sacrosanct and it’s clear Trump and the GOP is trying to weaken our faith in the election process by questioning the results.

You know, like these same Leftists did in 2000, 2004, 2016…

This raises the question of what constitutes election interference. A good question, but one with some really bad answers.

election interference

What the Left thinks it means – steps taken to question or derail our elections

What it really means – a nebulous term that covers a lot of ground without providing consistent and concrete examples

Elections used to be easy to handle. You show up, show ID, go into a booth with a curtain like a small shower, and pull your levers or mark your ballots. Or in some cases, mark your ballots while pulling your lever. And even when we disagreed with the outcomes, we lived with them without discord.

Then, the political parties realized they could cheat. Whether it was Chicago Mayor Richard Daley delivering votes for John F. Kennedy or the whole hanging chad controversy from the 2000 Presidential election, it became more commonplace to think our elections could be rigged through underhanded means. But surely two major political parties with decades of shadowy meetings and more vices than Sodom and Gomorrah with an all you can eat buffet would never sink to fucking with the election process, right?


When you think about it (and I have because our Internet was down for a couple of hours), election interference as a concept has a pretty wide scope. Even with the various state election laws and federal election laws, there are a lot of gray areas. Just like my hair these days.

But the existence of laws themselves doesn’t make partisans any less tempted to break them. And when you consider election law violations are investigated as infrequently as the media covering anything involving Hunter Biden, there’s a good chance any election crimes are going to go unpunished. If anything, I’m surprised more people haven’t started questioning whether our elections aren’t as staged as pro wrestling.

Actually, that’s not a fair comparison. Pro wrestling is much more on the level.

Now, that’s going to get me branded as an election denier by the Left, which is fine. I’ve been insulted worse by better people. But if you’re going to tell me my questioning of election results that make less sense than a Kamala Harris sentence is threatening the integrity of elections, you’d better come with evidence beyond “we’re uncomfortable with you telling the truth about our election crimes.”

In fact, Leftists consider what they consider to be “misinformation” to be election interference. Considering these Leftists can’t figure out what a woman is, I’m not going to take them that seriously.

And it’s this same attitude I’m taking towards the Left’s sudden concern with election integrity and preventing interference. From where I sit (in my living room in my comfy chair as I write this), this concern is based not on acknowledging the screamingly obvious, but hiding the election interference that has already occurred and may be gearing up again to help President Tamland limp across the finish line in November.

One safeguard the Right has asked to be put in place to reduce election interference is voter ID laws. Actually showing identification and having a poll worker confirm you are who you say you are is a good way to better ensure election integrity.

Which is why the Left opposes it. Not only do they consider them to be burdensome, but racist! After all, it might make minorities actually have to do something outrageous, like…getting a driver’s license!

Yet, voter ID laws could easily fit under the Left’s umbrella for election interference because it doesn’t fit in with the overall plan: electing more Leftists. And with the election of more Leftists come the appointment of more Leftists into positions that you’d need an act of God, an edict from the Vatican, and a signed note from your mother to get them out of.

To go along with this, Leftists could consider laws against electioneering to fall under that designation. Fortunately, we’ve never had a major party offer food and water to people in line to vote, like, ever, right? Also, consider laws restricting mail in ballots. Certainly, the Left would consider that election interference. In fact, as it currently sits, election interference could mean just about anything.

Except for the shit they do. Like…oh I don’t know…getting their favorite rich relative Uncle George Soros to push for Leftists to be responsible for counting the votes in various states? And if these people are aligned with one side or the other, what safeguards are there to prevent them from miscounting votes or tossing out valid ballots while excusing invalid ones? And if there appear to be boxes and boxes of ballots that mysteriously show up at the 13th hour, it’s up to these folks to determine if they’re valid, even if there are discrepancies.

Call me a cynic, but I’ve seen too much election-related fuckery because of dishonest bullshit from partisan players. And with how vague and contradictory the Left’s definition of election interference is, I have zero faith in their professed desire to tackle it.

However, there is a method to their madness, that being holding the Right accountable to the rules. Thank you, Saul Alinsky. The only difference is the rules are being set by the Left and the Right is going along with them because, well, they’re the rules. The Left has no intention of following the rules they make, but they’ll be sticklers whenever the Right deviates from them.

That is, until the Right decides to force the issue. Voter ID laws, restrictions on mail-in ballots, and other options on the table are not only reasonable, but doable. And they put the Left in a difficult position: support laws that will go a long way to ensuring election integrity (and cut down on the amount of bitching from everyone except the Left), or admit they’re full of shit.

Guess which one I’m betting on.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

As you might have noticed, Leftists have this tendency to overblow some things (not using the correct pronouns leads to trans genocide) and underplay others (the Green New Deal is all about green energy…and enriching green companies who could drive a kid’s lemonade stand into Chapter 11 bankruptcy). Recently in Leftist circles online, the latest buzz is around Project 2025, a little something the kids at the Heritage Foundation put together in preparation of a Republican becoming President in 2025. To hear the Left talk about it, it’s a blueprint for an oppressive conservative government. You know, just like the Trump Presidency was?

By the way, Leftists, that was sarcasm.

What isn’t sarcasm is how Leftists are losing their shit over Project 2025, so that means it’s a worthy topic for this week’s Lexicon.

Project 2025

What the Left thinks it means – a plan by extreme right wingers to destroy the federal government

What it really means – a wish list of conservative expectations should a Republican become President sooner rather than later

The Heritage Foundation describes its mission as:

Heritage’s mission is to formulate and promote public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.

No wonder the Left thinks they’re worse than bathing, holding down a steady job, and not hating Jews.

Although this would be enough to outrage any Leftist, the existence of Project 2025 sets them off more than assuming their genders. (Pro Tip: still 2) In fact, Leftists have been screeching about it being a template for Donald Trump to get revenge for his 2020 loss, a means to bring about “widespread, wholesale policy violence“, a “movement that could erode black equality“, and other hyperbolic statements that would make hypochondriacs look sober and rational.

So, what is it exactly? In one form, it’s a nearly-1000 page book outlining different areas the Heritage Foundation would like the next Republican President would enact. There are five major legs to this policy stool:

Taking the Reins of Government
The Common Defense
The General Welfare
The Economy
Independent Regulatory Agencies

Given what the Heritage Foundation’s mission statement referenced above says, some of these are “no fucking duh” policy areas. Of course, this sort of thing is confusing to Leftists and, thus, evil! But for others who can read and write at beyond the Socialist Socialite level, it shouldn’t be so much of a mystery to get Scooby and the Gang to figure out. And they don’t even have to talk to Old Man Jenkins, the guy who runs the haunted Washington think tank!

After looking at some of the proposals (since I didn’t have time to read the whole thing due to having to work for a living), most of them don’t sound so bad. Some of them, like suggesting dismantling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, have me giddy with delight for reasons I won’t get into here. But that I did get into here.

So, why are Leftists losing their collectivist shit over Project 2025? The most obvious reason is, if implemented, it will undo a lot of what they’ve been able to do under President Brick Tamland and even further back. The Left loves bureaucracy because it’s easy and well-paying work. You could put an elderly guy with an affinity for lying and not being able to string together full sentences at the head of such an agency and Leftists wouldn’t bat an eye. Good thing America isn’t so stupid as to let that kind of person have any kind of power, amirite?

Beyond the surface, though, there is an air of the Right picking up on tactics the Left have been using for decades. Like creating training courses for future conservative leaders, for example. Teaching potential leaders on how to advance a political agenda is a horrible practice…that Democrats have been doing for a while now. And Progressives. But it’s not like the Left has a think tank backing them…oh, shit, yes they do! In fact, the Left has a network of groups that do what they’re afraid the Heritage Foundation wants to do.

And that’s the operative word here, kids: afraid. The Right has one major advantage over the Left in that the Right tends to understand how things work. With modern technology, not so much, but with more concrete concepts, absolutely. When the Right decides to do something the Left does, they tend to do it better and more successfully. When the Left tries to do something the Right does, it tends to be a disaster. The former gave us Fox News Channel. The latter gave us Err America.

It’s this fear the Left is manifesting in shrieking harpy-esque ways. If the Heritage Foundation’s plans are successful, the Left will have to fight on a little more even ground than they’ve had to previously. And if things aren’t tilted in their favor, it’s just not fair, dammit!

But this fear manifests itself in another way, that being creating doomsday scenarios where we’re living in a Handmaid’s Tale dystopia. Or a Hunger Games dystopia. Or some other fictional dystopia that the kids are hip to these days. Remember how Donald Trump was going to turn America into Nazi Germany? Contrary to the Leftist protests to the contrary, that didn’t happen. Women weren’t relegated to second-class citizens (they had to wait until Brick Tamland became President for that to happen). People who disagreed didn’t get rounded up and put into camps. In fact, little, if any, of the dire predictions the Left invented over the Trump Presidency came true.

That’s another advantage the Right has over the Left. They don’t have a no-contact order against reality.

But the thing about Project 2025 that scares Leftists more shitless than eating an ExLax Enchilada from Taco Bell? People might actually agree with the proposals in the current political environment. Leftists suck when it comes to arguing ideas since they tend not to have two functioning brain cells to rub together. That’s why they appeal so often to emotions. When someone comes up with a better way to do things, the self-professed progressives tend to be a lot less receptive to change, especially if the better way disrupts the way the Left likes to do things. And anything that disrupts their status quo gets the Left really pissed off.

The one knock I have against Project 2025 is its implementation hinges upon the will of the Republican in the Oval Office. Although former President Trump did listen to the Heritage Foundation on some matters, they were at loggerheads on others. This puts Republicans and conservatives into a no-win situation. Either you support a candidate who agrees with 90% of an agenda and can win or a candidate who agrees 100% and can’t win. And then watch as that 90% gets whittled down bit by bit because reasons.

And people wonder why I left the GOP?

The larger point here is Project 2025 is ambitious even by Republican standards, but it doesn’t mean shit without the will to bring it about. Leftists are going to scream and cry because that’s what they do, but the Right needs to put some muscle behind the ideas. Given how spineless Republican “leaders” have been in recent decades, I don’t think the Left has to worry about Project 2025 becoming a reality. That will give them more time to deal in fantasy, like convincing people a man in a dress is actually a woman in spite of having a dick as big as a four-year-old’s arm.