With the Democratic Party looking more like the Titanic, but with more holes in the hull, they are trying anything they can get their hands on as a cudgel to beat Republicans with in the midterm elections. And I’m hoping it’s just figuratively at this point. And they think they have a winner.
Affordability.
Yes, from the party that gave us “It’s the economy, stupid,” the Left is going back to the economic well to tell us how everything is more expensive, thus creating an affordability crisis that affects the most vulnerable. They say everything from groceries to health care is too damn high and it’s the Republicans’ fault.
But is it?
Let’s go spelunking into this topic, shall we?
affordability
What the Left thinks it means – an economic situation where Republicans are making things more expensive out of cruelty and greed
What it really means – the Left trying to pawn off their bad decisions onto the Right
Much like a Chinese restaurant next door to a cat hospital, I don’t necessarily trust the Left when it comes to economics, mainly because they don’t know shit about it. But instead of being hungry an hour later, if you follow Leftist economic theory, an hour later you’re poor again.
On the surface, though, they seem to have the right of this. As Senator Chris “Too Lame for a Nickname” Murphy pointed out, electricity costs have gone up, and that’s something that impacts everyone rich or poor. He even produced a graph! How can Republicans refute a graph, man????
Simple. By knowing how a calendar works.
Seems the Senator’s graph was missing some context, namely the fact the biggest increases for electricity costs came under President Brick Tamland. But I’m sure that’s just an oversight. I mean, being a Senator as well as a body double for a tackling dummy is a lot of work. It just slipped through the cracks. It’s not like Leftists would blame Republicans for making something else, like…oh I don’t know…health insurance, unaffordable. You would have to be a complete dumbass to link the end of Obamacare subsidies with skyrocketing health care costs.
Well, fuck me sideways, they did. And by they, I mean the aforementioned tackling dummy stand-in.
Of course, this would be worrisome, except for the fact Obamacare was passed without a single Republican vote. And who supported the legislation that put the Obamacare subsidies on a limited schedule? Why, that would be Congressional Democrats!
Even beyond the halls of Congress, the Left is showing their true colors by going after a YouTuber who keeps pulling the curtain back and showing how the Left sucks at budgeting. I’m referring to Caleb Hammer, the host of a series called Financial Audit where people come to him with financial problems and he offers…shall we say brutal honesty. Although he stays pretty apolitical, the Left has gone out of its way to paint him as a fascist and, thus, dagnasty evil.
Why? Because he pushes for personal responsibility rather than living in the moment and paying the piper, well, never..
Of course, there’s another big reason: he proves the Left can’t budget for shit. Actually, let me take that back. Excrement can budget better than Leftists.
That’s why I take their concerns about affordability with a healthy amount of skepticism. (The Left, not the scat.) Their concept of affordability is based less on dollars and cents and more on political opportunism with a dash of emotional manipulation. Remember, the Left said the flaming dumpster fire that was the economy under President Brick Tamland was great and the only people who thought otherwise weren’t smart enough to see how great it was. Now, they’re saying the economy is horrible and anyone who thinks otherwise is, well, not smart enough to see how horrible it is.
And that’s why Queen Kamala the Appointed is our President right now. Oh, wait…
It’s this kind of attitude that fuels so much of Leftist ideology; the (often unfounded) belief Leftists are the smartest people in any room. And, surprise surprise, it fuels the talk of affordability, too. The Left believes they know enough about how the economy really is to “educate” the rest of us about it, even when their observations are so divorced from reality they’re trying to get alimony. As a result, the Left comes off as tone deaf and out-of-touch to average Americans, not to mention pretentious, overbearing, and just fucking wrong.
This next part is going to be a little big-brained, so if you’re not into that sort of thing, skip past this part and we’ll get back to your regularly scheduled profanity-laden humor soon.
The fatal flaw with the Left’s affordability argument is the same one it faces with their arguments in favor of a living wage: it’s so nebulous it’s impractical and unwieldy to enact. Affordability varies from person to person. Elon Musk could lose $100 million in his couch cushions without it negatively affecting him (although it would make his housekeeper really happy), but it would break most people.
And don’t think I miss the irony of government officials talking about affordability when they themselves don’t have to worry about whether they can afford a night out or a tank of gas. These people can’t be bothered to think outside of their penthouse suites, expensive meals, and gated communities.
But they can be bothered to think about how they can get the average American to ignore their personal experience and listen to their bullshit. Unfortunately for us, there are a lot of fiscally illiterate people out there. And a lot of the time we’re electing them to Congress.
But more to the point, it’s easy to baffle people with bullshit if they don’t have a rudimentary understanding of the subject matter. That’s why Caleb Hammer has a steady stream of guests beating a path to his door; because they make worse financial decisions than Enron. And with accountability being a four-letter word (partially because of Common Core math), the Left has a ready-made audience for their “it’s not your fault you suck at budgeting, but it is the evil rich people’s fault” platform.
That’s the most perverse part of the affordability “crisis.” The people who caused the problems we face are the ones who claim to have all the answers on how to get out of them. And these assholes know it. Outside of having a great fiscal awakening where everyone suddenly understands economics, I don’t think we’re going to see things get better for a loooooong time.
In the meantime, though, understand affordability is just another Leftist buzzword designed to gaslight you into thinking what you’re experiencing is just a facade, just like they did with President Brick Tamland’s economy. The thing is they’re not very good at it, like hiding the ineptitude of the previous President and Vice President. But instead of trying to figure out a way to capitalize on the bread-and-butter issues, the Left would rather lie to your face, spit in it, and call you stupid.
Oh, and then beg for your votes and wonder why they lose elections.
They really aren’t sending their best, are they? Then again, maybe they are…
Month: December 2025
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
I’ve often said the Left loves to control the narrative through control of the English language. So much of our modern vernacular comes from the Left’s lexicon (if you’ll pardon the expression, and even if you don’t, I’m using it anyway), such as “woke,” “political correctness,” and “Joe Biden is sharp as a tack.” And when there isn’t a word that describes what they want, they invent one.
I ran across one of these new words recently. As with most things these days, it started with a message on the Social Media Platform Formerly Known As Twitter by James Woods about sitting Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. As you might expect, Leftists didn’t take too kindly to his take on the Justice’s intellectual prowess or lack thereof, but it wasn’t until one poster used the term “misogynoir” that I paid attention because once you’ve heard one Leftist bitching about something, you’ve heard their laundry list of offenses, real or imagined. Even so, this was a new one to me, so I decided to jump down this rabbit hole for this week’s Lexicon entry.
misogynoir
What the Left thinks it means – the intersection of racism and sexism
What it really means – a new term for old bullshit
Misogynoir isn’t exactly a new term, but it has its roots in more modern history. The term was coined by black feminist Moya Bailey in 2008 to describe hatred aimed at black cisgender and trans women and is steeped in the wonderful world of intersectionality. For those of you playing along at home, intersectionality is the idea that all oppression is connected. Think of it like one long human centipede, but with weirder hair color.
This allows for people of all walks of life (except for straight white men) to claim multiple systems of oppression at the same time. Conversely, it also creates an environment where you’re playing Pokemon: Oppression. Gotta catch ’em all! The more systems oppress you, the more of a victim you become and, thus, the higher your stature is within the Left.
Which is kinda sick when you think about it, and I do because my bank account is lower than the insole of a millipede with fallen arches.
Regardless, there is one thing about victimhood that often gets overlooked in the race to see who can be the most victimized: victimhood doesn’t define you unless you let it. The Left doesn’t see it that way; they only see the victim as a helpless soul that only they can “save” by…let me check my notes here…oh, yeah, enabling them.
Yes, the same people who say trans women can get pregnant are the ones saying it’s okay for you to be a victim, to feel all the fee-fees connected to it, and, above all else, vote for Leftists so you can continue to be a victim and get paid for it by the government. After all, it’s not your fault you were born the way you are! This was put upon you by The Man, and as long as you survive, you are the living embodiment of the double bird directed towards The Man.
Say what you will about the Left, and believe me I do, but they have the ability to get people to feel oppressed at everyday shit down to a science. I guess that makes them the Party of Science…
I’ll see myself out.
Anyway, I’m gobsmacked by how many otherwise semi-normal people are willing to take up the burden of others and make it their own, even if/when the most oppression they’ve actually faced was having a Starbucks barista charge for an extra shot of coffee in their steamed milk. And the ones who seem to feel the most guilt? Leftist white women.
It’s that reason that misogynoir is even a thing.
Leftists of color know they can get whites to capitulate to whatever bullshit they can imagine because they prey on guilt. And the more victimhood they can pile on, the guiltier white Leftists feel. Pretty good work (and I mean that in the professional wrestling sense) if you can get it.
But does it actually fix anything? Not really. Much like putting a Hello Kitty bandage on a gaping chest wound, it’s not helpful and actually counterproductive. Of course, if you put some Bactine on the wound…yeah, still not helpful.
When you start oppression stacking without attempting to get to the core of why you feel oppressed, you never make progress, which is ironic considering how many Leftists call themselves “progressives.” This is by design because once you do an honest assessment of your oppression it puts things into perspective. Those who experience real trauma spend years processing it in an attempt to overcome it. But those who perceive trauma never take those steps because it would expose how little actual trauma they’ve experienced, thus it ruins their victim status.
I don’t know what Ms. Bailey experienced, so I can’t and won’t paint her as someone in the latter category. There are still racist and sexist assholes out there, and it’s entirely possible, if no probable, the Venn Diagram of both groups come pretty close to a single circle. Having said that, the idea of misogynoir seems to be pretty rare in the real world, where women of color are held in high regard for their accomplishments. And those who aren’t find themselves in Congress.
What Mr. Woods posted doesn’t mention Justice Brown Jackson’s race or gender, just her intellectual prowess or lack thereof. In order to make the statement misogynoirist, one has to insert those subtexts and fixate on them rather than the substance of the statement.
And those who are happy to do so have a problem on their hands, namely the statements of another Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotomayor. The “Wise Latina” herself wrote an concurring opinion on a matter before the High Court that called out Justice Brown Jackson for addressing matters that were not involved in the case before them.
So…is Justice Sotomayor misogynoiristic? She is a woman of color, so that would negate both sides of the misogynoir equation. Not to mention, she’s right about Justice Brown Jackson.
As is James Woods.
The difference is when Woods makes the statement, he’s painted as misogynoiristic regardless of the merits of said statement. When Sotomayor makes the statement, the Left gets reaaaaaaaally quiet. But we’re not supposed to notice that, kids. We’re only supposed to believe Woods is the racist and sexist here, which is the whole point. The Left doesn’t want to admit Justice Brown Jackson has been a bit of a lightweight on legal issues in spite of her bona fides (as Leftists have and will tout as a defense of her inane decisions), which has caused more than a little friction with her ideological allies on the High Court, both with the substance and the style of her decisions.
But I’m sure they’re just racist and sexist, amirite?
While I’m sure there are legitimate examples of misogynoir out there, this ain’t it, kids. The Left throws out labels as a way to defend those they see as victims to divert attention away from any substantive debate. Calling out a Supreme Court Justice for bizarre legal arguments and those alone is fair game and should be done. Inserting intent, especially negative intent against the person making the comments, isn’t. But in the realm of Dungeons and Dragons…I mean Pokemon: Oppression, no quarter is given to protect the precious, even if it makes the Left look like hypocritical assholes.
Oh, and I’m waiting for the misogynoir crowd to condemn the racism hurled at Justice Clarence Thomas by their side. If they do, I’ll be in my cryogenic chamber.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
I know! I’m shocked at having a Lexicon entry two weeks in a row, too!
It’s no secret the Trump Administration has been actively working on illegal immigration, just like it’s no secret the Left is actively working to stop the Administration’s efforts because they need their votes…I mean they’re trying to help them live the American Dream.
Anyway, one of the stickiest elements of this involves birthright citizenship. The Trump Administration wants to end the practice and the Left wants to keep it so they can have gardeners and servants they can pay pennies to…I mean make great Americans out of them. Well, soon we may have our answer as the US Supreme Court agreed to take up the President’s case against birthright citizenship.
So, while the iron is still somewhat lukewarm, let’s dive into it!
birthright citizenship
What the Left thinks it means – a Constitutionally-protected method of citizenship
What it really means – an idea that has been warped into its current monstrous form
The idea of birthright citizenship has its origins in British common law and later codified in the 14th Amendment:
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.
There’s a lot more than this to the 14th Amendment, but this is the part that applies in this discussion. Previously, this has been interpreted to mean if someone is born in America, he or she (still two genders) is considered a citizen regardless of the status of his/her parents. This was further underscored with the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. And it worked for the most part, with further Supreme Court decisions expanding the breadth of those who
Then we started having people coming across our border like they were trying to get front row festival seating for Taylor Swift, only without the horror of Taylor Swift actually performing. Then, as soon as these illegal immigrants had children on American soil, these children became American citizens under the law and, thus, subject to receive all the benefits (figurative, literal, and monetary) of being a citizen. This, in turn, allowed the parents to gain access to said benefits.
So, yeah. A cluterfuck just waiting to happen.
And it happened. Quite a few times as it turns out.
While the concept itself has arguably noble roots, its current practice leaves a lot to be desired, much like a Queen Kamala the Appointed Presidential campaign. But we have to ask ourselves whether the solution the President proposed is going to fix the problem or cause more.
And to be honest, I’m not exactly sure.
Before the Supreme Court weighs in on the matter, we’re left with a lot of questions, mainly because the legal experts you can find on any news network can fuck up the interpretation of “water is wet.” The way the 14th Amendment is written, at least to your humble blogger and bestest buddy, leaves enough wiggle room for the current practice to continue.
Plus, there’s the way President Trump tried to address the birthright citizenship situation: through Executive Order. Granted, this certainly isn’t the first time a President has issued an Executive Order that has shakier footing than a bowl of Jello on the San Andreas Fault during an 8.6. Having said that, there is a matter of the Constitutional process to consider.
Because the 14th Amendment is a thing, the correct process to change it is to call a convention of the states and see if there’s enough agreement to amend the Constitution. Then, there’s a litany of other hoops to jump through, including getting Congress to vote on the proposed amendment (or amendment to the amendment in this case), which will make primates throwing shit at each other look like the Algonquin Round Table. But, that’s the process.
Issuing an Executive Order doesn’t circumvent the Constitution, nor should it. As much as I want to see our immigration policy overhauled, it has to be done within the confines of the law, and I don’t think an EO is the way to make that happen. The only possible reprieve I can see for the President is the fact he is the head of the Executive Branch, which is responsible for the enforcement of the law. And no matter how much the Left wants to sugarcoat it, immigration is a legal issue, which would put it under Trump’s job description. Well, that, and being the Troll In Chief.
Not that this is going to stop the Left from puffing out their chests and acting like badasses to protect immigrants. Like Eric “Fang Fang’s Bitch” Swalwell, who said, “Trump’s not touching a single Californian on my watch.” Of course, he’s saying this as a candidate for Governor of California, so it’s only natural for him to say it as a means to get votes. One tiny problem there, little buddy.
Trump has a bigger dick than you do.
And he has more of a legal basis to do what he’s doing than you want to do, too!
It’s amazing to me that a sitting Congresscritter doesn’t understand the difference between state executive power and national executive power, but then again this asshat serves with Jasmine Crockett, so maybe he’s the intellectual tofu of the Left and just takes on the stupidity around him. Even so, it would be funny to see Fang Fang’s Bitch try to act tough when the military is surrounding the state of California. Not that Trump would do that, mind you. He’d be too busy mocking him on Truth Social, but he might let Secretary of War Pete Hegseth take a crack at it.
Having said all that, we do need to take a hard look at all of our immigration policies, not just birthright citizenship. Whether the Left wants to admit it or not, they do want open borders for some people, but bureaucratic hoops for others. Or at least that’s what one of their financiers, our good buddy Uncle George Soros, may want. Of course, the Left denies it, but they thought President Brick Tamland was sharp for years, so I’m going to take their denials with a Mount Everest-sized grain of salt.
More to the point, however, is the Left’s desire for a two-tiered immigration system. The poor are allowed to get on the public dole and protected against deportation, while others who they see as better off have to endure roadblock after roadblock just to get a chance to come here and work for a living under the rule of law. And when you throw in the concept of birthright citizenship as a means for the former to get assistance, the frustrations for legal immigrants get easier to understand, yet harder to swallow.
That’s because the Left doesn’t see legal immigration as a means to their ends. Legal immigrants have to run through a phalanx of qualifications just to get a chance to come here, and even then they aren’t embraced by the Left as much as illegal immigrants are. We can speculate as to the why, but for me it comes down to one thing.
Legal immigrants are smart enough not to fall for the Left’s bullshit by and large.
When you have the power to give benefits away like a drug dealer at Hunter Biden’s house, you have a level of power over the lives of those accepting the benefits. Remember all the videos and TikToks of people upset at SNAP not being funded right away thanks to the government shutdown? That’s what I’m talking about there. And I’m going to go out on a limb here and say the illegal immigrants who vote (and, yes, they do vote, thanks to Leftist initiatives) will always vote for the people who promise to keep their benefits rolling in.
I know I’ve gone a little off the trail here, but it’s part of the larger point, that being America’s immigration policy needs an overhaul. You know, like tearing it all down, putting a moratorium on immigration as a whole until we get our shit straight, and rebuilding it so we can reverse the trend where the illegal immigrants get a pass and the legal immigrants get the shaft.
As far as how to reform birthright citizenship, that’s going to be messy, but I think I have a solution. We have to take a closer look at the circumstances behind the citizenship. If a pregnant woman (still 2 genders) comes to America and has birth while here, that shouldn’t automatically mean the child becomes a citizen by default. After all, the child doesn’t have the ability to give consent to stay here; they are still wards of their parents, for lack of a better term. Now, if the woman comes to America through legal channels (which can be verified through documentation and computers) or asylum (which can be verified through the American consulate), then I would be more inclined to allow the child to be a citizen because the parent/parents show their willingness to follow the law.
That just leaves the illegal immigrants. For them, the road gets tougher than it is now because they haven’t gone through any channels, legal or otherwise, to become citizens or seek asylum, then the child isn’t a citizen yet. See, I have this little thing I call “walking the walk,” and I’m not talking about border crossings here. If you really want a better life for your family, you have to put in the effort to make it happen. Why? Because it’s common fucking decency. If I decide to visit a foreign country, let alone settle there, the least I can do is learn the language unless I already know it. I will suck at it, I’m sure, but it shows I care enough not to burden others with my lack of knowledge.
And that’s really the point here. If you can’t or won’t do the basic shit, you’re going to be a drain somewhere down the line. If we don’t acknowledge that, immigration is going to continue to be a problem. States like California may feel the need to overlook the issue because they love spending money to coddle illegal immigrants in exchange for cheap labor, but the country can’t anymore.
If limiting birthright citizenship to those who put in the effort to become Americans is too extreme, so be it. I’ve been called worse names by better people. But we are reaching a point where we can’t sustain the current system that plays favorites and rewards criminality (often several times over) rather than a genuine desire to be productive members of a society.
And I’m not just talking about getting jobs. When you really want to assimilate into a culture, your attitude changes. Yes, you still have pride in your past, but you also take on a new sense of pride at your present and your future. Working hard to achieve a goal is a personal investment that you don’t want to squander by not giving something to add to the great potluck that is American culture. Whether you’re bringing couscous or tater tot casserole, we welcome it!
Oh, and make sure you bring plates and silverware for yourselves, okay?
December Grief
In Loving Memory of Susan and Kristen
Five years ago my life changed in a moment that I had never dreamed of happening. My beloved wife & muse of 10 years passed away suddenly leaving a grieving hole in me. I am no stranger to grief, we are well acquainted.
Prior to the loss of Kristen, I had already lost my mom, a girlfriend, a son, and my dad. The loss of my wife added to this grief and it was crippling. She was the 2nd significant other that I had lost to death. Forever taken out of this world and reduced to memories. And it had happened to me 2 times in a row.
I attended a GriefShare program at the church I was attending then. It was a helpful experience. It allowed me to work through my grief and come to the place of acceptance and able to live my life again.
The trouble with grief is that it never truly goes away. Here I am, five years after Kristen’s death. I am happily married again and enjoying life. Yet grief has raised its head at me this December. And the crushing weight of it has come back down again.
December is one of those months that have 2 dates that can impact my grief and emotions. December 3rd and December 31st. The 3rd is Susan’s birthday and the 31st is the day I lost Kristen.
As I went through GriefShare in 2021, there were some members that were repeating the ministry. They had gone through it several times. Back then, even though I was deeply burdened from the multiple losses, I didn’t understand why someone would go through GriefShare several times.
Now days I do understand and think it would be helpful to go through it again. Grief is an unpredictable thing. It is not a simple path with each step by step progress. It comes and goes in a variety of intensities and the “steps” can hit all at the same time.
Even years afterwards it can come up and hit hard again. So as December rolls on I’m sure I’m in for a wild ride of emotions as they swing one way or another on any given day.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Remember the War on Drugs started in the 1980s? I do. My brain still looks like a sunny-side up egg, but that’s not important right now. What is important is America has fought a halfhearted war against drugs and we’ve been worse for wear because of it.
That is until Donald Trump got reelected. Now, we’re putting firepower behind the War on Drugs with the Department of War taking the lead on turning alleged drug trafficking boats into the world’s most addictive flotsam. And, right on cue, the Left has a problem with it. But this week, their efforts went up a notch with several Leftists calling what the President and Secretary of War Pete “Let’s Tap That Keg” Hegseth authorized war crimes.
The accusation is pretty heavy, so let me try to make fun of it!
war crimes
What the Left thinks it means – serious and inexcusable crimes committed by the current Administration
What it really means – the next phase of the Left’s attempt to undermine the military under Trump
The concept of war crimes is rooted in the Geneva Convention (not nearly as fun as a Shriner’s convention, but I digress), and it outlines how enemy soldiers and prisoners of war are to be treated. Keep in mind this is in the aftermath of World War II, where POWs were treated worse than a British substitute teacher in Belfast, so the spirit of the document has a foundation in humane treatment.And should someone or some country decide not to play by these rules, they can get charged with war crimes by the International Criminal Court.
This is a great thing when we’re dealing with warring nations, but what about different types of wars where there aren’t warring countries? Welllll…that’s where things get a little murky, at least for me. When you consider the bulk of the military actions America has undertaken since the Geneva Convention have not been officially declared wars, it brings up the question of whether the concept of war crimes even applies here. That’s where the concept is subject to interpretation, or misinterpretation as the case may be.
Enter our good fiends…I mean friends on the Left. As I’ve noted before, the Left loves it when things are unclear because they can then inject their perceptions into the discussion, even if they’re batshit crazy. Then, by operating in the uncertainty, they can control the narrative, which is always their endgame.
This begs the question of whether blowing up suspected drug runner boats constitutes violations of the Geneva Convention. The simple answer as I see it is not really, and it’s predicated on the fact Congress hasn’t declared war yet. That gives me a chance to talk about Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution again because it’s there that we find who can declare war, and surprise surprise, it’s Congress!
If the Founding Fathers saw the absolute nozzleheads running Congress these days, they might have changed their minds, but that’s a post for another time.
Anyway, the point remains Congress didn’t declare war, as is often the case with Presidents who want to appear like a military leader against foes far weaker than we are. For everything else, there’s hookers and blow…or diplomacy. You know, whichever works.
Further complicating matters (because of-fucking-course) is the War Powers Resolution of 1973. This law requires the President to report to Congress whenever there’s the potential for hostilities to break out, but also allows the President to deploy troops for 60 days without a Congressional vote. So, I’m going to go out on a limb and say the President told Congress (and the rest of the country for that matter) that the Department of War was going to play Battleship: The Narco-Terrorist Edition well before any attacks began, so that requirement was met a looooooong time ago. And I’m gonna say blowing up shit constitutes hostilities.
And now for the best part? The President doesn’t have to have Congress do shit for 60 days, which oddly enough is roughly twice as many days as they’re in session. Granted, I’m guessing things might take a little longer than 60 days because we’re dealing with drug cartels here, but with the current makeup of Congress, a vote would most likely be a mere formality.
So, that’s why the Left went all in on the war crimes idea. If they can convince enough people what the President is doing violates the Geneva Convention, they can sway public opinion to…make drug dealers look like poor victims, I guess? (Hey, nobody said Leftists were smart.)
However, to fully understand the strategy, we need to look back at a recent video from six members of Congress who were either in the military or in the intelligence community. In that video (and in subsequent appeals in the media to take the heat off), they made sure to say the military didn’t have to obey illegal orders. Since then, not a one of the fucknuggets in the video or the Leftists who support the current thing could point to an illegal order the President issued, so that should be the end of it, right?
Yeahhhh, not so much.
The point of the video wasn’t to back up their claims so much as it was to instill doubt in the leadership from the President on down. Now, add in the war crimes element.
For those of you who need help connecting the dots, by suggesting Trump and Hegseth are guilty of war crimes, it reinforces the idea they’re issuing illegal orders, potentially eroding the confidence in the military and political leadership. And that leads to trouble up and down the ranks. If our military has to second-guess every order given, it prevents them from fulfilling their primary objectives: kill the enemy, break their shit, or a combination of the two.
Yeah. Pretty fucking dirty.
I’m sure there are going to be more legal arguments and laws bandied about on both sides of the war crimes question, but ultimately the heart of the matter is the Left is going to have a hard time explaining why blowing up drug boats and killing drug smugglers is a bad thing. And that’s not even getting into whether the actions constitute a war crime.
Not that it will stop Leftists from saying it or further suggesting the military should disobey the President. Even if the war crimes thing gains any traction, Leftists are still going to have to deal with being on the same side of an issue as drug cartels because…Orange Man Bad.
Again, no one ever said Leftists were smart.