Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

In case you’ve been living under a rock recently or are a Harris/Walz supporter (which is pretty much the same thing), there’s a bit of a weather situation hitting the East Coast right now. It’s a little something the kids call Hurricane Helene. And with things being wilder than a Charlie Sheen bender with Britney Spears, people are looking for help.

That’s where FEMA comes in! Or should.

With the current Administration, the Left is all for letting FEMA do its job without question, but some people (like your humble correspondent) have questions. Namely, the people negatively affected by Hurricane Helene and waiting for help from FEMA.

So, why all the hate (I mean, aside from the obvious) and why does the Left feel they have to circle the drain…I mean wagons? Let’s take a look!

FEMA

What the Left thinks it means – a necessary government agency that takes care of people during disasters

What it really means – a government agency that makes the EPA’s Super Fund look well-managed

Before we go further, I have to be real for a moment. Regardless of how I feel about big government, I do feel there is a legitimate argument to be made for FEMA’s existence. When you consider the depth and breadth of damage that comes from any hurricane, derecho, or other major meteorological event, it could bankrupt any state unless someone or something helps out. In these cases, the federal government has the means and the money to make a difference.

It’s a great theory, but the practice leaves a lot to be desired.

Much of the negative attention surrounding FEMA started with Hurricane Katrina. To say FEMA fucked up with Katrina is an understatement of Homeric epic proportions. There is plenty of blame to go around, but it was clear FEMA wasn’t up to the task. Guess putting a horse trainer in charge of disaster relief was a bad idea, but what do I know? I’m just some asshole on the Interwebs. Heck of a job, Brownie.

Katrina exposed a lot of problems with FEMA, not the least of which being a lot of fraud and use of FEMA funds for jewelry, strip clubs, and, oh yeah, internet porn. But at least it wasn’t for mean tweets!

You would think the federal government would have learned something from the FEMA foibles, but if you think, you know they didn’t. Government isn’t in the problem solving business, especially if it means solving the problem would result in not being able to waste our money. Whether it was Hurricane/Super Storm Sandy (not AOC), Hurricane Maria, Hurricane Rita, or even more recent hurricanes, it’s clear we don’t have a handle on how to prepare for and recover from hurricanes. Oh, the Left blames climate change for hurricane activity, but ask them to provide solutions, they’re clueless.

In other words, standard operating procedure.

While people are still recovering from the aftermath of Helene, we still have a federal agency that can’t stop stepping on its own dick. Having President Brick Tamland and Queen Kamala the Appointed at the helm only makes the situation worse. As of this writing, it appears FEMA is offering a whopping $750 to help with things like food. What do they think this is, a wildfire in Hawaii?

Seriously, though, the way the federal government has responded to disasters is, well, disastrous. And now the Administration is warning us FEMA may not have money to get through hurricane season. But a closer look at what FEMA is spending money on tells us they don’t have a money problem so much as a spending problem. Of course, I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure DEI training has jack shit to do with disaster preparation.

Then, there’s FEMA spending on immigrants. Unless those immigrants have the skills to help rebuild and provide support to Helene victims, that’s another waste of money. Whether that money is going to illegal immigrants is a matter of debate, but the fact any money is going to any immigrants is a problem.

I would say FEMA spends money like a drunken sailor, but that would be an insult to drunken sailors.

So, how do we fix it? The bad news is…we can’t. The federal government has no incentive to make FEMA work any better because it’s not in the Leftist playbook. After all, if FEMA worked like it should, it might mean fewer people would need government to help them get through life. And when you have a disaster like a hurricane, that’s the perfect time to get more people on the government teat.

Even with the Trump/Vance ticket, there’s not a single reference to FEMA in the platform on Trump’s website. You can bitch and moan all you want, but the lack of a plan to deal with the too-frequent issues with FEMA doesn’t exactly instill confidence. And it sure as fuck doesn’t instill competence.

So, much like with the FBI, the CIA, and Taylor Swift, we’re stuck with what we have until we can dismantle it, fix it, and get it back on its feet. I wish I could also tell people not to have natural disasters happen, but that’s a non-starter, too.

But that’s not to say there aren’t options we can exercise. Look for smaller charitable operations, like through churches. See what can be done to put together care packages or, if you’re close to the area and you see a need for victims to get shelter, see if you can spare some room. For all our faults, Americans remain charitable during times of great need.

That is if FEMA lets you try to help.

I will admit FEMA is a necessary evil, but does the emphasis have to be on the “evil” part? When Americans are suffering in the aftermath of a natural disaster, they don’t need a man-made disaster swooping in to make things worse. Donald Trump got a lot of shit for throwing paper towels to Puerto Ricans after they suffered a hurricane, but it was a lot more than FEMA is doing now.

And that should make every damn Leftist hang their heads in shame.



Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week – Special Edition

I know you’re used to only one Lexicon entry a week, but this week is extra special. Queen Kamala the Appointed came out with a policy position!

And it’s just as vapid and nonsensical as you can imagine.

Recently, the current Vice President, Democrat Presidential hopeful, and word salad aficionado came up with a new concept: opportunity economy. Apparently, Queen Kamala the Appointed doesn’t think people can live the American Dream anymore, at least not without her help. After all, she came from a middle class family.

Did you know she came from a middle class family? I sure didn’t! If only she would say something about it…

Anyway, such a special occasion as this requires a special response!

opportunity economy

What the Left thinks it means – an economy that allows the middle class to get stronger and make the economy and the country better

What it really means – a buzzword made up by people who have no idea what free market capitalism is

For the sake of transparency and because Leftists tend to be slow on the uptake, I am a fan of free market capitalism. While most of you are saying “no fucking duh,” those of you who didn’t know that (I’m looking at you Leftists) might be confused. You have been indoctrinated…I mean taught that free market capitalism is responsible for global warming, environmental disasters, exploited workers, and yet another Nickelback album, but that’s not the case. Well, except for that Nickelback one. That’s totes on free market capitalism.

Where you were lead astray was not being given the other side of the argument, which I will try to present to you now as simply as I can. Free market capitalism has its faults including pollution, but it also tends to raise the standard of living for those who practice it. Those workers you claim are being exploited so the super-duper-mega-evil corporations can make money? They’re willing participants. They have as much stake in the company succeeding as the CEOs because without money coming in the door, those doors slam shut pretty damn fast.

For all of its faults, free market capitalism is still pretty fucking awesome. If you have a good enough idea (or, in the case of Hollywood, a good enough revamp of a good idea) and you can find people to back it (see previous reference to Hollywood), you can make serious bank once you build a market for whatever it is you’re selling. Of course, even if a movie bombs worse than Hiroshima, that doesn’t stop Hollywood from cranking out more stinkers.

As an aside, for those upset over the Hiroshima reference, too soon?

Anyway, the point is free market capitalism is based on opportunities. So, why does Queen Kamala the Appointed think it doesn’t?

Because she’s that fucking dumb.

With the vague and, frankly, uninspiring rollout of “opportunity economy” comes a new Leftist squawking point focusing on the middle class. Why else would Queen Kamala keep harping on the fact she was raise middle class? (You know, when she mentions it, which is rarer than the way Count Dracula likes his steaks.) It’s because the concept has power over us as Americans. If only some ruggedly handsome, yet witty and brilliant blogger would mention that

To Queen Kamala and her Leftist followers, the middle class has gotten the shaft, and we all know that shaft is a bad mutha…

Seriously, though, the Left labors under the notion the middle class just needs to be successful for things to get better. At the same time, they want to raise taxes and create more bureaucratic red tape that cause prices to raise, hurting the middle and lower classes more so…yay, I guess? All they need is for someone to fight for them and give them a chance to succeed, dammit!

News Flash for ya, kids: the middle class already has that chance. America is the land of opportunity for anyone who wants to try to make it big, or at least make it close enough to big that they can see it from their house. The concept of an opportunity economy rejects that notion under the guise of being patriotic. How many times have we heard politicians leg-hump the middle class as being the backbone of our country? Too many times.

And that’s the way it’s always going to be from the political class: all talk, no action.

The opportunity economy concept also raises a lot of questions. How does Queen Kamala the Appointed plan to create it? Well, she was raised middle class! Don’t you get it?????

Actually, I don’t. Being middle class doesn’t equate to a thought-out policy position any more than playing Minecraft makes you a structural engineer. There’s a lot more that goes into it than what Queen Kamala wants us to believe, and a vague word salad ain’t in that recipe.

Given the Left’s propensity to rely on government to provide everything good and just in the world, I get the feeling it’s going to be enforced at the business end of a big regulatory stick. If some government bureaucrat with an ego and a budget that far exceeds his or her intellectual capacity to understand basic economics decides you’re not doing enough to create opportunity, you’re gonna get in trouble in a way that gives the Mafia nightmares.

Before you go off and think I’m running off the rails on a crazy train, let me also point out Queen Kamala’s other big-brain idea: punishing price gouging. Although her initial offering was met with the appropriate confusion and criticism, she has since come out with a more specific policy paper on the subject…which is just as confusing and worthy of criticism. Her big-brain idea: a federal law banning price gouging. Brilliant!

One tiny problem, though. How is she defining price gouging? I’m sure she’ll get around to it before her next sit-down interview, which is scheduled for sometime in October…of 2038.

Although the idea sounds good, the lack of specifics make it a non-starter for me. If we can’t even agree on the definition, what’s the point of making a law banning it? But, don’t worry, folks! This is an opportunity economy we’re talking about here! Don’t think about the fact there are more red flags than a Chinese military parade! Become unburdened by what has been and look at the significance of the passage of time! FEEL THE JOY, DAMMIT!

The funniest aspect of the opportunity economy is when you consider Queen Kamala says she worked at McDonald’s. Whether she did or not is immaterial to the point, but her attempt to relate to people actually shows how little she understands about the economy and how her “experience” undercuts the idea of an opportunity economy.

For all the shit you can say about Mickey D’s, there is one thing that is rock solid, take it to the bank truth. The ice cream machine is always broken. But another thing is McDonald’s loves being an employment opportunity for anyone willing to ask “Do you want fries with that?” For many young people, this is their first job, and it tends to open up opportunities beyond the Golden Arches. Promotions from within are common, and McDonald’s even offers leadership programs for those looking to get into leadership positions.

In other words, McDonald’s is the ultimate opportunity economy.

Funny how someone who allegedly “did the fries” missed that. Then again, this is Queen Kamala the Appointed we’re dealing with here, so let’s cut her a little slack.

Where I can’t cut her some slack is in thinking the current mostly-free market economy doesn’t provide the opportunities she thinks we need. What we have right now works pretty well, especially considering 80% of the millionaires today are first generation. But I’m sure if the remaining 20% would be coerced…I mean forced…I mean persuaded to give up more, it would totally create more millionaires among the middle class…who will then have to pay even more taxes thanks to the kind of regressive taxation ideas Queen Kamala think are needed.

So, Madame Vice President, we already have an opportunity economy and don’t need what you’re peddling. However, I do want to present you with an opportunity should the November election not go your way.

Become the Ice Cream Machine Czar. You can’t fuck that up any worse than you did the border.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

As a recovering Leftist, I fully admit I used to believe some weird, illogical shit in my youth. Back then it was easy because a) Leftists knew just what to say to get me to believe them, and b) I was a dumbass. But the shit the Left wants us to accept as fact is well beyond anything I believed in my youth.

And for once I’m not talking about one of Queen Kamala the Appointed’s speeches. However, I’m starting to think there’s something in the Left’s water supply that is making their beliefs even more bizarre than usual. The latest example came from House Delegate from the Virgin Islands, Stacey Plaskett. During a hearing regarding the weaponization of the Department of Justice and the FBI against political opponents (read: anyone to the right of Karl Marx), Ms. Plaskett uttered the following:

…so that those agencies [the DOJ and FBI] are no longer there to serve as a check against white nationalism, great replacement theorists, Christian nationalists, white fragility, fascists, and the twice impeached convicted felon, former president and would-be dictator Donald Trump.

Her full insane rant…I mean statement wasn’t much better at sticking to reality. But she did mention one thing worth discussion, that being white fragility. This term has been thrown around a lot in recent years, mainly by racists and their supporters, to mock white people for getting offended or upset about things. So, as a Honkey-American, I wanted to take a closer look at white fragility to see what it was.

white fragility

What the Left thinks it means – the negative reactions whites feel when non-whites discuss racism

What it really means – a made-up term designed to make whites feel more guilty than they should on racial matters

The term white fragility was coined by Dr. Robin DiAngelo who focuses on, get this, whiteness studies and critical discourse analysis. When she’s not allegedly copying off black scholars and passing their work off as her own or being made to look like an idiot by Matt Walsh, she’s turned a bullshit specialization into a cash cow. She’s written a book on the subject, became the Left’s favorite anti-white honkey, and is being taken seriously by people like Stacey Plaskett.

And, no, that’s not a compliment, ma’am.

The idea behind white fragility is simple: white people feel guilty, angry, etc., when people not like them talk about racism, which is (surprise surprise)…racist, according to Dr. DiAngelo. So, if you’re confused by the logic, and believe me I get it, if a white person tries to speak about racism in a group of non-whites, it’s white privilege. If that same person doesn’t speak about racism in a group of non-whites, it’s white fragility and racist.

That kind of thinking makes the Kobayashi Maru look like a Connect the Dots puzzle with only one dot.

The thing about white fragility is it derives from Leftist squawking points on race. You know, the sentiments whites are the root of all evil and can only redeem themselves by actively fighting racism at every turn as dictated by the Left? Yeah, that’s not gonna fly with anyone with two working brain cells to rub together.

Which means, it’s perfect for guilting white Leftists into becoming slaves.

Look, whites have been absolute assholes to minorities for a long time, and it’s important we recognize that so it doesn’t happen as widely as it once did. But where the Left goes off the rails is making it a permanent condition. They don’t want whites to acknowledge our history; they want us to be eternally burdened by it.

And now, we have some Congressional dipshit wanting the FBI and Department of Justice to combat it? Maybe it’s me, but I would think the federal government should want whites to get rid of its white fragility, not fight against it as the aforementioned dipshit says. But, that’s where my hypothesis of something being in the Left’s water supply makes a lot more sense.

More to the point, white fragility doesn’t take into account one major factor: most people don’t give a shit. After being barraged with “white people suck” day after day ad nauseum, there are a lot of whites who shut down and tune out that claptrap because they’re tired of it. Others, like your humble correspondent, aren’t concerned about race because…now get this…we treat each other like fellow human beings. In those cases, race doesn’t even enter the equation, so there’s nothing we feel we have to feel guilty about.

And that drives Leftists crazy…er. The Left is obsessed with anything that can be used to categorize and then separate us. After all, what better way to rule over people than to keep them at each other’s throats by suggesting the different parties are trying to screw over everyone else?

So, what happens when we decide not to be divided? Aside from the Left losing their shit, it shows we aren’t that far off as a country. There are few actual racists out there, mainly because America has evolved to reject racism. Yet, in order to get people to believe what the Left wants us to believe, they have to stoke any division they can.

Even if they have to invent it out of nothing. You know, like an academic focus on “whiteness.” Which reminds me of a line from the Oscar-snubbed cinematic classic “PCU”: You can major in GameBoy if you know how to bullshit.

Not surprisingly, white fragility is just another way for the Left to keep racism alive. The problem is it assumes only whites are fragile. Granted, if everyone you know is a white Leftist, that’s a safe assumption. The fact is Leftists are all fragile. It’s just a matter of what causes them to shatter.

The easiest way to do that is to deny their premise. Reject the notion of white fragility by pointing out the flaws in the notion, namely the fact the Left only sees white fragility while ignoring the fragility of other races. Case in point: Joy Ann Reid. She makes an emo kid look stable on a regular basis. To call her unhinged is assuming she was ever hinged to begin with, and that’s just a bridge too far for me.

When you really think about it (and I do because the Indiana Fever were swept in the WBNA Finals), the very concept that only whites can be fragile is the definition of racism. Remember, kids, racism isn’t just about someone believing one race is better than another. It’s also about someone believing one race is inferior.

But you don’t have to take my word for it. Our friends at Dictionary.com agree.

Pull that kind of intellectual judo on a Leftist and they lose their shit. And when it comes to white fragility, they deserve to lose their shit.

So, with no due respect Ms. Plaskett, white fragility is only a thing to the Left. The rest of us are just fine not talking about race because we don’t particularly care. Besides, college football is on and that’s a hell of a lot more entertaining than worrying about whether we’re meeting some Leftist’s expectations on talking about race.


Extremist Makeover: Harris/Walz 2024 Edition

With Election Day only (thankfully) a few weeks away, people who have lives are starting to pay attention to the two major party candidates. Even with her campaign of joy (which sounds a lot like the Hope and Change campaign of Barack Obama), many voters still aren’t sure what to make of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. What exactly do they bring to the table?

That’s…hard to explain at this point, mainly because the candidates themselves aren’t talking much to reporters, and those reporters who do talk to them throw more softballs than a pitching machine full of Nerf balls. Needless to say, the Harris/Walz ticket is not burning up the campaign season, even though their friends in the media are doing everything in their power to explain away the ticket’s lack of talkativeness.

Well, I’m here to help. Sure, I’m not going to vote for Barack Obama 2.0 and the Mirror Universe Dick Cheney ticket, but I still want to help, and I think I have a way.

First off, it’s time to drop the easy “We’re Not Trump/Vance” strategy. We know you’re not them, but we do notice you’re taking a few of their ideas to make them your own. You learned well from the current President, Madame VP!

Anyway, the point is it’s not enough to say who you aren’t. You have to convince people of who you are. And that may be a problem in and of itself. For politicians of all stripes, honesty isn’t the best policy, nor does it make for the best policy statements. Right now, the Democrats have a loose coalition of special interest groups that all want the same things often at the expense of other members of the aforementioned coalition. That makes it hard to appeal to a wide swath of voting blocs.

Hard, but not impossible.

With reviews of the Harris/Walz media tours being more negative than a Goth nihilist reading Sylvia Plath (or a typical Gen Xer for that matter), it may be time for a different approach to campaigning as a whole. The current President managed to win the White House by staying in his basement and having his messaging be extremely controlled for reasons we now understand. With all of the questions surrounding the Harris/Walz ticket, though, that’s not gonna work.

So, let me borrow something from my childhood and retool it for the modern day. Back when I was a wee lad, we had these books called Choose Your Own Adventure. For those of you unfamiliar with the series, you controlled where the story went based upon decisions you made, which each decision being played out on a page specified in the book. If you decided to go into the spooky looking house, turn to page 43. If you decided to walk past the spooky looking house, turn to page 59. If you decided to buy the spooky looking house and turn it into an apartment complex, turn to your local real estate office. That sort of thing.

In this particular situation, I think the Choose Your Own Adventure concept could be useful. It would just take some work from campaign staffers to make it happen. And it can start with the Harris/Walz website.

Instead of putting together an expansive laundry list of policy positions, turn it into a Choose Your Own Adventure game. If you want to ban fracking, go to page 28 of the Harris/Walz policy book. If you don’t want to ban fracking, go to page 18 of the Harris/Walz policy book. Then, each page would outline that particular decision’s outcome and instruct the reader to make another decision which will take him/her to a different page, and so on. It may not be the most innovative, but it would be a nice change of pace from the current campaign status quo.

Plus, think of how much easier interviews would go! If a reporter had a question, he or she could just play along and find the answer. No more embarrassing word salads! And if a hostile reporter or a political talking head says, “But that contradicts what’s on page X,” you can point out how that was based on a decision made on a different page. Pretty nifty if you think about it!

So, if anyone from the Harris/Walz campaign reads this, please know I want to help if for no other reason than to encourage more applications of the Choose Your Own Adventure approach. And if you don’t like my idea, turn to page 69 and get out!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

One of the biggest voting blocs (according to politicians seeing election) is the middle class. Democrats and Republicans equally talk about how much they care about the middle class, even going so far as to LARP as working people when it suits their needs.

Our latest LARPer is current Queen Kamala the Appointed. She’s claimed to have been raised middle class, even working at McDonalds during her college years, so she’s totes relatable! On a completely unrelated note, during her tenure at the Golden Arches she was made Ice Cream Machine Czar. Make of that what you will.

Even as her hobbling mate Tim Walz tries to support Queen Kamala the Appointed’s middle class bonafides, the rest of us are left to wonder what the middle class actually is. And, let me tell ya, that’s a hard thing to pin down.

middle class

What the Left thinks it means – hard working average Americans living paycheck-to-paycheck because of Republican policies

What the Right thinks it means – hard working average Americans living paycheck-to-paycheck because of Democrat policies

What it really means – a socioeconomic group that both major parties want to claim as their own without actually doing anything to warrant it

Political parties using humans as political pawns? I’m just as shocked as you are, folks!

Anyway, it’s hard to pin down what the middle class is because there are so many definitions from the “no fucking duh” to the more calculated. In general, it’s people making between $30,000 and $210,000 depending on the size of the family according to the Pew Research Center and the US Census Bureau in 2020.

But it goes beyond this salary range, at least to your humble correspondent. Middle class is also a mindset shaped less by politics and more by the daily grind. This swath of the American public comes from all different political and intellectual backgrounds and are united by the fact they’re not rich enough to be upper class, but too rich to be the lower class. They are dead center.

Which makes them the perfect targets for the Left and the Right.

From a PR standpoint, the middle class is the most revered socioeconomic status in America. They are the working class, the men and women who get their hands dirty because they’re the ones getting shit done (especially if you’re a manure salesman). When you think of the middle class, you think of the people from a Norman Rockwell painting. They are America!

And what better way to convince dimwitted potential voters to support your candidate than to tap into that version of America?

The problem is neither major party actually understands the middle class, mainly because neither major party is middle class. They are the well-off whose only interaction with the middle class is when they’re looking out of place amongst them. For every photo op where a Congresscritter puts on a pair of Carhartts and does a slow-motion walk next to a cornfield, there are at least 2 or 3 fundraisers he/she will attend where anyone wearing Carhartts wouldn’t even be allowed in the building. There are a few exceptions, but you can count them on the hand of the world’s unluckiest fireworks enthusiast.

So, the Left and the Right do what they always do when trying to appeal to the middle class: throw money at them. The Left are big fans of middle class tax cuts while the Right fights for good paying middle class jobs that can’t be taken by foreigners.

For some reason, a Stealers Wheel song is playing in my head right now…

Meanwhile, the middle class is still struggling, and the promise of money and jobs won’t fix things. A tax cut is nice, but when the money is swallowed up by high prices for gas, food, and clothes due to Leftist policies, it doesn’t do shit. Good paying jobs would be a plus, but it opens the door for a lot of government micromanagement and, thus, macro-waste that will only favor guess who (and I ain’t talking about that band here, kids).

The only politician that has even come close to understanding the middle class is Donald Trump, which is odd considering he sure as shit isn’t one of us. And even he gets it wrong, like when he pushes for higher tariffs on foreign goods. Sure, it sounds good and is certainly a red-meat issue for the middle class, but it will make things worse on the very people Trump is trying to appeal to in this case.

Having said all that, there is a reason Trump is popular with the middle class: he makes it sound like he’s listening to them. And that is something middle class people don’t always have. The wealthy and the poor are by and large okay with where they are, leaving the work to be done by those in neither category. Need some tomatoes grown? Done by the middle class. Need some people to work in factories? Done by the middle class. Need a rubber butt plug in the shape of a Dalek for a very unusual bat mitzvah? Maybe not done by the middle class, but since we’re here, does anyone have any leads? I’m asking for a friend.

Trump has touched on a source of political power that both major parties have ignored for reasons I mentioned earlier. His campaign has done a masterful job courting people who might not have voted for him otherwise, but sure as shit can’t vote for those looking to continue the way are going right now.

Not that it’s going to deter the Left from trying to convince people to take a big bite of their shit sandwich for another 4 years. To counteract Trump’s connection to the middle class, Queen Kamala the Appointed brought on the Mirror Universe Dick Cheney known more formally as Tim Walz. Walz looks like a middle class guy who loves donuts and coffee and will be willing to help you change a tire or give you advice on how to make your lawn mower run better in high grass. Hell, he might even bring over a hot dish to pass when you and your family come down with the flu.

One tiny problem with that: his family’s net worth is estimated at over $1 million. Going by the calculations referenced above, that would put him just a little outside of the high end of the middle class. And by a little outside, I’m talking almost 5 times higher. Tim Walz is no more middle class than Bill Gates is, even though they often wear similar clothes.

That’s the thing that infuriates me the most about politicians from either side trying to appeal to the middle class: it’s all an act to them. They cosplay as us when it’s time to get votes, but once the political version of Halloween is over, they go back to being rich assholes who wouldn’t be caught dead wearing coveralls and working for their daily bread. That’s why they have staff.

At some point, the middle class is going to figure out how and how much they’ve been played and there will be hell to pay. If you’re curious at how that might play out, let me recommend a book to read.

It’s called Atlas Shrugged. And, Spoiler Alert, it doesn’t end well for the people reliant upon the workers to get shit done.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The moment political junkies and partisan players dreamed for arrived recently: Donald Trump and Kamala Harris had their first Presidential debate. And boy was it a shit show! Between Trump being, well, Trump, Harris being as vague and clueless as possible, and the two debate moderators all but being Harris/Walz 24 cheerleaders, the first (and possibly only) debate settled one thing.

Presidential debates have become the drizzling shits.

Although the quality of candidates has gone down faster than Bill Clinton’s pants at a nudist colony of Playboy Playmates, the candidates themselves aren’t solely to blame. It’s the debate moderators who are the #5 combo meal from Taco Bell that make the drizzling shits that much shittier.

debate moderators

What the Left thinks it means – journalists whose expertise adds gravitas to political debates

What it really means – political operatives disguised as journalists

If you’ve been reading my entries for any length of time (and if you haven’t, I can’t say as I blame you), you’ll know I have a healthy contempt for the modern media. And by healthy I mean professional body builder level. That comes from years of studying it, both in an attempt to become one and in critiquing it to better understand what I’m being told. Oh, and to write blog posts!

During these years, I watched reporters and journalists go from attack dogs to lap dogs, from the Fourth Estate to the Fifth Column, and other somewhat witty turns of a phrase. The minute journalism took a turn for the worst was when its practitioners realized they could advance personal and ideological agendas within their reporting. A sympathetic word here, a dismissing tone there, and before you know it…an echo chamber than puts the Grand Canyon to shame.

But I’m sure having an industry where the majority of participants agree with each other on most every issue and on who deserves to be discredited could never have an impact on how Presidential debates would be moderated, amirite?

Not so much.

When moderators turn into advocates, the Presidential debates turn into a situation that makes Custer’s Last Stand look evenly matched. We saw that with Candy Crowley, who did a live fact check of then-candidate Mitt “Mayo Is My Sriracha” Romney in his 2012 debate with then-President Barack “I’m Too Lame to Have a Nickname” Obama, showed the damage a moderator can have on a campaign. After she “corrected” Romney, his campaign was never the same. People saw Romney as a liar, and he ultimately lost the Presidency.

But there’s a reason why so many people remember Crowley’s interjection. Turns out she was completely fucking wrong. Of course, after Obama had secured victory and was cruising through his final term in office, that’s when the scrutiny got to be too hot to ignore. Crowley was never the same, but she managed to get the desired effect: reelecting a man who shouldn’t run a lemonade stand in the Sahara Desert let alone the most powerful country in the world. The damage was done, and the mea culpas were too late to be effective.

And then every moderator decided to get in on the live fact checking act with varying degrees of success and dumbfuckery. With Donald Trump, it was both easy and difficult to fact check him in real time because they “knew” he was lying, but the “sheer magnitude” made it hard to keep up. It must have been so tiring they forgot to fact check Hillary Clinton, Brick Tamland, and Kamala Harris. I mean, that’s the only possible explanation for their one-sided approach to holding politicians accountable, right?

Yeah, and if you believe that, I have swamp land in the Sahara Desert conveniently located near a lemonade stand that I’d love to sell you.

Although this concept seems to be lost on the current generation of media squawking heads, their job when moderating a debate isn’t to try to check facts of one side or the other; it’s to fucking moderate the fucking debate! I know that’s a lot of profanity for one statement, but it needs to be said in the hopes it penetrates their well-coiffed skulls.

And maybe this point needs to be reinforced. With the most recent debate, Trump spoke longer than Harris, which is something within the moderators’ power to address. Sure, cutting off mics or trying to interrupt the candidates when they bloviate are tools, but they aren’t as effective as a moderator saying, “President Trump, shut the fuck up!” Ideally, both sides should get approximately equal time and not let one or the other get the lion’s share.

Along with that, moderators should take it upon themselves to hold candidates to the same standard of questioning. It’s one thing if the questions are tough across the board and follow-ups are equally challenging. It’s quite another when one candidate gets more grilled than the dinner options at Steak-A-Palooza and the other gets questions no more challenging than “What is your favorite Taylor Swift song?” (The correct answer: none of them.)

But that’s part of the echo chamber the media find themselves in repeatedly. They want their side to win, but they aren’t willing to come out and say it for fear of the mask dropping too much. See, they want to be Leftist stenographers but they also want the protection against accusations of bias that come with being a journalist (or at least did before these fucknuggets ruined it).

And now this stench is affecting how debate moderators act.

Fucking yay.

Since we can’t trust the media to do the right thing, it’s incumbent upon us to hold debate moderators the way they treat any Republican to the right of Karl Marx: they’re fucking liars, and we know it. But instead of turning off the debates, we should really lean into them and see where the moderators’ biases lie. Once we get that figured out, we can determine how trustworthy they are and adjust our expectations accordingly. Granted, these expectations are bound to be lower than a snake’s belly button piercing, but at least you’ll have something better to do than listen to Kamala Harris dodge simple questions.




Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

As a semi-popular blogger, pundit, and all around neat guy, I have a deep respect for freedom of speech. After all, without it, I’d just be some lunatic behind bars talking about how bad government sucks. As it stands, I’m just in a rubber room, so yay, I guess?

I wouldn’t bring this up unless it was relevant, and thanks to Queen Kamala the Appointed and the Left, it’s become very relevant, but not in a good way. Whether it’s The Social Media Site Formerly Known as Twitter getting banned in Brazil for alleged misinformation to Vice Presidential candidate Tim Walz and Presidential candidate Kamala Harris both in favor of some form of government intervention/regulation of social media, the topic is as relevant today as it was when the Bill of Rights was passed.

free speech

What the Left thinks it means – the right to express yourself without government interference, except when it crosses certain lines

What it really means – the right to express yourself without government interference, regardless of who you are and what you say

As with guns, cars, and movies like “The Room,” freedom of speech can be used for different ends. That’s why it’s important to consider the implications of their use prior to firing a gun, driving a car, or paying for a ticket to see “The Room.” Oh, and speaking out.

Yes, there are some limitations to free speech, and they’re established as a means of protecting people from physical or reputational damage. Some speech like “fighting words” aren’t considered free speech because a) they are designed to promote a violent response, and b) the person engaging in it is kinda asking for an ass-whuppin’. For those of you younger folks reading this, fighting words are what we old folks used to do in lieu of internet trolling because the Internet hadn’t been invented yet. (Thanks, Al Gore.)

Anyway, the Left has tried to apply the same approach used with fighting words with other forms of speech. Each one could be a Lexicon entry in and of itself, but here is a list of these speech forms the Left doesn’t like.

hate speech – Basically, any speech that makes Leftists look like assholes

misinformation – Basically, any speech that proves Leftists are assholes

election interference – Basically, any speech that shows Leftists losing

election misinformation – Basically, any speech that proves Leftist politicians are full of shit

I’m not sure, but I’m sensing a pattern here…

Although a case can be made for regulations on these, the case is pretty fucking bad. You can pass as many laws banning them, but they run smack in the face of the very thing Leftists claim to be all about: free speech. Yes, some speech is abhorrent and would make Gandhi want to grab a shotgun and start kicking ass, but the answer to it isn’t cracking down on the bad speech; it’s countering it with good speech. Dennis Miller put it best (and I’m paraphrasing it from here, so please don’t sue me, Mr. Miller): No free speech gives you Hitler. Healthy free speech gives you David Duke. There’s a big, big difference.

The problem is the Left doesn’t understand that difference. Either that, or they don’t get the reference, which isn’t all that uncommon with Miller’s work. Regardless, Leftists treat any speech that isn’t from their echo chamber as dangerous. And it’s not because it’s particularly threatening, dangerous to society as a whole, or offensive to society as a whole. It’s because it’s not something they can control with any degree of success.

Having said that, they aren’t going to stop trying. During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, information countering the official narrative got censored and social media accounts that spread that information got removed. Even as Mark “No, I’m Not Data” Zuckerberg had to admit the Brick Tamland Administration pressured Meta to crack down on certain content. And I’m guessing you know what content got the ban hammer.

But you know who didn’t get nailed for COVID misinformation? All the figureheads and media outlets who peddled the Administration’s bullshit. Seems “Trust the Science” didn’t include actual science. Then again, the “Trust the Science” people also believe men can be women just because they feel that way, so…

It’s bullshit like this (the censorship, not the men claiming to be women) that made Elon Musk take on the mantle of leadership when it comes to free speech online. He has rightly made it his cause, and given the lack of accountability for those who on the Left who violate the Left’s own rules (I’m looking at you, Rachel Maddow!), it’s clear we need someone who not only understands free speech, but also allows it.

Musk may not be the best person to do it, but at least he’s doing it. Since taking over the Social Media Site Formerly Known As Twitter, he has reversed many of the previous decisions made and reinstated accounts that he felt were terminated unjustly. Granted, that gave us back noted white nationalist and all around weirdo Nick Fuentes, but the upside is we can now keep better track of him and what he says. That’s something you don’t get with free speech crackdowns. Forcing people like Fuentes to go off the free speech grid makes it harder to track him down and combat whatever speech he’s spouting. With a healthy respect for free speech, he makes himself known, so we can do a little rhetorical White Supremacist Whack-A-Mole.

And if you know any of the scuttlebutt about him, the mole part might not be complete hyperbole.

Freedom of speech is one of the bedrock principles we should all strive to want. Without it, how would we redress grievances with the government (of which your humble correspondent has plenty), spread the message to others to gather peaceably, or print out flyers? And for those of you eagle-eyed readers out there, you might recognize the examples I just gave as rights covered under the First Amendment. If you didn’t, that’s okay. You’re still brighter than 100% of the dipshits who think free speech should be limited because fee-fees get hurt.

I don’t think free speech is going anywhere if Queen Kamala the Appointed and Vice Queen TIMMAH get into office because neither one has the brains necessary to make the case in favor of getting rid of it, but that doesn’t mean we can ease up protecting it. As Ronald Reagan put it:

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

And if you can’t trust a man who acted with a chimp, who can you trust?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

In my years of being a Leftist and covering them, there is one rock-solid, take-it-to-the-bank statement that not even the most honest Leftists can deny: Leftists say some really weird shit. And I’m not just talking about prolonged discussions on the virtues of Drag Queen Story Hours or the actual number of genders (still two, by the way). Even when I’m prepared for the weird shit, there are times when even I have to take a step back and admire the nuttier-than-squirrel-shit take.

Like this one from The Hill website, “Are the Democrats Now the Party of Reagan?” Although the premise is as absurd as the media allowing a major party candidate to go unquestioned for more than a few minutes, let alone weeks (good thing that never happens, amirite?), it did get me to thinking. Which lead me to writing this week’s Lexicon, since that’s kinda what I do around here.

the party of Reagan

What the Left thinks it means – a by-gone era that should stay in the past because it was so horrible, except when it can be used to attract voters

What it really means – a by-gone era that the Left still doesn’t understand

The 1980s were a decade of dayglo oddities. The old excesses of the late 70s continued (including the coke habits) while new technologies started to take hold. Celebrities rose and empires fell. And at the core of it all was Ronald Reagan.

Say what you will about the man, but Ronald Reagan was a generational President in both good and bad ways. His strength when dealing with the former Soviet Union, his economic policies, and his undying love of America held us in good stead during a time when America’s self-opinion was lower than a snake’s codpiece. Yet, the way he handled Iran/Contra, his mental decline in his later years, and some of the policy decisions he made with AIDS and apartheid in South Africa were less than awesome.

In short, Reagan was just like the rest of us. Only with more access to the nuclear arsenal.

The Left’s hatred of the Reagan era stemmed from their unrequited love of the former Soviet Union. After decades of appeasing the Soviets, Reagan became an aggressor because he realized what the super-smart Leftists (just ask them) didn’t: communism doesn’t work. At some point, the communists run out of other people’s money, which creates either massive deficit spending, a greater reliance on those who are already carrying the bulk of the weight, or a combination of the two.

There’s that economics degree Reagan earned coming into play.

Once the Soviet Union went the way of the Atari 2600 “E.T.” video game, the Left’s hatred of Reagan intensified. Sure, they had other legit and semi-legit criticisms as noted above, but he proved them wrong. Appeasing the Soviets only allowed them to continue stockpiling weapons, making plans to conquer the rest of the world, and putting out shitty products under the auspices of everyone being equal (except for the party leaders, of course). Leftists at the time swore up and down Reagan would lead us into World War III, create a nuclear holocaust, and destroy the planet.

You know, like Leftists said Donald Trump would do?

When that didn’t happen, Leftists couldn’t handle it. And since they were the ones writing the history books at the time, they did their best to control the narrative. Once the Berlin Wall fell, though, they couldn’t get it done with those who actually lived and paid attention during that time. So, Leftists decided to wait a generation or two to get their version of events to become the primary timeline.

Which brings us to the party of Reagan. As much as I would like to say today’s Republican Party is an offshoot of the Reagan years, I can’t. Both major parties shed their skins some time ago and evolved into parties that no longer resemble their namesakes. Democrats and Republicans are both fans of big government at times, but only when they’re running it. And they’re not afraid to use force to get what they want. Remember the COVID lockdowns? President Trump and President Brick Tamland didn’t deviate that much policywise. Of course, much of that can be laid the feet of Saint Anthony of Fauci’s fault, Patron Saint of Scientific Bullshit, but both Trump and Tamland were reading from the same script.

Furthermore, the Republican “leadership” is as flaky as a croissant at times. Sure, they talk a great game about fiscal responsibility and conservative values, but they will sell those out in the name of compromising with people who think they’re the most evil people on the planet. And it happens time after time after time.

And the Democrats? They’re selling out to the lunatic fringe at every opportunity. From the Green New Boondoggle to the anti-Israel sentiment from The Squad, the Left has gone so far left Karl Marx looks like Milton Friedman, both in ideology and in economic knowledge. Today’s Left is turning off a lot more people than they’re attracting, or at the very least they’re turning off enough Leftists with actual jobs and money. This makes for an interesting internal civil war for the soul of the Left, and hopefully an even more interesting blog post later.

Meanwhile, it amazes me anybody with two brain cells to rub together would think Democrats are now the party of Reagan. Then again, this is an opinion writer from The Hill, so your intellectual mileage may vary. The way the author makes it sound, Republicans have abandoned the principles Reagan laid out, which they have for the most part. But he fails to make the connection that Democrats have taken up the mantle. The best he comes up with is Democrats’ undying support for Ukraine (which reflects not only a lack of understanding of Reagan’s foreign policy , but a fundamental lack of understanding of just how fucked up Ukraine’s leadership is).

His case isn’t exactly bolstered by self-professed Reaganites like Bill Kristol, Adam Kinslinger, and Liz Cheney, whose conservative bonafides are more questionable than three day old convenience store sushi. Or a freshly-made meal at Chipotle, for that matter. While the aforementioned Republicans (and many more like them who will remain nameless to protect the innocent and the dumbasses) tout how much closer they are to Reagan than any of the current crop of Republicans, the fact is they’re closer to Regan from “The Exorcist” than Reagan himself.

So, if the Republicans aren’t the party of Reagan anymore and the Democrats never have been and never will be if the current crop of fuckups have any say in the matter, who is the party of Reagan today? Unfortunately, there is no party that has it even remotely right. Either the fiscal policies are out of whack or the social and military policies are off, so there’s no real safe haven for those of us who have a fond memory of what Reagan stood for. So, we’re stuck either holding our noses for candidates who Reagan wouldn’t even acknowledge as Republicans, voting for a third party because we can’t hold our nose enough to vote for Republicans, or writing in candidates like your humble correspondent.

By the way, SMOD 24, baby!

Maybe it’s time we should stop thinking in terms of Reagan as far as political leadership is concerned, but not in terms of the grassroots. Even if our elected officials don’t hold Reagan in high esteem, we still can. American pride, appreciation of hard work, a love of the free market, all these things and much more are still within our power to use in our lives.

Plus, it will piss off Leftists, so win-win, baby!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

While Kamala Harris and Tim Walz continue their Happy Happy Joy Joy Tour, there is a term that has resurfaced unironically that I haven’t heard in a while: communism. And here I thought communism went the way of the Berlin Wall!

Anyway, Tim “Mirror Universe Dick Cheney” Walz described communism as it’s being forced…I mean practiced in China as, “It means that everyone is the same and everyone shares.” Granted, this was way back in 1991 when Walz hadn’t yet become Governor and was just a social studies teacher…wait, that makes it worse. Never mind.

Anyway, I figured it would be a good time to talk about communism since we have a VP candidate who thinks it’s neato.

communism

What the Left thinks it means – a socioeconomic system where everyone is treated equally, but one that has never been truly tried yet

What it really means – a socioeconomic system that only works on paper, as has been proven the times it’s been tried

At this point, I have to bring up communism’s stoner cousin, socialism. They share a similar lineage in that they both believe the government is the ultimate provider of all that is good and right in the world. Hmmm…I would say that sounds like the Harris/Walz platform except for the fact they really don’t have one.

Where they part company is in the use of violence and threats to maintain power. Socialism isn’t necessarily violent by nature. They just want everyone to voluntarily share with others. It’s a lot more peaceful than people think it is.

Then, there’s communism. Violence and threats are the coin of the realm in communist countries (mainly because their actual currency is worth less than a plot in a Michael Bay movie). Any concept of thought outside of the party dogma is dangerous and must be considered the communist version of a heretic.

The best way I’ve come up with to describe the fundamental differences between communism and socialism is thus. Socialism is communism on pot. Communism is socialism on PCP. And if you know anything about what happens to people on PCP, you know the shit hits the fan in ways you would never think possible.

As we speak, there are Leftists starting to type, “But both of them are about sharing and equality! Why are you against that, you bigot?” The fact is neither socialism nor communism will get you to your desired utopia, thanks to a little thing the kids like to call reality. And, yes, I understand Leftists tend to have a restraining order requiring reality to stay at least 500 feet away from them at all times, but Leftists need to listen to this next part.

All people are created equal in the sense most of the time Dad had to park his pork submarine in Mom’s tuna cove, but beyond that we aren’t. We are born with traits and hindrances from the jump. In order for us be equal, we would have to deny these things exist. And we all know we can’t deny science, right Leftists? I mean aside from there being two genders and such…

Since God, Nature, C’thulu, or whomever you want to blame didn’t make us equal, some dipshits thought it would be a great idea for Man to force equality. And those dipshits created socialism, which begat communism. And it didn’t work.

We Americans need only to go back to the time of the Pilgrims to see how the ideas behind communism and socialism fail in a spectacular way. Yet, Leftists keep thinking if they just try it again, it will work or else it wasn’t “real” communism/socialism. But, the thing is…it doesn’t work on a wide scale because human beings are more complex than what the aforementioned dipshits understand.

Here’s an example to illustrate this point. Let’s say you have two employees, Bob and Doug. Bob is diligent, goes above and beyond with every task put in front of him, and is a high performer. Doug…is none of these. He’s lazy, not very productive, and does the bare minimum at best to take care of things. Under most circumstances (unless Doug is related to the owner or has compromising photos of the owner), Doug would be out on his ass before he could say “Take off, hoser!”

Oh, I forgot to mention, Bob and Doug are Canadian.

Anyway, under communism, Bob would get punished for excelling and Doug would get rewarded for his sloth because the government would take from Bob to make sure Doug is taken care of. At some point, Bob is going to stop working so hard because there’s no upside to it. So, instead of having one superb employee and one subpar former employee having to give hand-jobs in a Tim Horton’s bathroom, you have two equally mediocre employees.

And somehow that’s supposed to work better than capitalism.

By the way, the Underpants Gnomes have better business sense than people who think communism could still work.

And if you think the Bob and Doug example was bad, just consider what kinds of products such mediocrity cranks out. Like Vice Presidential candidates.

And speaking of which, here’s what Tim Walz wrote about Chinese communism:

The doctor and the construction worker make the same. The Chinese government and the place they work for provide housing and 14 kg or about 30 pounds of rice per month. They get food and housing.

Of course, Walz wrote this from a decorated and air conditioned apartment on a salary double that of his Chinese teacher counterparts. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say Walz had it way better than the average Chinese person. Unless he’s going with the George Orwell version of equality, that is.

By the way, Timmy, I think Orwell was kidding.

But I’m not sure Timmy is. It seems he has a penchant for communism and socialism, which explains the warm fuzzies he got from hanging out in China. It might also explain his recent statement, “One person’s socialism is another person’s neighborliness.” But there is a simpler explanation.

Tim Walz is dumber than Kamala Harris when it comes to economics, and Harris makes President Brick Tamland look like Milton Friedman. And all of them are smarter than Paul Krugman. No great feat, I grant you, but credit where credit is due.

Regardless of how you feel about Tim Walz and his socioeconomic hard-on for communism, the truth is communism is not a system that should be taken seriously. If anything, it should be dragged out of the flaming dumpster of history every once in a while to be mocked as a teachable moment for the children.

And for the dumbass politicians who think communism isn’t bullshit.

Desperation Now Caucus

Well, the Democratic National Convention just ended much like it began: without Kamala Harris saying anything of substance. Not that the media aren’t trying to give her the gravitas she earned in the same way she got the Presidential nomination.

And, no, that’s not a good thing.

When they aren’t gushing over the joy of the Harris/Walz ticket is allegedly bringing to the 2024 campaign, the media are doing their best to make it sound like Donald Trump is panicking due to the rise of Kamala. To their credit, they are making a persuasive case, as Harris has gone from unpopular Vice President to popular Presidential candidate rapidly.

The obvious question is what has changed. Harris hasn’t changed. She’s still the same person she was when many of the same people cheering her now were calling for President Brick Tamland to drop her from the ticket if he wanted to win. And now, we’re supposed to believe there’s this groundswell of support for her that was always there, but only now started to come forward and be known.

Yeah, I’m not buying it.

The Harris/Walz ticket has multiple problems, not the least of which being a lack of specificity in what they believe. As of the date of this missive, their campaign website has zero policy positions, but plenty of ways for you to donate money. Even delegates at their own coronation…I mean convention couldn’t name specific policies they support from the Harris/Walz campaign. Oh, they gave word salad answers (not unlike their candidate of choice), but there was no there there.

The media aren’t helping matters either. When they’re not jockeying for position to be her biggest cheerleader, they’re making excuses for why she doesn’t have to spell out a policy vision. And if you want to do any significant research on Harris and Walz, be prepared to use an Internet history website while you can because their pasts are getting scrubbed. Want to read up on how many prisoners Harris locked up in California for cheap labor? Have a desire to see what military people actually thought of Walz? Good luck! The media won’t tell you these things, but the Internet is forever.

At least until they bend the knee to Harris/Walz to erase their histories and create new narratives. Oh, and gaslight you for not believing the new lies they’re telling to cover up the old ones.

Where am I going with all this? Glad you asked!

What I’m seeing is a party that knows it has a crappy hand, but has all the gusto in the world to play it out like it’s a royal flush in the hopes others will fold. In some cases, like with Robert Kennedy Jr., they just didn’t recognize him as a candidate. Basically, the ostrich with its head in the ground approach: if you don’t see it, it doesn’t exist. With others, like Jill Stein, they’ve been marginalized to the point you could run Pat Paulsen and get the same result.

But Trump? He’s a different animal altogether. And as it turns out, Robert Kennedy Jr. is, too. With the latter dropping out of the race and throwing his support behind Trump, it’s easy to dismiss it as a fart in a wind tunnel, but it gives voters an option. The option may be between a dog poop sandwich and a cat poop sandwich, but the option is still there.

Something to keep an eye out for in the next week or so is whether Harris/Walz gets a post-convention bump in the polls. Then, watch for how long it lasts. There is a lot of happy talk right now with almost universal praise (from Leftists) at the heavy hitters that appeared at the DNC (0r were alleged to have appeared, but weren’t actually booked). But after the confetti and balloons are cleaned up, what’s left?

A campaign without specifics, and a lot of questions that need to be answered.

So far, the toughest question Harris has faced from the media is “How do you feel?” The media’s question about President Tamland’s favorite ice cream was tougher! And as a former journalism student, that bothers me. The media are supposed to be adversarial towards those in power, not sucking up to them in hopes of being picked for some low-level government job where they can do even less than they do now.

But at some point, tougher questions are going to be asked, either by the press (yeah, even I don’t believe that’s going to happen) or by people outside of the Mandatory Joy campaign. What are they going to do about inflation, supply chain issues, infrastructure, the war in Ukraine, the war in Gaza, climate change, and so on? And I think the party knows their ticket doesn’t have any answers, only the ability to try to blame Trump for the policies they supported.

And that has to scare the crap out of the party.

I’ve had an idea that I’ve been kicking around in the back of my mind, but I haven’t shared it before now. I get the feeling the party leaders know they have two empty suits at the top of the ticket, so they’re hyping the joy to avoid looking like they’re throwing the 2024 election so better candidates can run in 2028. Not that their bench is as deep as a mud puddle, mind you, but the fact is to date Harris has not been impressive as a candidate in the two times she’s run for the Presidency. All the joy in the world won’t make up for a lack of substance.

That’s why they’re trying to get people to believe Trump is scared and panicking right now. After years of telling people not to believe President Tamland wasn’t mentally well and getting them to believe it while projecting the same issues onto Trump, the media are now trying to hide Harris’s lack of a record by lying to us again.

If we take anything from the DNC last week, it’s how much the party is willing to lie to us, obscure facts that don’t play into the narrative, and turn Kamala Harris from zero to hero while not really changing who she is or what she’s accomplished. But, it’s not working as well as it did in 2020, and the Left can’t do anything but project its own desperation onto Trump.

But remember, my Leftist friends, you made this happen. And in November, we’ll see how much joy you have.