I would never want to be a White House Press Secretary under any circumstances. First, you have to communicate with members of the press, which is like going to Chuck E Cheese during a big toddler birthday party on a good day (and working that same birthday on a bad day). Second, you might have to address a scandal that involves the President and his/her family.
And then, there’s the third reason: I’d have the same title as the current Press Secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, who makes Jen Psaki look good by comparison. Recently, Jean-Pierre responded to a question about the ongoing legal troubles of Hunter Biden, who I’m lead to believe is related in some way to President Puddin’ Head Joe but I’m waiting until the mainstream media confirms because I’m thorough like that. Apparently, I’m still having to wait since Karine Jean-Pierre referred to Hunter Biden as a “private citizen” and the press hasn’t asked a follow-up question about it.
While we wait on reporters to, you know, do their fucking jobs, let’s talk about private citizens for a bit. Maybe by the time this piece is done, we will be able to confirm the First Crackhead is related to Puddin’ Head Joe.
private citizen
What the Left thinks it means – people who should be kept out of the public spotlight to avoid unnecessary attention
What it really means – how Leftists describe one of their own when he/she/it royally fucks up
The concept of what constitutes a private citizen has been the subject of a lot of good natured debate within First Amendment scholarly circles. And, as is the case with such scholarly debates, nothing’s really come of it except more debate. Fortunately, the law gives us a bit more clarity:
The term “private person” means— (A) any individual who is a citizen or national of the United States; and (B) any corporation, partnership, association, or other legal entity organized or existing under the law of any State, whether for profit or not for profit.
And by “a bit” I mean none at all.
Generally, the rule of thumb is a person who is not well-known would be a private citizen. In short, anybody who still uses Mastodon as a Twitter alternative. Once that person gets a bit of fame or infamy, the protections afforded a private citizen get worn away. Still, even someone well-known in Monkey’s Ass, Wyoming, would not be as well-known in New York City, so venue matters.
Or it used to. Thanks 24/7 news and social media.
Then, there are celebrities. In exchange for fame, fortune, and the occasional appearance on talk shows, they give up expectations of privacy for as long as they’re in the public consciousness. Some, like Dustin “Screech” Diamond, never quite escape. Others, like Dustin “Screech” Diamond’s stunt double, reclaim their privacy by giving up their celebrity.
The thing about celebrity, though, is it can be extended to members of their families. The children of politicians fall into this category, especially if they fuck up in such a way it makes the news. Ask the Bush Twins about that after their underage drinking fiasco. That means, Hunter Biden, if he truly is the offspring of Puddin’ Head Joe, would not qualify as a private citizen.
Wait…nope. Still no mainstream media confirmation of that yet. But hope springs eternal.
So, why would Karine Jean-Pierre lie to us about Hunter Biden being a private citizen? I mean, aside from it’s her job to unconvincingly lie to the White House Press Lapdogs…I mean Corps. The short answer is because she can get away with it. The politically obvious reasons are, well, Hunter Biden is a crackhead embarrassment that makes his dad look even worse than he already does, thus handing Republicans an easier win than any woman against a Leftist man in an arm wrestling contest. The more people connect Hunter to Joe, the harder it is for Hunter to be considered a private citizen.
At its face, the idea is absurd. But these are Leftists we’re dealing with here, so it’s not surprising. The Left wants you to believe Hunter Biden, who has a well-documented history of being a shitty person, somehow isn’t famous enough to be covered as a news story, hence he’s a private citizen. Yet, his art that sells for $500,000 a flop…I mean pop gets people all over the world to buy it, so he logically can’t be a private citizen because he’s known worldwide.
This is why I don’t recommend trying to make sense of Leftist logic without hard liquor.
Now, it’s nice to know Leftists care about protecting private citizens from undue attention. If only they weren’t fucking hypocrites on the subject when it suits their needs. If you’re a Colorado baker who happens to be Christian and refused to bend over (figuratively and literally) to a same-sex couple, you get put on blast so everyone knows how much of an evil no-good right wing homophobe bigot Hitler wannabe you are. If you’re a member of ANTIFA who gets caught on video attacking someone with a bike chain, the Left will go out of their way to hide that information.
Hmmm…if only there were indicators of when the Left will flip-flop on what constitutes a private citizen…oh, wait, there is! They always flip-flop like John Kerry cooking at a beachfront IHOP working straight commission.
As unsurprising as the Left’s duplicity regarding private citizens is, the scary thing is it may be too late to protect private citizens, actual and hypothetical, due to the advent of social media. Any dick with a cell phone can film you doing something horrible (or at least make it look like you did something horrible), post it online, and make you famous before you can say “YouTube Shorts.” Then, you are known as Fat Guy Yells At Burger King Employee While His Shorts Fall Down forever and you have to delete your online presence and start blogging under the name of Thomas…
I’ve said too much.
Anyway, with privacy going the way of anyone not fawning over the Barbie movie, we need to get on the stick to address how this impacts private citizens. Unfortunately, we’re lightyears behind and no one else is thinking about this issue because there’s a Barbie movie, you guys! That, and the fact more people want to be seen on social media like TikTok, so they’re willing to trade their status as private citizens for fame, no matter how temporary it is.
Yep. We’re fucked.
Until such time as society decides to give up on being famous, it’s up to us to keep the idea of a private citizen alive. That means keeping your head down, being aware of your surroundings and the people in it, and not drawing attention to yourselves. Live your life as much off the grid as possible, or if that’s not possible, be smart with what you share. Yes, this will make you massively unhip to the rest of the world, but when you consider what is considered cool these days, it’s no big loss.
On a larger scale, we have to recognize what a private citizen is and why Hunter Biden isn’t one. No matter how the Left tries to spin it, this situation is like a Lindsey Lohan drug story, only with shittier art. And considering Lohan’s acting career, that’s saying a lot!
This just in! Still no mainstream media confirmation Hunter and Puddin’ Head Joe are related. Like the number of licks it takes to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop, the world may never know.
Author: Thomas
I'm a writer and a ranger and a young boy bearing arms. And two out of the three don't count.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
As a semi-kinda-sorta-famous blogger, people come up to me all the time and ask my opinions of the issues of the day. Most of the time, the questions are “Where are your pants, sir?” but lately another question has crept in there: What is your opinion of the Writers Guild of America and Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television and Radio Artists strike going on right now?
I’m glad you asked, mainly because there are only so many times you can talk about trans issues, climate change, gun control, and other common Leftist squawking points before you get burnt out. This topic has some political elements to it, so we’re not completely out of my wheelhouse here.
So, by popular demand (and by “popular” I mean because 3 people asked me), here’s the hottest take I can give on the subject.
the WGA/SAG-AFTRA strike
What the Left thinks it means – writers and actors banding together to ensure writers get fair compensation for their work
What it really means – the result of a fucked up system that makes the powerless knuckle under to the powerful
Off the top, I have to say my opinion differs from most of my conservative compatriots, but I have reasons instead of disdain for the actors driving my opinion. But don’t worry, kids. I will show my disdain for the actors later!
I feel sympathy for the striking writers for the most part. As a writer myself, I understand the time and dedication it takes to produce even a remotely good story. Hell, anybody can churn out another Madea movie. Oh, and while we’re here…Tyler Perry, I’m thinking the only reasons you continue to put out the Madea movies is so you can dress in drag. It’s okay, buddy! Dressing in drag is some of the least creepy shit coming out of Hollywood these days!
Bob Iger aside, the writers’ enemies aren’t the studios themselves, but the Hollywood system itself. I’ve seen slasher movies less cutthroat than Hollywood, which is ironic on levels I can’t even begin to comprehend fully. Everybody involved in the entertainment industry there is competing for a spot in the big time, and that leads to a lot of backstabbing, undercutting, and fucking over. The big brains behind the big box office movies aren’t the directors, actors, producers, or even the studios.
It’s the writers. They’re the people with the ideas (albeit bad ideas sometimes), and they’re the ones who try to make sense of a story. And if you’re not high profile enough to print money for shit content, you’re not likely to see your project go from writer’s room to screen without a lot of interference from the Hollywood system. And the movers and shakers of the system know that, so they treat writers like most people treat used chewing gum.
And even if you get your vision on the screen, if it doesn’t make money or garner attention that can be translated into money, you’re not ever going to move up the food chain. You are stuck writing scripts for movies and TV shows that would get cancelled before the opening credits start. Meanwhile, those writers who find themselves within the Hollywood system are making bank for coming up with yet another “Scary Movie” sequel.
That’s where the Writers Guild of America comes in. Or, rather, should.
The WGA is a labor union with presence on both coasts who are supposed to represent the writers. And they do, but they’ve done a shitty job keeping up with the times when it comes to payment for new media. If you look at the Wikipedia link I provided (which, I grant you, is like trusting Hunter Biden to keep an eye on your cocaine while you go to the bathroom), you’ll noticed six strikes since 1960, and all six have dealt with residuals, i.e. getting paid for your work.
Maybe it’s me, but I would think a labor union that represents media writers would be able to, you know, keep up with the changing landscape of media and adjust accordingly.
Just because I’m a curious individual, I dug a bit deeper into who is running WGA West, the union that covers Hollywood. Guess what? The top three officers are part of the Hollywood machine. And if you look at the Board of Directors…same fucking thing! No wonder the rank and file of the WGA have to keep fighting and striking for their money in perpetuity; their union is helping the “enemy.”
This is where I have to part company with the writers out there. Yes, Hollywood is beholden to the labor union system because of their Leftist nature, but they aren’t the only game in Tinsel Town, just the easiest. And when you settle for easy, you don’t control the vertical nor the horizontal. You will get what the system will allow you.
Going off on your own is going to be tougher, but it can be done while retaining your artistic freedom. That’s why I respect people like Tommy Wiseau, Lloyd Kaufman, and Roger Corman. Sure, their work doesn’t match up to a big Hollywood production…with the exception of the “Transformers”… or later “The Fast and the Furious” movies…or recent Marvel movie and TV projects…or the bulk of the Disney “Star Wars” projects…
I take that back. Wiseau, Kaufman, and Corman are much better.
Anyway, the reason I respect these and other independent filmmakers as much as I can is because they prove it can be done outside of the Hollywood system. You might not get more than a credit at the end of the movie and maybe a hot dog out of the deal, but you’re still free of the system that makes it impossible for you to afford a hot dog in Hollyweird.
That brings us to the SAG-AFTRA members marching with the WGA. They’re doing their best to show their solidarity with the writers, as evidenced by their Twitter and Intagram posts. But, the operative word in that previous sentence is “show.” These people get paid to pretend, and right now they’re pretending to be strikers. They don’t go back to a one-room apartment so cramped the cockroaches have hunchbacks. They go back to the homes they purchased with money earned off the word processors of the writers. How many of them are opening their homes to writers? None that I’ve heard so far. Are any of them using their clout to force the machine pay writers better? Of course not! That would make them pariahs in the industry, and they need to keep up their lifestyles, so they’re ultimately on Team Machine.
Sucks to be a struggling WGA member, doesn’t it?
But, I have come with a solution, one I call the Sinatra Solution. Back in the 1950s, Las Vegas was segregated by race, including the talent. After Sammy Davis Jr. was denied a room at the Sands, the Chairman refused to perform there until Davis got a room. It was a huge risk at the time, considering how vital Frank Sinatra was to the elevation of the Las Vegas nightlife and image. But, it paid off because Sinatra was so vital to Las Vegas. He used the leverage he had to make things better for everyone.
If enough actors, producers, big-name writers, or studio heads had the balls to do it, they wouldn’t march on the picket lines and take selfies; they would pull a Sinatra and refuse to work until the writers got paid better. Hollywood would grind to a halt if the Avengers (the actors in the movie series, not the comic book characters) collectively told Disney to fuck themselves until every writer got paid well for their work.
And don’t think it would stop there. Hollywood right now is a house of cards (a house of playing cards, not the TV show of the same name), and one gust of wind from enough powerful people slamming the doors on the corrupt system would cause it to all fall down around them. And as long as the WGA/SAG-AFTRA folks are part of that system, they will be left to pick up what’s left.
Aside from the Sinatra Solution, let me also posit the idea that the WGA should be phased out in favor of a group that doesn’t suck Hollywood’s dick while pretending to be working for the writers. All it takes is enough people to tell the WGA to shove their efforts up their collective asses and there’s a chance they would get the hint.
You know, in a few years after it happened.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Before we begin, I feel obligated to warn you a lot of what I’ll be talking about this week isn’t pleasant and may stir strong emotions in people. If you feel you aren’t down for a serious (well, semi-serious because…me), this may not be the week to read the Lexicon, and I completely understand. I promise to return you to your regularly scheduled chucklefest next week.
This week, child sex trafficking came front and center from a couple of sectors, and the Left had an…interesting response to it. Not “gee that’s fascinating, tell me more” interesting. More of a “what in the Wide World of Fuck are you thinking” interesting.
It started with a new movie, “Sound of Freedom”, that came out on July 4th and has as of this writing a decent box office. The film is based on a true story about a man who went from government agent to warrior in the fight against child sex trafficking. Then, our good fiends…I mean friends in California had Democrat members of their Assembly Public Safety Committee block a proposal that would recriminalize child sex trafficking.
Oh, yeah. It’s about to get serious up in here.
child sex trafficking
What the Left thinks it means – a serious issue that must be dealt with
What it really means – an issue the Left won’t touch any time soon
To put it mildly, sex trafficking is a disturbing practice affecting millions of people worldwide, with a significant number being children. The fact it’s a global issue and yet one that doesn’t seem to get as much attention as climate change, starvation, or the latest Taylor Swift album makes the issue that much more painful to consider.
Yet, the Left are concerned about our children, right? I mean, they’re trying to create an inclusive environment where all races, gender identities, religions, etc. are respected, right? (Offer void with white straight Christian men.) They absolutely want the very best for future generations!
Not so much.
See, Leftists see children as tabula rasa in Garanimals, or if you’d prefer, toddlera rasa. For those of you playing along at home, a tabula rasa is a mental condition where no ideas have been formulated on a person’s mind based on his/her environment. Essentially, a brand new Etch A Sketch. Once this mind is exposed to incoming data from the senses, ideas and personalities form.
This is why Leftists have turned public education into indoctrination factories. As early as they can get them in the door, children’s minds and opinions form, even if they contradict what their parents believe. In other words, Leftists are attempting to create a child’s reality in their own twisted image.
“But Thomas, what does any of this have to do with child sex trafficking?” you might be asking. And if you are, I’m glad you are. If you aren’t, you might already know where I’m going with this, so don’t spoil the ending, okay?
At their cold black hearts, Leftists see children as a commodity, a purely transactional entity, an entry on a ledger. The value of a child is directly related to how closely he or she follows Leftist doctrine or can be used to advance it. Take Greta Thunberg (please). The Left gives zero fucks about her as a person, just as a figurehead they can use to advance their frequent (and even more frequently wrong) hysteria. Once Greta is no longer useful to the Left, she will get jettisoned out the closest air lock never to be catered to again.
By the way, Greta, check with Cindy Sheehan to get an idea of your future with the Left.
When you consider this angle, it makes the Left’s approach to child sex trafficking a little more understandable and a lot more creepy. And by approach, I mean either utter silence or claiming it’s a right wing fantasy.
And this brings us back to the Leftist Flow Chart of Dealing With An Issue.
1. Deny it’s happening.
2. Claim it’s made up by political opponents
3. Admit it’s happening, but it’s not as bad as it’s been made out to be
4. Admit it’s as bad as it’s been made out to be, but it’s not that bad
5. Admit it’s that bad, but it’s grossly misunderstood (i.e. anyone could make that mistake)
6. Paint those who were right all along as hateful bigots while painting the bad actors as victims
For a recent example to illustrate the point, the Hunter Biden cocaine story is heading into Stage 6. Right now, child sex trafficking is between Stage 1 or 2, depending on the outlet. Some outlets like CNN and Rolling Stone who are well into Stage 2, not taking issue with the subject matter “Sound of Freedom” so much as the people connected to it, namely Jim Caviezel. Now, if you haven’t been paying attention to his career, he’s one of those Hollywood actors who didn’t go woke and has been steadfastly conservative since making a name for himself.
Because a guy who played Jesus acting in a film trying to bring attention to child sex trafficking is clearly the bad guy.
Putting that biased and utterly stupid idea aside, we are left with an important question: why doesn’t the Left take child sex trafficking seriously? Granted, the “children as a commodity” perspective gives us a clue, but it’s not the whole answer. For being simple-minded, Leftists motivations to do or not do something tend to be more complex.
Enter our good friend Occam’s Razor. (I liked it so much, I bought the premise!) This idea boils down to simplifying an issue down to its simplest components to reach a conclusion. As faithful readers know, Leftists love money, power, and control, and if they take a position it’s because they think it’s going to work in their favor.
Now, I’m not saying Leftists have a child sex trafficking issue. I mean, it’s not like a big-name Hollywood producer or a famous financier had connections to high profile Leftists or anything, right?
By staying silent or attacking those trying to bring child sex trafficking to the forefront, Leftists keep the money flowing, which helps them maintain control and power. Even with former child stars like Corey Feldman, Elijah Wood, and others coming forward and exposing how Hollywood treats kids, you aren’t going to see too many Leftists coming forward to do anything about it.
Granted, many of the examples I’ve presented are tangentially-related to child sex trafficking, but I don’t think it’s too far of a leap to believe an industry that hides child sex allegations might also have an issue with how they get the children in the first place. Still, we must be fair and assume innocence until guilt can be established. Yet, we cannot rule it out as a possibility because, well, Hollywood is full of scumbags with enough power to make even the weirdest sexual deviancy go away.
Especially if they have friends in high places, like…oh I don’t know…Washington, DC?
Here’s the thing that confuses me, especially now. This issue is a slam dunk for Leftists if they really thought about it (Spoiler Alert: they didn’t). The electorate is hearing multiple news stories about children being groomed by Leftists, so they should be aware of the potential political bonanza they could see (as well as the ability to keep the “groomer” talk down for a while) by just coming out against it publicly. Plus, it would show the Left is willing to work with the Right on important issues regardless of political differences.
But they just can’t bring themselves to do it. After all, if they concede child sex trafficking is an issue, there’s a good chance it would open up further scrutiny and discussion about border security, sex trafficking in general, whether there is a culture of sex trafficking in Leftist strongholds and among Left-leaning groups, and a lot of other shitstorms the Left doesn’t need right now. After all, they’re too busy trying to cover up the daily shitstorms from the Biden Administration.
But, Leftists, staying silent, attacking a film about child sex trafficking, and blocking legislation that makes child sex trafficking illegal aren’t the way to win hearts and minds of the general population. The political losses you perceive pale in comparison to the sheer evil you’re allowing to young people who aren’t even old enough to vote for your shitty politics. You are politically shooting yourselves in the feet with a Gatling gun, all to protect people who might just be at the heart of the problem in the first place.
But look on the bright side. You got the sick pervert vote locked up!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
The US Supreme Court has been busy making Leftists cry lately. In addition to their recent decision regarding Affirmative Action (my coverage available here), they also ruled in a 6-3 decision in favor of a Colorado businesswoman who wanted to do wedding websites, but didn’t want to them for same-sex weddings. Seems it would violate her religious beliefs, so she challenged Colorado’s law and eventually won.
Which royally pissed off the Left!
While Leftists started in on their “expand the Supreme Court” and “extremist right wing Court” recycled rhetoric, others cheered the decision as a “victory for free speech.” So, why were Leftists (who proclaim themselves as free speech champions) upset?
I’m glad you…errr I asked.
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis
What the Left thinks it means – a Supreme Court decision that makes it legal to discriminate against people
What it really means – the mask slipping on the Left’s commitment to free speech
Our good friends at Twitchy give us a nice breakdown of the case and the stipulations the businesswoman was willing to make to comply with Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws. The Reader’s Digest Condensed Version is she was willing to work with anyone, but not to make websites that would go against her faith.
Wait. I seem to remember a similar situation with a baker in Colorado and the Left’s response being “Bake the cake, bigot.”
Both the baker and the businesswoman were subject to what might best be called coerced free speech. I take that back. The best term for this is bullshit, but you get the idea. The idea behind free speech is to allow everyone a chance to speak their minds up to the point it inspires violence (i.e. “fighting words“). Where the Left takes the, well, left turn off the freeway of free expression is when others say things they don’t like. Then, they will stop at nothing to prevent those evil mean nasty Nazi ideas from getting traction, including collaborating with Big Tech to silence them. Of course, they’ll use any excuse they can to justify it and if you disagree, you’re just dag nasty evil.
Or in the case of COVID-19 hysteria, most likely telling the truth.
This brings us back to the “bake the cake” mentality of the Left. There are segments of the Left (namely the LGBTQA+ABCDEFGOHWEOHWEOHGIRLIWANNAKNOWYOUKNOWYOU crowd) who will use the judicial system to force certain groups (namely Christians) to do what they want in some weird flex of their protected status. And until fairly recently, the courts have let them get away with it, stating a protected class’ “right” to services trumps the Christian’s right to religion.
When you’re coerced to speak under threat of judicial or regulatory reprisal, free speech is compromised to the point of being ineffectual. This is why the “bake the cake” argument is so fucked up in the first place. Although business do have the right to refuse service, it’s limited to situations where it’s not considered discriminatory. And thanks to the aforementioned Alphabet Soup Group, anything short of total subservience to their cause is discriminatory.
Not surprisingly, though, this runs smack-dab in the face of their attitudes about Twitter banning conservative users. Back then, it was okay to silence conservatives because “Twitter is a private business and can make decisions to deny someone a platform.”
Soooooo…I have a question. Why is it okay to silence conservatives because of Twitter’s status as a private business, but also okay to force private businesses to give Leftists a platform for their ideas? The short answer is it’s not because it’s hypocritical and counterintuitive to the idea of free speech. Regardless of how tasty the medium may be, you cannot force compliance one way without forcing it the other way and still be intellectually consistent.
And now, you can’t do it while being legally consistent.
Look, I get the idea behind Colorado’s anti-discrimination law. It’s how it’s being implemented that’s the issue. If you’re using it as a cudgel to attack people who don’t agree with you, it’s being used incorrectly. Laws like the anti-discrimination laws are meant to be more of a legal shield and a method to provide legal recourse should the laws be broken. Using it the way Colorado Leftists have, though, turns a law with good intentions into one with bad application, which puts it in proximity of “fighting words” in my semi-learned opinion.
Where the majority opinion in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis diverted expectations is that it was ruled on as a free speech rather than a freedom of religion issue. But the true brilliance comes when you consider the Left’s opinion of religion in general (save for Climate Change Cultists). In arguing against religion in the public square, the Left has taken one of two approaches: demanding an all-or-none approach (except when it comes to Muslims), or demanding freedom from religion. After all, you have to account for those who don’t want religion shoved down their throats, right?
Wellllll…let’s apply this to another idea, freedom of association. As this link shows, the Supreme Court has already ruled there is a freedom from association as well as a freedom of association. In other words, the High Court has already laid the groundwork for future challenges to Colorado’s law if some plucky attorney with time to kill and a client willing to test the law would put it in motion.
Not that I’m hinting someone should do that, mind you…
Nevertheless, the 6-3 ruling (with guess who making up the minority) is going to stand for now, and the Left can’t handle it. Not only can’t they force people to do their bidding because reasons, but the arguments put forth in opposition to the ruling are…how can I put this delicately…fucking stupid. But remember, Leftists are smarter than us. Just ask them.
In this case (and, to be fair, in most cases for that matter), the Left got this one wrong, and instead of figuring out how they went wrong, they blamed the “right wing Supreme Court.” You know, like mature adults do? Yet, something tells me they aren’t going to understand the implications of their insistence people have to be forced to platform their ideas. I mean, if their ideas were so popular, wouldn’t people want to give them platforms?
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis is a victory for actual free speech and a blow to the coerced speech the Left want to make the norm. No matter how the Left tries to spin it or muddy the waters with absurd claims, this is an L for them, which is a given.
After all, you can’t spell “Leftist” without an L.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
When it comes to finding topics for this weekly excursion into Leftist insanity, patience can be a virtue. I can’t count the number of times I’ve had a topic in mind only to have another topic jumping to the head of the line. (Then again, it might have something to do with me not being able to count, but that’s neither here nor there.)
This week was one of those times. I intended to write about a potential Presidential candidate getting shafted more than a gay porn filmed in an elevator when our good friends at the Supreme Court handed down a 6-3 decision striking down race as a factor in determining college admissions via Affirmative Action..
Thank you, Jesus.
Of course, Leftists freaked out all over the place, which means not only does it give us the topic for this week, but gives us an opportunity to mock the Leftists into the Stone Age! Yay!
Affirmative Action
What the Left thinks it means – a necessary program to address racism in social, academic, and political arenas
What it really means – a program that fights racism by being racist
Affirmative Action began in 1961 due to Executive Order 10925 issued by President John F. Kennedy where he called for “affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” But before you could say ” color-blind society,” Leftists took the idea, twisted it, and turned it into a way to legally discriminate to address grievances, both real and imagined.
Then, it went from letting blacks have a chance to seize the American dream to letting them have all the chances. And it worked well for a while. Eventually, other races wanted in on the Affirmative Action gravy train, and Leftists being Leftists let them. And it worked even better.
Until Asian-Americans entered the equation. (For the purposes of this piece, I will be focusing on the educational aspects of Affirmative Action since that was the issue before the Supreme Court.) Seems when it came to college admissions with institutes of higher learning that adopted Affirmative Action in said admissions (like Harvard and the University of North Carolina, just to name two completely random universities), Asian-American students kept getting passed over for…you guessed it, blacks who didn’t exactly match their Asian-American counterparts, but did have the right skin color.
And guess how that turned out. Oh yeah, it got slapped down by a 6-3 majority like a narc at a biker rally.
Granted, the Asian-American community is understandably split on whether Affirmative Action is a good thing. A majority of those who have heard of it think it’s a good thing, but they don’t think race should be a factor in college admissions. So, they’re working at cross purposes, like your fingers in a Chinese finger trap.
And the Left won’t let that go for a second.
Of course, when they’re trying to explain the dichotomy/duality/hypocrisy, they resort to letting members of the Asian-American community do the whitesplaining for them. And, not surprisingly, they all seem to parrot the same squawking point: Affirmative Action good, Supreme Court decision bad.
But here’s the thing. Affirmative Action in education is racist by definition. Colleges and universities literally used race as a means to determine entry, thus favoring one race over another.
Literally racism. And I do mean literally, kids.
Affirmative Action as the Leftists practice it pulls an Animal Farm by suggesting some racism is more oppressive than others, so they put different weight to certain racial elements in order to rectify the racial injustices of the past. By being racist.
And people wonder why I’m so fucked in the head after being a Leftist.
Regardless, Leftists were pissed at the Supreme Court decision. Some, like Chief Running Mouth, lamented what is being presumed as a loss to black and Hispanic students. Others, like President Puddin’ Head Joe, told the truth without knowing it. Still others, like California Governor Gavin “Human Smarm” Newsom, tripped over his state’s own laws while blasting the decision.
But the general consensus among Leftists is, well, melting down in racist ways, with an “expand the Supreme Court” twist for good measure. (By the way, Erica Marsh, you might want to call the office and let them know you’ve dug yourself a hole and need a really long ladder to get out. And you can’t blame MAGA Republicans for you being stupid.)
Never let a crisis, even one of their own creation, go to waste, amirite?
And believe me, this Supreme Court decision going against the Left is a crisis of their own creation by not really getting the whole “racism is bad” thing. Even if you think you have the best of intentions, racism will get its ass kicked by the law sooner or later. And when you consider how often Leftists have invoked the 14th Amendment as a means to try to punish politicians they say were part of the January 6 “insurrection,” you would think they would have read the first parts of it dealing with, oh I don’t know…equal protections under the law. You know, the very fucking thing the whole Amendment was about?
Nevertheless, this Supreme Court ruling is going to be a bitter pill for the Left to swallow because it’s the same thing that happened when Roe v Wade was sent back to the states. Leftists overplayed their hands and got away with it for decades because they made it socially unacceptable to oppose them. What they didn’t (and still don’t if I’m being honest) think about is when enough people say “fuck it” and stand up anyway. Then, we see how paper thin the Leftist tigers actually are. If the Left hadn’t twisted the original intent of Affirmative Action into a bean-counting system, they would have been fine and no Supreme Court case would have come forward because there wouldn’t have been grounds to do so.
Of course, this wouldn’t be an Affirmative Action ruling without Leftists singling out Justice Clarence Thomas because Leftists say he benefited from Affirmative Action practices to get into law school. Pretty big assumption, as Thomas has shown himself to be a keen legal and Constitutional mind (which might be one of the main reasons the Left hates him). It’s possible he got into law school through Affirmative Action, but it’s just as possible he got in on his merits. Only Thomas knows for sure.
Even if Thomas recused himself, the outcome would be the same, just with a 5-3 outcome. Nothing would have changed.
By the way, have you noticed how Thomas is the only one who’s questioned about whether he would have gotten into law school without Affirmative Action? Not Sonia “Wise Latina” Sotomayor. Not Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Just Clarence Thomas. Of course, Sotomayor and Brown Jackson vote the “right” way, so they obviously got into their respective law schools totally on their merits and not because of their skin colors.
Wait. Aren’t Leftists complaining about blacks and Hispanics not getting educational spots due to this ruling? Yes, but I’m sure it’s just an amazing coincidence…
Nevertheless, using Affirmative Action for educational purposes usually winds up the same way using it in the private and pubic sectors go: a small handful of diamonds in a metric shit ton of, well, shit. Of course there’s a simple way to grab more diamonds than shit in this case. Something about hiring the best people for the job regardless of race. But I’m sure that will never work. I mean, when has hiring competent people ever been successful? You know, aside from just about every time it’s done.
But the Left keeps expecting hiring incompetents for high profile positions will wind up elevating them into the roles. But it never works that way. The incompetents will get a false sense of achievement and the overinflated egos that come with it, and as long as Leftists keep letting them either advance or spin their wheels where they are (and vote/rule the way the Left wants, of course) these folks will be harder to remove than a Jehovah’s Witness tick with Super Glue on its jaws who moonlights as an IRS auditor.
This is made worse for college students who don’t have the luxury of a job to fall back on yet. For them, this is a do-or-die environment, one that is constantly being enabled by Leftists who want to feel good about “helping” minorities without actually doing anything. Once these students graduate, they are ill-prepared to handle a world where results matter. Skin color and misguided application of Affirmative Action can get your foot in the door, but if you can’t do the job, it’s going to cost money sooner or later.
But at least white Leftists feel good, right?
Say what you will about the Supreme Court, they got this decision right. Affirmative Action has no place in academia because it guarantees someone is going to get hurt by being coddled by a system that they will never allow to be applied to themselves.
Good luck with that, Leftists.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
In a move that surprised, well, no one, California Representative Adam Schiff was censured by the US House of Representatives for his role in perpetuating Russiagate. You remember Russiagate, don’t you kids? That investigation into whether Russia helped Donald Trump win the 2016 Presidential election based on evidence flimsier than a balsa wood kitchen table?
Of course, Leftists were furious at the censure, but then coped by saying the censure would guarantee he would win a Senate seat, as well as it made him more powerful now than he was before.
And I wish I were making that last part up.
While Leftists were turning him into Obi Wan Kenobi, Schiff turned this censure into a fundraising effort because reasons. With all of the talk around the Representative, it seems fitting he should be the latest Lexicon entry.
Adam Schiff
What the Left thinks it means – an honest patriot standing up to Donald Trump and his minions
What it really means – a guy so full of shit he could fertilize Death Valley and the Sahara Desert several times over
During the Trump Administration, Adam Schiff went from a barely-there Congressional figure to a major player within Leftist circles, mainly because he had the balls to stand up to Donald Trump. And by balls, I mean eyeballs. And here I thought Mantenna was just an action figure from the She-Ra toy line, but here we are.
To say Schiff had a hate boner for Trump is an understatement of Rosie O’Donnell at an all you can eat buffet proportions. (I used Rosie here in celebration of Pride Month. You’re welcome, LBGTQIDUDIYRSVPUFOABCBBDCCRKISSELO+ community.) If anybody could make up…I mean uncover dirt on Donald Trump’s dealings with Russia, Schiff would be like a bloodhound. A bloodhound with Marty Feldman-like eyes, but a bloodhound nonetheless.
There was one tiny problem, though: the allegations of collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russia were bullshit. But Schiff couldn’t let a little thing like a lack of actual proof stop him! After all, if he couldn’t produce the goods, he would be a liar, wouldn’t he? So, he did what any self-respecting Leftist would do and lied some more!
This next part has become the millstone around Schiff’s pencil neck. He claimed there was “ample evidence” of the collusion that was “in plain sight.” Yet, when pressed to provide this evidence, Schiff acted like the dog ate his homework. Even as one of the dipshits running the first Trump impeachment based around stuff even law clerks could argue their way out of in a court of law, Schiff maintained he had the proof.
As of this writing, no such proof has ever been presented.
And this is the asshat the Left is calling an honest broker? Granted, it’s the same kind of defense they put up for Eric “I Slept With a Chinese Spy and All I Got Was Removed From House Committees” Swalwell.
Which brings us to an interesting problem for the Left: calling out liars. After years of demanding people call out Trump for lying (which is a 25/8 job because 24/7 just ain’t enough), the Left are suddenly okay with someone lying to Congress about the former President. Remember, kids, if Leftists didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have standards at all…not that you’d notice, mind you. As long as their team lies about the right people (i.e. anyone to the right of Ivan “I Have To Go” Trotsky), it’s for the right reasons. But lie about the wrong people (i.e. them) and Leftists will go at you like you abused their pet cat. They’ll throw the Library of Congress at you!
And most modern Republicans sit there and take it because they’re playing by a different set of rules, rules that neuter them politically to the point they’re so afraid of offending the electorate (who really aren’t paying that much attention to the details) that they will allow Leftists to lie about them constantly. How do you think Media Matters stays in business? I mean aside from generous donations from our buddy Uncle George.
It’s in this environment where Schiff is at his best. When he can lie with impunity because he’s on the winning side of Congressional elections, he goes full Super Sayan. But when he’s on the wrong end of the election cycle, he cries like a little boy who skinned his knee riding his bike. Seems he doesn’t like it when the shit he flings gets flung back at him.
It’s also in this environment where Leftists are the most vulnerable when it comes to Schiff. By going all in on his allegations, it becomes a “ride or die” situation. Either they keep pushing the narrative even after there are more holes in it than a Swiss cheese factory in the crossfire of a gang war, or they throw Schiff to the wolves (which are mostly toothless lapdogs in bed with the Left, but the point remains the same). Since Schiff has built up such a cult of personality around himself, Leftists fear the backlash from the latter, so they go all in on Schiffamania.
Here’s where the vulnerability lies. All it takes is for House Republicans to call Schiff’s bluff. (A pipe dream these days, but a man can dream.) Demand he produce the evidence he claims to have. If he’s telling the truth and didn’t disclose this information during the January 6th Commission, he knowingly withheld evidence from an active investigation. If he’s lying (a safer bet), then he lied to Congress and the nation. And not just on the floor of the House, mind you. He repeated the lie on social media, on TV shows, and in print. Even though a Representative can’t be arrested for lying while conducting official duties, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say being on CNN isn’t really a Congressional duty. If anything, it might be considered torture.
In either case, Schiff is fucked, and not in the good way.
Not that the Left cares, mind you. They want Donald Trump punished by any means necessary, even if it undermines the rule of law in the process. But it’s this single-mindedness that will eventually backfire. At some point, the Left will not be able to control the narrative nor the legislative might to enforce it, which opens them up to a universe of hurt. Adam Schiff’s censure sets the precedent for it, and can be used against other Leftists, like Swalwell, Ilhan Omar, the Socialist Socialite, and plenty of others.
And the best part? The Left made it all possible through their political circle jerk to take down Donald Trump. Good job, Leftists!
As for Adam Schiff, he’s basically a fourth string quarterback put in the game because the first three QBs are all injured, the cheerleaders don’t know how to run the offense, and the coach hates furries, so the mascot’s out of the running. But since he’s the guy, his team has to support him and cheer every inch gained as though it were a touchdown. Then, after he fumbles, throws interceptions, and gets sacked more often than Idaho potatoes, he becomes more of a liability than an asset. Democrats should distance themselves from Schiff sooner rather than later.
And Schiff? He’s 3/5 of an asset, and the -et don’t count.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Remember the good old days when men were men, women were women, and nobody used science to prove otherwise? Well, as anyone who can lived through COVID-19 and is being honest about it can tell you, science has gotten a lot more political and a lot less like science.
Amid all the major stories over the past week (apparently a former President got indicted on the “buy one grand jury, get another one free” program), there was one that caught my eye because of its ties to one of the major controversies of the day. This comes from Johns Hopkins University, or more specifically their Diversity and Inclusion branch. In a recently-found glossary of terms, women aren’t women anymore; they’re, and I’m not making this up, “non-men.”
Welcome to the era of female erasure. And welcome to this week’s Lexicon entry!
female erasure
What the Left thinks it means – an overblown and unfounded reaction to recognizing trans women as real women
What it really means – another example of Leftist misogyny, this time disguised as support for trans rights
For the purposes of full disclosure, I am a man. In a lot of people’s minds, that automatically invalidates my opinions on women’s issues and opens me up to criticisms of “manplaining.” Well, half of my chromosomes came from a woman, so at the very least half of my opinions are worth considering. Plus, I’m so in touch with my feminine side, I’m suing myself for sexual harassment.
Having said all that, I recognize the importance women have on human history and the strides they’ve made to be seen as equals to men by at least a majority of Americans. And for a lot of years, Leftists seemed on board with that, and for the purposes of fundraising and politics, they still are. And since women make up over half of Americans as of 2021, that’s a pretty good reason not to piss them off.
Enter trans right activists. Within the past couple of years, they’ve advanced the idea that men who transition into women are actual women and anyone who says differently (i.e. someone who stayed awake in biology class) is a bigot who hates trans people. And with that, women became a subjective term instead of a scientifically established certainty that even kindergarteners could explain.
And for those who are wondering? Still two genders. I’ll break in with updates as warranted.
Meanwhile back at the main point, Leftists have found a way to both court and offend women by insisting a man who says he’s a woman is no different than a woman who has been a woman all her life. Aside from the biological differences, I can attest from being married to a woman for 10 years now men and women do not have the same experiences. Contrary to what trans women tell you, they don’t get periods or menstrual cramps, which means they don’t know what it’s like to go through it for the first time and all the emotional and hormonal elements that come along with it. To suggest otherwise is like an Amy Schumer joke: stolen. Oh, and bad.
For proof of this, we can look no further than the poster child of modern trans women, Dylan Mulvaney. Due to a year-long publicity stunt called “365 Days of Girlhood”, Mulvaney got a lot of positive attention, which given his past antics to gain attention, is exactly what he/she wanted. Content Warning: do not watch these videos if you’re easily offended by over-the-top acting, easily influenced by social media, or generally skeeved out by Dylan.
At this point, I have to clarify something. Although Mulvaney goes by she/her pronouns, I don’t think she/her is actually trans. Case in point: “normalize the bulge.” Women can have bulges, just not where their dicks would be if they had them in the first place. And as of this writing, Mulvaney has yet to fully transition, which means his normalized bulge is still a dick and balls. Hence, I use his/her and him/her to describe the insanity that is Dylan Mulvaney.
If Mulvaney were the only person doing this, we could write it off as an anomaly. (Come to think of it, we still can, but that’s beside the point.) Unfortunately for women, he/she isn’t. Trans women are finding new footholds in women’s spaces, ranging from competitive sports to combat sports, even to beauty salons catering to women’s genital waxing and to changing rooms. At this point, it’s no longer about acceptance. Trans women are trying to insert themselves (if you’ll pardon the double entendre) into spaces reserved for biological women and expecting women to knuckle under.
You know, just like abusive men?
This is another fundamental difference between men and women that the trans community doesn’t want us to know: men are more aggressive than women generally. Granted, you aren’t likely to get throttled to a pulp by a Leftist man in skinny jeans and a man bun, but the potential is still there. Combine this with the differences in musculature between the genders (checking…still 2), and you have an individual who has the tools and the mentality to physically assault women. And Leftists want these folks to be in the presence of their potential victims because reasons?
Maybe Ben Shapiro has opinions on this.
And make no mistake, it’s trans women (i.e. men) who are forcing the issue with the help of their Leftist enablers. With each trans woman who enters the female space, a little bit of the female experience gets erased and replaced with someone who has yet to truly experience it. In other words, the Left is replacing women with biological men and showing favoritism towards the latter.
Say, isn’t there a term for something like that? Mis…something or other? I’m sure some Leftist will fill in the blanks for me.
To add more sodium chloride to the wound, Leftists deny any of this is going on, in spite of Leftist women calling it out. And how do many Leftists respond? By calling them Nazis. In fact, any woman who doesn’t agree with biological men taking over women’s spots gets treated the same way. Just ask J. K. Rowling, who has been the epitome of evil for Leftists because she…dared to say trans women weren’t actually women. And who has been consistent in not backing down to the trans mob?
J. K. Fucking Rowling.
Although it’s disheartening to see how few women are standing up to the Left in their attempts to slowly eliminate female accomplishments, I see that tide turning. With more women of all political stripes speaking up, it gets harder for Leftists to discount female erasure. Oh, they will, make no mistake. But you can only call someone a Nazi so many times before he or she tells you to go fuck yourself.
But don’t fret, trans women. Most of you have the equipment to do just that.
And this just in…still two genders!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
To hear the Left talk (and for God’s sake why would you), white supremacy is everywhere. From members of Congress (all Republican, by the way) to math, you can’t swing a cat without hitting something or someone not touched by white supremacy.
Including Moms for Liberty.
This past week, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC to the kids) called Moms for Liberty a right wing extremist group with ties to…drum roll please…white supremacy! And why? Because they didn’t want radical Leftist ideas intermingled with history, math, and other subjects. Those bitches!
While we’ve tackled white supremacy before, we haven’t delved into the Southern Poverty Law Center (save for the occasional semi-humorous jape at their expense). Are they the gold standard of finding and combating extremism, or are they pyrite?
Southern Poverty Law Center
What the Left thinks it means – the definitive source on hate and extremist groups in America
What it really means – a Leftist echo chamber regurgitating whatever bullshit the Left needs to push to make the Right look bad
The SPLC describes itself as:
a catalyst for racial justice in the South and beyond, working in partnership with communities to dismantle white supremacy, strengthen intersectional movements, and advance the human rights of all people.
On the surface, this makes the SPLC sound like pretty much every dumb Leftist group out there, complete with nonsensical buzzwords. Rest assured, dear reader, it’s much, much stupider.
It starts with their reason for existing, that being tracking extremist groups. According to their own figures, the SPLC tracked 1225 such groups active in 2022. This begs the question of what gets a group on the list. From what I gathered from the link I just posted, it’s a pretty short list of qualifications.
1. Be to the right of Josef Stalin
2. Want government out of our lives as much as possible
Now, there was a time when the SPLC tracked hate groups and anti-government groups separately, but that doesn’t raise as much attention (i.e. make Chicken Little look reasonable). So, surprise surprise, they decided to combine the two, starting in 2021! Their reason? Because hate groups and anti-government groups got together and became a mass of hate!
At this point, I have to admit there is some overlap between anti-government and pro-hate groups, mainly because of the nature of humanity. But it’s far from a single circle as the SPLC would have us believe.
Take me, for instance. I don’t hate anyone, including Leftists, because it’s no fun. Where the real fun lies is in pointing and laughing, which always makes me feel good. And I’m not anti-government so much as I am anti-stupid government. I don’t want to overthrow the government or participate in a violent coup for the same reason I don’t hate Leftists: it’s not fun. LARPing as a Founding Father just isn’t my thing, although I do have the gams to pull off the pantaloons…
And that would put me on the SPLC’s radar because they lack the ability to recognize nuance. Granted, this is a trait of any extremist, but it’s particularly damaging because the Left gives the SPLC a megaphone to spread the idea hatred and extremism are around every corner, under every rock, and in every medium known to Man.
And Leftist asshats think Joe McCarthy was a nutjob!
Even so, the SPLC has to resort to some tricky accounting that would make Arthur Andersen proud. I decided to see what kind of evil hateful meaniehead groups they found in my home state of Iowa. Among the groups that made the list were the Constitution Party of Iowa (anti-government group), Iowa Parents Involved in Education (anti-government group), and We the People for Constitutional Sheriffs (anti-government group). Sure, there are some notable names, like the John Birch Society and the National Alliance, but it seems like most of the groups on the list don’t belong there.
And certainly not multiple times like Moms for Liberty are.
Once or twice, maybe it’s an oversight. But five fucking times? That’s a decision. And it’s a decision that the SPLC made over and over again across all 50 states.
Now, consider a group like, oh I don’t know, Antifa. They’ve shown a significant amount of hatred and they’re pretty anti-government. Surely they’re on the SPLC’s radar as either or both, right?
Nope.
Color me…not all that surprised, really. After all, if the number of hate group goes down (which it has been according to the SPLC’s own numbers), the purpose of the group is weakened. Yes, only in the Leftist mind is successfully getting rid of hate groups a bad thing.
And that’s because the SPLC’s entire existence is built on fighting hate groups in America. As such, they have a vested interest in making it seem hate groups are more prevalent than bad pop music today. Or, in other words, pop music today. So, they have to keep playing fast and loose with what constitutes a hate group and an anti-government group while outwardly pretending it’s all hate groups.
The problem is when everything you don’t like becomes a hate group, you water down the concept so actual hate groups gain a bit of plausible deniability. After all, if a group that has to lie about the number of hate groups and what groups are considered hate groups, how can we trust them on the basic shit?
Of course, most hate groups are too stupid to realize this, but hey. If they weren’t stupid, they wouldn’t be hate groups, right?
Which brings us back to the designations. Moms for Liberty got on the list because members made they allegedly made violent threats. I say allegedly for multiple reasons, but primarily because of the source, i.e. the SPLC itself.
Plus, the standard they use doesn’t make any sense. The Constitution Party is listed as anti-government, even though its name and general principles come from a document used to guide our government (at least in theory). It’s like saying a car club is anti-truck in spite of it literally being a club about cars. And even then, the club members may not be anti-truck, per se. The devil, or in this case the SPLC’s overinflated numbers, are in the details.
With actual hate groups, it’s much more cut and dried, as there’s very few ways spouting hate can be seen as anything but, well, spouting hate. Even then, the SPLC will go out of its way to run interference for Leftist hate (see Antifa) while using the comment of a mother upset at Critical Race Theory being taught to her children in elementary school (and, yes, Leftists, this does happen) to paint a group as anti-government is all but guaranteed.
Then again, the SPLC handling Antifa with kid gloves might have something to do with Antifa members being on staff…
Regardless, it’s clear the Southern Poverty Law Center is as reliable as Puddin’ Head Joe staying on message. Which makes it that much more important to push back when they come out with bullshit like the Moms for Liberty being a hate group. The more they go unchallenged, the more they are seen as legitimate, and the more they’re used in conjunction with government agencies to find and categorize people and groups as dangerous.
But the tide might be turning, due in part to legal proceedings and whisteblowers. By exposing the SPLC’s long con, the organization’s flaws become evident, but I want to take it a step further. If the SPLC are focused on taking on hate groups, what are the results of their efforts?
Jack. Shit.
I’m sure they’ll have some sort of bullshit excuse, but the fact remains they’re failures being given credibility by the Left for ideological purposes. You know, like Kamala Harris. But not even a Leftist circle jerk can overcome pointing out how impotent the SPLC has been. You literally have one fucking job, and you can’t even do that right?
Keep that up and you could become President of the United States.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
This week, we delve into the world of comedy, for which some readers are saying “Finally!” Fortunately for you, it’s not my jokes this time.
Instead, we can look to Twitter and Leftists for the humor. Seems our favorite Socialist Socialite got her collectivist panties in a wad over a Twitter account parodying her. And as one might expect of someone dumber than a bag of hammers, the Socialist Socialite tweeted out a warning advising fans of the account. Because as we all know the best way to make a problem go away is to draw as much attention to it as humanly possible.
Needless to say, this didn’t work well. Which prompted fans of the Socialist Socialite to call for Twitter to ban the parody account, AOCpress. This gives us the perfect opening to discuss the wonders of parody.
parody
What the Left thinks it means – a potentially dangerous threat to valid communication between politicians and their constituents
What it really means – a way to mock the Left protected by the First Amendment
Our good friends at Dictionary.com provide a great definition of “parody” that will serve us nicely:
1. a humorous or satirical imitation of a serious piece of literature or writing: his hilarious parody of Hamlet’s soliloquy.
2. the genre of literary composition represented by such imitations.
3. a burlesque imitation of a musical composition.
4. any humorous, satirical, or burlesque imitation, as of a person, event, etc.
If you’re an observant reader, and I know you are, you’ll notice a pattern. If you’re not or a Leftist (which means you’re not observant by definition), the pattern is humor. Leftists love to tell us they’re funnier than conservatives, but yet they’re redefining humor to take the funny out of comedy and turn it into more of a monologue where the pseudo-comedian throws out Leftist talking points in lieu of jokes. But don’t worry. There are plenty of set-ups, chief of which being the audience being set up that they’ll be entertained, but there are a decided lack of straight men. Or women.
And as a side note, Dave Chappelle was right about Hannah Gadsby.
Anyway, the Left doesn’t have a mirth monopoly by any stretch. Granted, much of the humor they provide is unintentional (i.e. Puddin’ Head Joe and Kamala Harris going off script), but it’s humor nonetheless. Where the Right has the edge in humor is online, especially in the area of satire. With The Onion being as funny as its namesake these days, sites like The Babylon Bee and any number of Twitter handles have picked up the slack by…actually being funny. What a concept!
And a good amount of the time, it’s the Left getting skewered with the Right’s humor. Guess how that goes over with the Left.
As with other things that bug them and that they can’t control, Leftists moan more than a porn actress being paid by the orgasm. And where do they moan the most? On Twitter! After all, if you complain on Twitter about something and tag Elon Musk it actually does something important!
Guess how that turned out. And I’m guessing you’re seeing a pattern here.
See, Leftists hate being mocked, especially when it’s in the form of parody because it’s not just mocking them, but it’s mocking them directly.
Remember the young girl who did a parody of the Socialist Socialite? Well, she got death threats from Leftists. You know, the tolerate, loving, and totes free speech defending Left? (Yeah, I laughed hard when I typed that, too.)
That should tell you two things. First, Leftists take themselves way too seriously. And second, the jokes about their lack of a sense of humor are based in fact. Oh, and Leftists are shitty people when they get butthurt at being the butt of jokes. (See what I did there?)
But here’s the thing. Parody is protected under the First Amendment as free speech. And what’s even more delicious? It’s because of Larry Flynt, a loud and proud Leftist. (On a side note, how do Leftist feminists reconcile Flynt’s treatment and attitudes towards women with feminist ideology? Oh, right, they fucking ignore it.)
Of course, that doesn’t stop Leftists from making the case the AOCpress account should be removed because they claim it’s imitating the Socialist Socialist. Hoo boy. So much to unpack here, but let’s start with the easy one.
Twitter rules are quite clear on parody accounts being allowed so long as they clearly proclaim they are parody accounts. And Leftists should remember this, especially after many of them did Elon Musk parodies on their Twitter accounts.
In other words, it’s perfectly fine when they do it, but no one else can do it, especially to them.
Now, there’s the whole imitation angle. What AOCpress posts may look and sound like what the Socialist Socialite says, but at no time does the account owner say he/she is AOC. Just because it’s indistinguishable from what the Socialist Socialite really says doesn’t mean it’s someone trying to impersonate her. Although, it might be evidence the Twitter account wants to date her…
Now, for the best part of all of this. There are people getting fooled by the AOCpress account, even with the parody tag on it. How fucking stupid do you have to be to get fooled by a parody account that labels itself as parody? I know social media is a “Tweet first, ask questions later” environment, but fuck! You have to be a special kind of window licker to get fooled.
Which says a lot about the people who stan for the Socialist Socialist, doesn’t it?
The proper response to parody isn’t to try to get it removed from the marketplace of ideas, but rather to take it for what it is: an attempt at humor. You don’t have to get it for it to be a joke, and you don’t have to laugh for it to be protected. That’s why Dane Cook has never been arrested for doing his stand-up (although an argument could be made for him being arrested for impersonating a stand-up comedian, but that’s a blog post for another time). That means Leftists are going to have to put up with a lot more mocking from people, myself included.
And that’s going to piss off Leftists.
The AOCpress account exposes how thin-skinned Leftists can be, while at the same time showing how gullible and stupid they can be when they put their minds to it. Like it or not, though, parody is as valid a Socialist Socialite speech, only parody is intentionally funny.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
There’s a little word starting with the letter D that has Leftists up in arms more than usual. No, it’s not “domestic terrorism” or “DeSantis” or even “D-Student President.” The word is “default” and Leftists are sounding the alarm that unless those evil mean ole Republicans approve a bunch of spending (which is totally related to running the country and isn’t related to a bunch of partisan bullshit designed to help Leftists buy… I mean earn votes). And those evil mean dagnasty Republicans want to…horror of horrors…spend less! Those monsters!
While talks between President Puddin’ Head Joe and House Speaker Kevin “Not Charlie” McCarthy have broken down more often than the car I bought from a sleazy used car salesman (i.e. a used car salesman), it seems more and more people on the Left are afraid we aren’t going to pay our bills and Grandma Gertrude will lose her Social Security, Medicare, and all means to survive. It’s going to be worse than January 6th!
Yeah, not so much. Let’s dive in
default
What the Left thinks it means – what will happen right now unless House Republicans agree to keeping proposed expenditures at higher rates
What it really means – a condition that hasn’t happened yet, but will become a reality in the near future
First off, a bit of insider baseball. Congressional budgeting isn’t the same thing as personal budgeting because the government can always print more money. If you or I did that, we’d be thrown in jail.
Come to think of it, that would be an ideal solution to the problems I have with Congress…
Anyway, because of this federal ability to print money, you’re more likely to find a happy Bud Light drinker than the government is to default on our debts. There are risks tied to this, namely the US Dollar becoming more worthless than Kanye West’s 2024 Presidential campaign coffers, but our elected officials aren’t stupid enough to let that happen, right?
Considering there is a sitting Representative who expressed fear that Guam would capsize if there were too many people, I’m not betting the farm on that.
But what I am betting the farm on is a lot of histrionics from people who don’t know the first thing about how economics works, even those who boast of having economics degrees but couldn’t make change.
Or toast, for that matter.
At the heart of this current kurfluffle is the Left’s insistence we raise the debt ceiling to ensure expenditures get paid. Put another way, Leftists are “just trying to pay America’s bills.”
One tiny problem (well, more than one, but we’ll get into that a bit later). The spending being done now is for the next fiscal year, which doesn’t start until…October 1, 2023. The shit we’re dealing with now is from the fiscal year that began October 1, 2022, when Democrats controlled the House and, thus, controlled spending.
Waitaminute…wouldn’t that give Leftists a vested interest in raising the debt ceiling (which is like getting a credit line increase on the federal Visa card)? Why…yes, yes it would!
It also gives them a manmade…womanmade…wymynmade…transmade…whatever made line 0f attack against House Republicans. After all, they’re standing in the way of paying America’s bills, right?
Not so much. The House passed a debt bill waaaaaaaay back on April 26th, a bill that Senate Majority Leader Chuck “Not Amy” Schumer called “dead on arrival” and President Puddin’ Head Joe said he would veto the House bill if it passed the Senate. Compare this to his comments from a few weeks ago (and a few days after he made the veto comment) trying to spin the situation to his advantage.
Hmmm…kinda makes you wonder who’s really forcing the default issue, doesn’t it?
But it’s not like the Left doesn’t have solutions. Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus sent Puddin’ Head Joe a letter suggesting he invoke the 14th Amendment as a means to resolve the debt ceiling issue and avoid default. Although this may seem like a stretch that would make Reed Richards look like a block of stone, Section 4 gives at least somewhat of a framework.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Now, I didn’t say the Left had good solutions.
The Left’s argument relies on the “validity of the public debt…shall not be questioned” part. Thanks to our good friends at Merrium Webster, we have two definitions of “validity” that maybe kinda sorta works.
the quality or state of being valid: such as
a: the state of being acceptable according to the law
b: the quality of being well-grounded, sound, or correct
Now, I’m giving the Left more credit than usual for deep thinking, but just because they put a little more thought into it than how they want their steaks cooked doesn’t mean they’re on the right track. Even with the most liberal (see what I did there) interpretation of the definitions, you’re still left with the “so what” question. How does this apply to the debt ceiling?
According to Al Jazeera (because I love to be an equal opportunity mocker of bad ideas), invoking the 14th would eliminate the debt limit and allow the nation’s bills to be paid. Now, this may solve the short term issues, but astute readers and students of history know how this is likely to end.
Spoiler Alert for you Leftists out there: it doesn’t end well for anyone, especially you.
Even though the Left is almost completely wrong here, they have inadvertently stumbled into a real issue: we aren’t taking federal spending seriously. I would say the government spends money like drunken sailors, but that would be insulting inebriated members of the Navy and I won’t stand for that. I don’t have any reason to believe we’d ever go into default, but only because of the power the federal government has to create money out of thin air. And we’re not talking about bills that have anything backing it, mind you. Right now the only thing backing the US Dollar is…our word.
Any Native American readers want to chime in on how much the government’s word is worth?
More to the point, our government’s spending makes the possibility of an actual default more and more likely unless we get a handle on it. As anyone who has had to take our a second mortgage to buy eggs this week can attest, inflation is a real issue affecting us all on some level. The more money we print, the less value it has. Before you know it, we’re post-WWI Germany without the pointy helmets.
And the thing is we keep running into this game of economic chicken every fucking year. The party in power of Congress and the party out of power always jockey for position in the weeks and months before the government can’t pay its bills and chaos ensues (according to the Left). Then, we might have to…shut down the government until a deal can be reached! Then, people might realized just how big, cumbersome, and mostly useless government actually is, and that’s going to hurt Leftists!
Wait. I’m not sure there’s a downside here. Oh, wait, I see one: this brinkmanship is tired, as well as tiring. But we will keep seeing it as long as both major parties prefer it to fiscal responsibility. Democrats and Republicans don’t want to think about what happens when the interest payment on the national debt exceeds our ability to pay since they’re too busy trying to figure out how to blame it on each other.
I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating (for no other reason than to pad out this piece a bit more). America has a spending problem. We are a shopaholic with the world’s most elite credit card, and we keep upping the credit limit because our elected officials are more than willing to sign off on it. And as long as the dipshits in Washington DC fail to grasp even basic accounting practices (i.e. being too far in the red is a bad thing), we’re going to keep playing chicken with the can being kicked down the road so a new group of dipshits can play.
Well, there’s a line from the movie “War Games” that applies here: “The only winning move is not to play.” Granted, we’re not dealing with Global Thermonuclear War or even chess, but we are hurtling towards a different point of no return, one where default is all but guaranteed. Cutting proposed spending while still increasing spending doesn’t help. Our national debt is in the trillions of dollars, and nobody on either side really wants to do the one thing that will help.
STOP FUCKING SPENDING!
While Republicans don’t seem to have any answers, at least they’re not really dumb ideas, which is what the Left has to offer right now. So, expect more chicken in DC and less in your refrigerator.
Speaking of which, could you help me out? I need to buy some chicken and I’m short by, oh, a few thousand dollars. Thanks in advance!