The Leftist world was all atwitter (or if you prefer all aX) recently with the story of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a poor illegal alien soul who was deported back to his home country of El Salvador, allegedly without due process. Without going too far into the weeds, let’s just say you’re more likely to catch Bernie Sanders flying on a private plane than you are to understanding the ins-and-outs of this case.
Wait. Scratch that.
So, to borrow a phrase from hack comedians, what’s the deal with deportation? It’s a complicated issue that deserves sober thinking to understand the gravitas of the subject. But since I’m already a few beers into this, you’ll have to put up with me.
deportation
What the Left thinks it means – a practice that needs to be done by the book, no matter how long it takes
What it really means – the legal consequence for illegal immigration
Contrary to what Rep. Jasmine Crockett says, illegal immigration is a crime. The law in question is the Immigration and Nationality Act which, along with other laws and regulations, provides direction for the immigration and deportation processes. Seems everything should be in order, right?
Not so much.
Much like Disney with negative reviews of “Snow White,” our political class loves to ignore the laws on the books when they’re inconvenient. And let’s just say the immigration laws are mighty inconvenient to the Left. After all, that’s the use of following immigration laws if they prevent you from ensuring Democrat control? You know, aside from those laws being the fucking laws.
That’s not to say Leftists don’t follow the laws all the time. In fact, one area where they demand the laws be followed to the letter is in…you guessed it, Frank Stallone. Actually, it’s deportation, which is really convenient considering it’s our topic for this Lexicon entry. After allowing people to enter the country through our southern border like wine moms going to a Taylor Swift concert, it’s funny to watch Leftists be such sticklers to the letter of the law.
And by “funny,” I mean calculated.
I know I’ve mentioned our good friend Saul Alinsky so often I could be his agent, but one of his Rules for Radicals applies here: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” Since Republicans believe in the rule of law (unless they find the laws inconvenient for political gain), the Left knows it has them in a box when it comes to immigration. If we have to follow the laws when it comes to stopping illegal immigration, we have to follow the laws when it comes to deportation.
And that’s where Constitutional law comes into play. The US Supreme Court previously ruled all aliens are entitled to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. So, that means regardless of the way they come into the country, they get their day in court.
A noble gesture in theory, but a burden in current practice, thanks to a little thing the Leftist kids like to call the Cloward-Piven Strategy. In short, this strategy is designed to achieve Leftist goals related to poverty by forcing the system to get overwhelmed. And guess how that gets accomplished: illegal immigration.
“But wait, Thomas. Wouldn’t illegal immigrants be ineligible for federal benefits?” you might ask. Or “Are you aware you’re not wearing pants?” The answer to the former is they should be, but thanks to loopholes in the law and soft-hearted and soft-brained politicians (I’m looking at you, Gavin Newsom), they gain access.
So, what does this have to do with deportation? By having to follow due process and the delays caused by so many illegal immigrants being processed over the past few years, the strain to the social safety net continues unabated.
That is, until President Trump got back into the Oval Office and decided to start enforcing immigration law. In the first six weeks, the Trump Administration deported 27,772 illegal immigrants, which is a step in the right direction. Where I think they’ve gone wrong is through fast-tracking the process. Yes, I know this plays into the Cloward-Piven and Alinsky playbooks, but it’s necessary to ensure the Left has no room to bitch. Not that it will stop them, mind you…
Nor will it stop the Left from lying. With the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case alone, we’ve seen attempts from the Left to paint him as an innocent victim denied due process and attempts from the Right to paint him as a gang-banger terrorist who has been legally deported back to his home country of El Salvador. Well, the truth is a bit murkier than these extremes are letting on.
First off, Kilmar Abrego Garcia freely admits he entered the country illegally, but has received a court order preventing him from being deported back to El Salvador out of fear of being attacked by a rival gang. So, not only have we confirmed he’s a member of a gang (MS-13 to be exactly, and I ain’t talking about Microsoft) and that he’s not supposed to be here, but he’s already had due process. But he also has a court order that should have protected him from deportation, as well as a questionable designation as a terrorist.
That means…well, a whole lotta shit, to be honest. If we deport him, we run afoul of the legal process. If we don’t deport him, he will still be affiliated with MS-13 which could put us in mortal danger.
Congratulations. We’re now in Kobayashi Maru territory.
The only way forward is being transparent, follow the law, and, oh yeah, stem the flow of illegal immigration to give the system time to catch up. And guess what the Trump Administration is doing? They’re cracking down, and that’s resulted in reduced encounters at the US/Mexico border. It’s a start, but there’s still a lot more to do.
First of all, let’s stop treating gang members like terrorists. Not only does it set a bad precedent for future Presidents, but it gives Leftists ammunition to call the deportation process into question. And, let’s face it, it’s not exactly the swiftest nor the clearest process in government. Plus, it elevates gang members, which only feeds their egos and gives them enough bravado to commit bigger, more audacious crimes. That, in turn, may cause other gangs to try to play catch-up, making the gang problem even worse.
Second, as much as the Trump Administration wants to rush through the deportation process to get results, we have to play it by the book. It won’t stop Leftists from lying or making gang-bangers look sympathetic figures, but it cuts the due process complaint they have off at the knees. And at the very least, it will make Leftists look like Cotton Hill, which will never fail to make me laugh.
Lastly, it’s long past time we overhaul our immigration and deportation policies. And that requires taking a hard look at our border policies. We can’t keep letting anyone with a sob story (and without paperwork) walk in unexamined while others jump through bureaucratic flaming hoops to gain legal entry. As draconian as Leftists think Trump’s border enforcement may be, it’s working. That gives us time to get our house in order.
If you really think about it (and I have because I’m as boring as an Amish rave), the deportation issues we’re seeing now are an outgrowth from the immigration issue. The more illegal immigrants come into the country, the more deportation orders have to be made once they’re caught. Of course, Leftists will continue to push for sanctuary cities and sanctuary states because, well, they don’t have to deal with the aftermath since they live more in the suburbs than where the illegal immigrants are.
So, let me float this idea, one that I’ve modified from Governors Ron Desantis and Greg Abbott. While they flew illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities and states, I want to send them to the residences of those who insist on being sanctuary cities and states. Preferably, to the houses of those politicians who made those things possible. Maybe that will drive home the point that illegal immigration isn’t something we should encourage.
Or, at the very least, we can point and laugh as we give Leftists exactly what they said they wanted.
Category: Foreign Affairs
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Since Donald Trump was reelected, people have kept an eye on the economy since that was one of the areas he ran on. After all, President Brick Tamland’s economy was one of the world’s biggest dumpster fires (in spite of Leftists saying everything was fine like Kevin Bacon in “Animal House”). So, naturally, we were curious what Trump could to to put out the fire.
And apparently, he’s big on tariffs.
Tariffs are a touchy subject because there are so many people talking about them, but very few who understand them. So, just like social media on any day ending with “day.” Since there are so many armchair economists spouting off, I might as well give it a go.
tariffs
What the Left thinks it means – an indirect tax on goods and services that will hurt everyone
What it really means – an economic bargaining chip if things are done right
Since I’m only an armchair economist, the good folks at Investopedia have a pretty good explanation of what tariffs are and how they can impact us. For the purposes of this sketch, tariffs are additional taxes levied on imports designed to get the exporting countries to cut us a deal. This is what I mean when I say they’re an economic bargaining chip.
The problem comes when the country whose goods are getting slapped with tariffs doesn’t want to play ball. That can lead to economic and diplomatic strife if both sides continue to jack up tariffs like they’re a tub of popcorn and a small pop at a movie theater. Anything larger than a small pop requires a credit check.
The way the Left sees tariffs is correct, but only to a point. Yes, tariffs can cause prices to rise, but it’s not a guarantee. However, it does cause shitty memes.
If you’re not into clicking links, let me describe the meme. The title is “How Tariffs Work” and it pictures Donald Trump pissing into a fan and getting hit in the face with his own piss. Cute? Maybe. Funny? Possibly. Accurate? Wellllll…not so much.
The meme’s assumption (provided I don’t get smacked by Chris for stealing his “In the Meme Time” bit) is tariffs will always backfire, especially when it comes to Trump. But what happens if they don’t? The cartoon doesn’t even consider that possibility, which shows at best a surface understanding of basic economics.
Which means Leftists aren’t prepared to talk about the companies who have already decided not to test Trump on tariffs and made arrangements to avoid or lessen their impact. Their squawking points only go as far as “things are going to be more expensive.”
You know, like things under President Brick Tamland?
But there is one element the Left keeps overlooking when complaining about tariffs: Trump is pushing for reciprocal tariffs. Basically, it’s a tit-for-tat move. The higher the tariffs on us, the higher Trump will set the tariffs on them. And needless to say, we’ve been on the wrong end of the tariff game with a lot of countries. We will have to see what this will do because I’m not sure anyone knows what will happen.
Especially not the Left.
When it comes to economics, Leftists are as smart as Eric Swalwell among female Chinese spies. They know a few terms and can bullshit their way through a discussion (provided it’s shorter than a ferret’s attention span after a quadruple espresso laced with truck stop speed), but when it comes to actual knowledge, they are lacking. Want proof? One of the Left’s favorite economists is Paul Krugman, a man whose accuracy percentage looks like the ERA of a really good pitcher.
The reason for this is simple: Leftists don’t get economics. Remember, Leftists thrive on emotion, and you just can’t fee-fee your way to a good economy. There are hard and fast rules, concrete numbers, and historical data to contend with, which make it harder for Leftists to digest. That’s why they tend to make emotional appeals when they talk about economic issues. Once you accept them as valid, they take the high ground.
Which explains the Left’s approach to the tariff issue. They want people to believe only the worst of outcomes awaits us, just like they do with any Republican or conservative idea. DOGE is intrusive. Closing the Department of Education will make students dumber (to which I say how could you tell the difference). And tariffs are totally bad.
Which is why other countries have tariffs on our shit. Because tariffs are bad, m’kay?
I think the Left’s objection to Trump’s tariffs stems from a belief America deserves to have to pay more for foreign goods because we have it so good here. To them, America is wealthy, so we can afford to pay jacked up costs (except when it comes to shit like healthcare, student loans, the cost of living, etc.). Although we are still one of the prime movers of the global economy, we should be more frugal in what we buy and from where. As the song says, “You’d better shop around.”
Either that or, “Do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do.” I always get those two songs mixed up.
Anyway, I’m going to take a wait-and-see approach to Trump’s tariffs. It’s way too early to dismiss them as a failure or a success, but try telling either extreme that in their rush to be right. If Trump can make good on his promise, all the better. If not, he’s going to have to do some fast talking to get himself out of this mess, which will give Leftists plenty of fodder for the 2026 midterm elections. It’s a pretty big gamble, so let’s see if we hit the jackpot or don’t have a pot to piss in.
Oh, and Leftists? Can you learn how to meme, for the love of Pete?
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
As social media and other electronic forms of communication have evolved, there is still a fundamental truth that will always remain: someone is going to fuck it up. Whether it’s the idiots who hit “Reply All” on a mass email asking to be taken off the email or posting videos on Instagram that results in getting the poster fired, people can and will be boneheads.
Just like members of the Trump Administration, thanks to a little app called Signal and a reporter named Jeffery Goldberg. The short version of the story is government officials including Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth discussing an impending military strike. And Goldberg was somehow invited to be in the chat.
And just as predictably, Leftists want to turn this matter into a major scandal because it’s not like they have anything to do between firebombing Tesla dealerships and posting lame videos about an impending silent riot. (Yes, it’s just as stupid as it sounds.) But is it a nothingburger or a major scandal requiring figurative heads rolling? Let’s find out!
Signalgate
What the Left thinks it means – a major scandal that exposes the Trump Administration’s incompetence
What it really means – a boneheaded move that may or may not have legs
One of the hardest things to get a handle on when researching this situation is figuring out the severity of it. It’s definitely a bad look, but so is the “Choose Your Fighter” video put out by Democrats. (And for those of you who click on the link, I cannot be personally held responsible for any brain cells lost.)
Where things get muddy is what security level the information in this chat was. I will be the first one to admit I don’t know shit about fuck when it comes to security levels. The best parallel I can make is the various internal security settings on company emails. The main difference? An email from Steve from Accounting about cover sheets on TPS reports probably won’t start a nuclear war.
I say probably because there’s always a chance. Fucking Steve from Accounting!
If you’re really interested in classified information designations, Wikipedia has a breakdown and the history behind it.
Anyway, we have two different camps. One side thinks Signalgate is a nothingburger with a side of nonion rings and a Coke Zero. The other side thinks it’s a major security breach that puts us in danger. Meanwhile, I’m somewhere in the middle based on the sheer dishonesty from both extremes.
Let’s face it, the MAGA Right has a vested interest in playing defense, mainly because they don’t want to give the Left any Ws. In an environment where politics is divided into teams, neither side wants to admit defeat, even when it would be the best thing to do in order to get past a scandal. And when your entire political existence is wrapped up in a single political figure, you’re going to do whatever it takes to keep your guy clean.
Meanwhile, the Left has a vested interest in attacking, mainly because they have nothing going for them. Their approval rating is further in the tank than Michael Dukakis circa 1988. Their attempts to get younger voters? Swear a lot more. And on top of that, there’s party infighting with younger party members openly questioning the old guard. (And I’m talking reaaaaalllllly old here.) They need a unifying issue to at least pretend like they’re on speaking terms.
Clowns to the Left of me, Jokers to the Right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you. I’m sorry.
As of this writing, the chat screenshots are still coming out in dribs and drabs, due in part to the journalist who shouldn’t have been there in the first place, Jeffery Goldberg. Whomever let a known Trump basher in on this chat needs to be fired. Preferably out of a cannon.
And if the fucknuts who said “Hey, let’s make Signal a thing in the federal government” is still employed by the Trump Administration, he or she should be fired. Out of a catapult. You know, just to switch things up.
Let me make this perfectly clear to the Trump Administration members reading this: whenever you use any social media app, it’s only a matter of time before shit gets leaked. Provided you’re not dumb enough to post that shit willingly, mind you. (I’m looking at you, Anthony “I Have a Small” Weiner.) If you have Signal on your phones, delete it, destroy your phone, and get a brand new one. And for God’s sake, don’t download it or any other social media apps ever again! Let’s the public find out about information leaks the old fashioned way: in the Weekly World News.
Where the Left has a point is Signalgate has some legs to it. Not only is it a black eye to the credibility of the Trump Administration, but it shows a level of judgment that doesn’t bode well for the next 3+ years. Trump needs to get his shit together and fast before his second term gets sidetracked by unnecessary bullshit.
Or you can sit back and watch the proverbial circular firing squad going on in Leftist circles, knowing they’re too inept to do anything.
Personally, I prefer option 1. Being President isn’t an entry level position. It takes at least some level of competency to be effective. Granted, we’re coming off a low point after President Brick Tamland, but that’s no excuse to coast. Fix this shit!
And for the Left, as long as you have Hillary Clinton on your side, you can take all the seats regarding the handling of sensitive information.
As for the rest of us, we’ll have to see how Signalgate shakes out. Hopefully, there isn’t any military or foreign relations fallout from it. If not, Lucy won’t be the only one with some ‘splainin’ to do.
And with that reference, I am officially old.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
This is a continuation of sorts of my previous Leftist Lexicon entry about government waste. If you haven’t read it, you can read it here. If you have, read it again! We could use the clicks!
While discussing the giant Leftist slush fund…I mean humanitarian aid provider USAID, Leftists tried to go all geopolitical on us by talking about “soft power.” And, no, it’s not the power that drives the ice cream machines at McDonalds because a) it doesn’t involve electricity, and b) those machines never fucking work.
Much like Leftists.
Anyway, I figured we could take a spin around the Leftist mind on this topic, just as long as we don’t run into anything important. Something tells me…that’s not gonna be an issue
soft power
What the Left thinks it means – using non-military solutions to bolster relationships between the US and countries that may be persuaded to work with us
What it really means – mostly just paying foreign countries to like us, no matter how dickish we are
To put it in simple terms, hard power is using our guns to get our way (or as they call it in parts of Texas, Tuesday). Soft power is using a fruit basket instead of guns to try to get our way. And by “fruit basket” I mean money. Lots of money.
Although a lot of soft power comes with a price tag with more zeroes than the line-up at MSNBC’s recent Democratic National Committee chair forum, there are non-fiscal means to try to persuade a foreign country to work with us. Like sending over food or helping build water wells. There may be a cost to do that, but it’s not the primary focus. That comes later.
But keep in mind America isn’t the only country in the world that uses soft power. Any country with something to offer, large or small, can use soft power to move the needle. But it’s mostly the big boys, like America, Russia, and China, who swing the biggest sticks.
That’s where the Left’s defense of USAID comes from: the potential that we don’t swing a big enough stick. It’s their idea if we don’t send money to produce an Iraqi version of Sesame Street or help get a trans-friendly musical off the ground, one of the other big guns is going to step in and fill the void we leave by not wasting money.
Now, on the surface, that makes sense. If we need to spend money to keep a foreign country from going the way of the Star Wars franchise, why not drop a few bucks into its hat? It helps them, it helps us, and everybody wins except for the countries who want to take our spot.
Of course, it’s a bit more complicated than that. Soft work works best when there are legitimate mutual benefits to be had. Sure, you can drop a few million on the heads of the citizens of BassAckwardsistan, but what do you expect to get from them in return? What strategic benefit do we get from a favorable relationship with BassAckwardsistan? What can we deny other countries who want the relationship with BassAckwardistan by flexing our soft power muscle?
And at the core of the scenario, what is our current relationship with BassAckwardsistan?
The lack of presence in an area doesn’t automatically open it up to other countries’ soft power efforts because they may not want a relationship either. Going back to the BassAckwardsistan example (mainly because I love typing it), let’s say their only strategic asset is the little plastic tables they put in pizza boxes to prevent the box from hitting the pizza. Sure, it would be a boon to pizza places everywhere, but we might be able to handle that high-level tech on our own. And if you’re in a country where pizza isn’t exactly a must-have, having a favorable relationship with BassAckwardsistan isn’t a priority, so you’re not going to pursue one in favor of relationships that better fit your needs.
Under normal circumstances, this wouldn’t be an excuse to throw money at BassAckwardsistan, but to Leftists it’s the perfect excuse. I mean, you don’t want Russia and China to get access to that kind of pizza-related technology, right?
Sounds vaguely familiar…like circa early 2000s “if you’re not with us, you’re against us” familiar. But that would be fucking stupid, and we know Leftists aren’t that fucking stupid, right?
Not so much.
Let’s try a more realistic (i.e. not BassAckwardsistan) example. As part of the Trump White House’s initial salvo on the wasteful spending done by USAID, there was mention of $70,000 doing to produce a DEI musical in Ireland. This is an example of the usage of soft power the Left uses to justify the spending. I mean, I don’t think Russia or China support DEI musicals, but after the past few years, I shouldn’t be surprised by anything.
Now, for the kink in the Left’s plan. According to our State Department, US-Irish relations seem pretty good. That in and of itself negates any soft power arguments the Left can make. There is no opportunity to make the relationship better, and the expenditure itself is so specific that it would only affect a small section of the Irish people. The needle wouldn’t move, and there’s no indication China and/or Russia would swoop in and pay for it. And in China’s case, an hour after you fund it, you’re hungry again.
I’ll see myself out.
Actually, before I do, we should see the Left’s use of soft power to explain away the more questionable expenditures as what it really is: a way for the Left to use our money for their ideological purposes with no consideration of whether such spending has any effect on the relationship we’re allegedly trying to create or maintain. On a completely different level, it shows the Left has no fucking idea of how soft power works and is using the term to make themselves seem smarter than they actually are. After all, USAID helped Hamas, and I’m gonna go out on a limb and say they’re not going to be inviting us over to their hovels for Ramadan anytime soon.
But this is to be expected. An 8 year old boy playing Call of Duty has more military knowledge than any Leftist, if not most of them. And you don’t even need to have a military background to figure this shit out. The logic just doesn’t, you know, logic. At some point, the countries willing to take our money are just taking our money without any thought of soft power. Good luck explaining that to a Leftist.
Since it’s going to be a hopeless cause getting Leftists to understand the difference between soft power and just throwing money at a problem, we can only work on ourselves. And much like I said in my previous blog post on government waste, we must be open to the possibility we need to cut something our side agrees with if it serves no positive ends. Just because we think it will help doesn’t make it okay to waste money if we can’t justify it. Don’t be a hypocrite, no matter how good it may feel.
Oh, and point and laugh at Leftists talking about soft power, no matter how good it may feel.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With President Brick Tamland announcing he was not limping…I mean running for reelection, the eyes of the world turned to Vice President Kamala Harris as the heiress apparent. And that means we get to do a deep dive into her accomplishments so far.
Fortunately for us, that deep dive doesn’t take that long since she’s accomplished what other Vice Presidents before her did: Jack Shit, and Jack left town.
But one role she had was Border Czar. Or not, depending on who you ask. In true Tamland fashion, she was put in charge of looking into the reason why so many illegal immigrants are coming here. (Spoiler Alert: it’s because we have the best free shit in the world.) And in true Harris fashion, she visited El Paso and called it a day. But she hadn’t been to Europe, either, so it’s totes cool, guys!
While the Left tries to figure out what excuse to use to try to cover up Harris’s ineptitude on the border, it gives us a chance to wade into the wonderful world of what a Border Czar even is.
Border Czar
What the Left thinks it means – a title bestowed upon Vice President Harris by evil Republicans to try to connect her to the border crisis (which doesn’t exist, by the way)
What it really means – a meaningless title given to a meaningless figurehead
The concept of policy czars has been around for a while. The first ones came about during the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Presidency to address certain aspects of World War II and the economy, but later expanded into areas like combating drug abuse, reading, and weatherizing. (And I wish I was kidding about those last two.)
Put bluntly, being a policy czar today is like being salutatorian of summer school: only a few people actually care about it and even fewer will remember it. And in the end nothing gets done, really.
Which means it’s a perfect gig for someone with a lot of time on his or her hands and who isn’t expected to succeed in any meaningful way. You know, like the Vice President.
It also means it shouldn’t be done just to put a body in a seat when it come to addressing a high profile issue like illegal immigration. Depending on which lie you want to believe, our southern border is either perfectly secure (but Republicans are totally to blame for record-breaking crossings) or less secure than an unlocked Ferrari in South Central LA. And for your eagle-eyed readers out there who click on the links, you’ll notice these statements come from two different members…of the same Administration. But you know who didn’t weigh in on the border situation?
The fucking Border Czar herself.
Now, I’m no policy wonk, but I would think one of the most important elements of being a Border Czar is presenting a consistent, fact-based message. Unfortunately for us, the Tamland Administration’s consistency is in denying the problem exists until it gets to a point where they have to do something to make it look like they’re doing something. Meanwhile, illegal immigration is still very much an issue, despite Harris’s brilliant message to some looking to enter the country illegally: do not come.
Well, Kams, they’re not listening. Or maybe they’re trying to figure out your message amidst the vomited word salads you frequently put out there as cogent statements.
Maybe that’s why the Left is trying to scrub the collective memories of the general public by denying she was the Border Czar. After all, Kamala Harris has to beat Donald Trump, even though she’s never won a national election by herself yet. The last time she tried to win the Presidency she pulled out of the race before the Iowa Caucuses after Tulsi Gabbard bitch-slapped her into oblivion.
It also means I got the same number of delegates Harris did and I didn’t even run.
It’s clear Harris’s role as Border Czar has been a dismal failure (and I’m being verrrrrrrrrrrrry generous here). This begs the question of why we need one in the first place, especially considering we already have one: the President. If you remember your civics homework (or in the case of Leftists if you’re hearing this for the first time since you blew off civics to protest), the Executive Branch is responsible for enforcing the laws of his country. That means the President and his staff are the Czars and they’re not doing a good job.
That means anybody who is called a Czar becomes a lightning rod to absorb any criticism for when they fuck up their one jobs. But, as with so many government jobs, you can’t be fired for being incompetent. If anything, it’s a career enhancer. (See the current President and Vice President for two examples.) Plus, you get a nice stipend and a government pension, and that much capital goes a long way to fix any hurt feefees.
But the immigration problem is still there. Pretty soon we’ll have to throw the concept of the Border Czar on top of the pile of other well-meaning, but poorly-executed government ideas, like the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, and making the Socialist Socialite a Congresswoman. Yet, there isn’t really much of a will to do anything about the problem from the Czar on down because there’s too much to be gained by both sides of the issue. The Left use illegal immigration to help their candidates win and create a “humanitarian crisis” that only Big Daddy Government can fix. The Right use illegal immigration to create scary scenarios where all the jobs are taken, only violent criminals make it across, and no one but them can fix the problem.
But where the Right gets it right (see what I did there?) is in pointing out the national security aspect of illegal immigration. Open borders, such as the kind promoted by the Tamland Administration, create gaps in our security network. And with Leftist dipshits on record as not wanting to even look for illegal immigrants let alone deport them, those gaps are going to get wider and harder to close. Worse yet, we don’t have much of a strategy for dealing with the implications.
Certainly this is something a President (or a prospective President) should take seriously enough to do more than appoint some toadie to do nothing and get paid for doing it. The last guy who even attempted that got called all sorts of names, ironically by some of the people currently in charge of the failed border policy but are now trying to copy what Donald Trump did. See, President Tamland can’t help but plagiarize!
Ultimately, though, we don’t need a Border Czar in the same way we don’t need an extended warranty for a beater from Uncle Sleazy’s It Was Like That When We Got It Used Car Emporium where their motto is “No Refunds.” It’s a worthless position that should already be covered by the existing leadership structure.
Then again, this is the federal government we’re talking about here. Expecting leadership in Washington is like expecting the hooker to fall in love with you after you pay her. Not that I know anything about that, mind you…
Our Brother-In-Law
This is your annual reminder the war between Russia and Ukraine is still going on and we still don’t have any idea of what the fuck we’re doing in it yet. I mean, aside from giving billions of American tax dollars to a cause that’s ill-defined outside of “Putin Bad” and has no clear end date in sight.
Oh, and did I mention we’re backing the losing side?
Actually, that’s a bit premature. They haven’t lost yet, so there’s always a chance Ukraine can turn things around…provided, of course, we send more money and arms.
It was at this point I came to a realization: Ukraine is like the stereotypical lazy brother-in-law. They don’t do much, spend what little money they have on shit they don’t need, and always come around when they need just a few bucks to get them through until they can get on their feet. And, because they’re related by marriage, we tend to relent in order to keep the peace within the family.
That doesn’t work so well when an entire country is the brother-in-law and we’re strapped for cash ourselves. Regardless of what Leftist squawking head tells you, the economy isn’t so rosy. Inflation continues to rise (although at a much lower rate than the previous 2 years, so yay, I guess?), and Puddin’ Head Joe keeps finding ways to make the US Dollar worth less than the acknowledgements section of a narcissist’s autobiography.
Like, oh I don’t know…giving billions to a foreign country without asking for any of it back?
Of course, the Leftist warmongers will mention Ukraine is fighting for freedom and we should support it or we’re Russian assets. Which is why so many of these same warmongers are trying to tie aid to Israel to aid to Ukraine because…freedom, I guess?
Actually, the two are not connected in any way. And if you’ve been following the events in Ukraine prior to the war with Russia, you can see why, but for those who haven’t let’s just say Ukraine has…a bit of a neo-Nazi problem. Which means we have a bit of a neo-Nazi problem because we’re funding them in the name of freedom, all the while telling us neo-Nazis are all over the US and evil, nasty people who can’t be reasoned with.
You know, just like Antifa!
This contradiction doesn’t seem to bother the Left that much, but it bothers me. We cannot hold Ukraine to a different standard than we hold our own citizens, even if we don’t like the implications. This is the kind of idiocy that got both Iran and Iraq hating our guts in the early 80s when they were having their own war. We tried playing both sides at different points and we got fucked as a result.
Now, we’re repeating the same mistake. After trying to be buddy-buddy with Russia as far back as the Obama Administration (remember Hillary Clinton’s “Reset” button?), we’re now blaming them for everything from inflation to supply line issues to the fact Taylor Swift is dating Travis Kelce. And when you consider Russia and China are getting along like the aforementioned Swift and Kelce, that doesn’t bode well for us.
But freedom…I guess?
So, it looks like we’re going to be letting Ukraine sleep on our couch for the foreseeable future. But I’m sure they’ll find a job…I mean win the war with Russia soon. They just need a few billion to tide them over until they win…
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Unless you’ve been living under a rock (or in Amish country), you’ve heard the term “border crisis” tossed about like a frisbee at a stoner festival in Colorado on 4/20. While the Puddin’ Head Joe Administration has been busy handling the really important issues, like finding out who has been buying Bibles, the southern border has seen numerous illegal immigrants crossing practically at will. And it’s left officials in southern states looking for help.
Maybe they haven’t heard about the Bible buying epidemic.
It was only when Texas Governor Greg Abbott did something (and by something, I mean a few things) about the situation that the Left got upset. I mean, how else are they going to make illegal immigrants vote Democrat if they aren’t allowed to enter the country illegally?
Seriously, though, we need to dig deeper into the border crisis because…well, there’s a lot of shit behind it.
border crisis
What the Left thinks it means – an overblown non-issue that shows how Republicans hate immigrants
What it really means – a serious crisis caused by both major parties giving zero fucks about immigrants
The history of immigration laws in America is…well, a little on the confusing side. Put simply, a country that was founded at least in part on immigration from foreign lands decided to limit immigration in 1965 because…reasons, I guess? But that hasn’t stopped people from wanting to come to America, and it certainly hasn’t stopped people from taking shortcuts to come to the Land of the Free and the Home of Anchor Babies and Green Card Marriages.
Since illegal immigrants tend not to fill out census forms, it’s estimated that there are over 11 million of them in America right now. That’s over 10 Rhode Islands and almost 20 Wyomings. And keep in mind this is just an estimate. The actual number could be higher or lower, but the fact it’s more than the populations of all but 7 states tells me there’s an issue.
Not that the Left agrees there is an issue, mind you. The Puddin’ Head Joe Administration has gone from claiming the southern border is secure to saying it would be secure if it weren’t for those pesky Republicans and their dog to saying it hasn’t been secure for a decade. Even Mitt “I Ain’t Shit” Romney tried to blame Donald Trump for the border crisis.
Good thing Kamala Harris the border czar or we’d be fucked! Oh, wait, we are, and it’s not just because Vice President Word Salad has zero ideas of what to do.
The fact is the past 3 years of the Puddin’ Head Joe Administration’s border policy has resulted in more, not less, illegal immigration. But now that the 2024 elections are coming up and voters see the President as less effective on the border than a bubble pipe in a gang war, they’re going to get serious and…adopt some of the same policies they decried as racist and xenophobic when Trump suggested them. Brilliant!
Even if Puddin’ Head Joe goes full MAGA, it’s not going to solve the border crisis. And the same will happen if Donald Trump wins the Presidency again, and it’s for the same reason: because the majority of politicians don’t want to solve the problem. Remember, one of my immutable truths of life is government is not in the problem-solving business. For the Left, there is too much money and power to be gained by letting people enter the country like hookers and blow at Hunter Biden’s place. For the Right, there is too much money and power to be gained by stoking the fear illegal immigrants are taking American jobs and taking money out of social programs. And any attempts to change the status quo is going to piss off one side or the other.
So, why not piss them off by doing something?
The fact so many Leftists are going after Governor Abbott for securing the southern border of his state and for sending illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities is a sign they know how bad the border crisis is and are freaking out that a Republican governor had the balls to hold the Left at their word. Throw in Ron Desantis, and you have two Republicans willing to do something about the problem.
And now that several other Republican governors are backing Abbott’s play? The Left is in full-blown freak out mode, or should be if they were aware of the implications of the policies they’ve been pimping for years.
And they aren’t. They’re too busy either trying to continue to spin Puddin’ Head Joe’s border failures as not his fault or looking for an alternate candidate to support, like…oh, I don’t know…Nikki Haley? Either way, the Left can’t bullshit their way out of this. Their hands are pretty dirty, which given how they don’t like to work, is ironic, don’t ya think?
However, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the Right’s failures on the border. Yes, Donald Trump promised a border wall, but there are ways to avoid the walls altogether, such as tunnels under the wall or into states where they give illegal immigrants a pass, like California. Throw in the growing fentanyl epidemic being funneled through these and other tunnels and human trafficking being done in conjunction with illegal immigration and you have a multi-front problem that neither major party has any idea of how to address. It’s one thing to show compassion to those who are seeking asylum due to political violence or civil unrest, but it’s another thing to let every Tomas, Ricardo, and Hernando across the border under the assumption they’re asylum seekers.
But that’s the Left’s plan. By lumping those attempting to go through proper channels to come to America with those just looking to get free shit, the Left paints a picture that doesn’t match what’s going on in an attempt to get you to let your emotions override your logic. As long as the border crisis continues, the Left will use this tactic to take your mind off the ever-rising numbers coming into America through dishonest means.
But that’s why we should counter the pulling of the heartstrings with hard numbers and logic. The border crisis is no longer about alleged asylum seekers, but encompasses more criminal activities the longer we sit around with our thumbs up our asses. First off, that’s very uncomfortable and may lead to carpel tunnel syndrome. Second, and more importantly, we’re playing with human lives here. Taking a stand against the Immigrat-a-palooza going on under Puddin’ Head Joe and the ineffective “solutions” that take no real action to secure our border is the only way I know to respect our national sovereignty and protect as many people as we can on both sides of the border.
Then, maybe American can return to the Land of the Free and the Home of the 99 Cent Menu at Taco Bell.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Although the combat in Gaza right now is like the Hatfields and McCoys with artillery capabilities, tensions on the home front here in America have also taken a turn for the toasty. As we’re finding out (or in some cases reaffirming because we’ve been paying fucking attention), there are some people here who are sympathetic to the plight of those in Gaza to the point they’re willing to minimize or wave away the horrible actions of Hamas.
Like The Squad’s Rashida Tlaib.
Seems Rep. Tlaib has been repeating an oft-used phrase with regards to Palestine’s demands of Israel: “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” And Leftists have been twisting themselves more than a hot yoga studio that doubles as a pretzel oven trying to tone down what this phrase means.
And if recent media spin is any indication, we’re gonna be hearing “Well, Ackchyually” from the Left for weeks to come just over the “from the river to the sea” bit. Well, Ackchyually…I mean actually, the definition of the phrase is much simpler to grasp.
from the river to the sea
What the Left thinks it means – a complex phrase that can mean any number of things, mostly peaceful statements of a desire for Palestinian freedom
What it really means – a simple phrase calling for the eradication of Israel
See? Told ya it was simple!
The phrase originated back in the 1960d, eventually being adopted as a slogan by those lovely, peaceful people who never wanted to destroy Israel, the Palestine Liberation Organization. For any Leftists or the historically illiterate (I know, I know, I’m repeating myself) reading this, that was sarcasm. Although it’s been interpreted within historical context as a desire for a democratic state of Palestine, it’s been taken up by antisemites like the PLO and Hamas to mean the total destruction of Israel.
Wait a minutes…the PLO and Hamas want Israel to go the way of the latest Marvel movie flop? Who could have seen that coming?
Again, sarcasm.
Since the most vocal and the most violent Palestinian elements in Gaza appear to be of this mindset, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say they’re not really pushing for a democratic state called Palestine. And judging from the way they’ve acted since October 7th, that’s a pretty safe bet.
Of course, the Left and the media (repeating myself again) know this deep down in their core, which is why they have to lie about the phrase through conflating the more peaceful meaning with the more prevalent current meaning. There are a couple of reasons for this. First, Leftists know shit about fuck when it comes to foreign affairs.
Second, they’ve spent years building a narrative about how those mean old Israelis are tormenting those poor Palestinians, and if you disagree, you’re an islamophobe. For more information on islamophobia, and so I can throw in an absolutely shameless plug for a previous Leftist Lexicon entry, check out this link.
Third, the Left sees political opportunity in supporting the Palestinians, considering The Squad includes two Muslim members and the entirety of The Squad tend to be the whiniest bitches this side of “The View.” With more Muslims coming to America (and voting for people who share their faith), the Left sees dollar signs and votes. Fuck the optics! These Muslims need the Left to advance their agenda!
Then again, given the Left’s position on abortion and their blatant hatred for Jews, I guess it’s not that much of a leap for them to want to abort Israeli children no matter what trimester it is.
Fourth, if you piss off Muslims enough, things tend to get…explodey.
And fifth, Israel holds a special place in Christian hearts, and since Christians tend to vote Republican, the Left has to take a contrarian view. And the fact is already feeds into their bigotry is icing on the cake.
Hence, the whitewashing of “from the river to the sea.” Ironic, considering how much Leftists hate white people, don’t ya think?
The problem with this approach is it’s bullshit, hypocritical, and utterly stupid. I mean, there are several problems, but these three pretty much sum up my feelings on the matter at hand. I’ve already explained why it’s bullshit, so that leaves hypocritical and utterly stupid to go.
Unfortunately for Leftists, I loaded for bear.
With “from the river to the sea,” the Left is giving Palestinians the most generous interpretation of the phrase, so much so I wouldn’t be surprised if they would try to write it off on next year’s taxes as a donation. Compare this to anything a Republican might say. You know…like, oh I don’t know…Donald Trump referring to “very fine people on both sides.” Yeah, that turn of a phrase was treated worse than David Duke at the NAACP Image Awards, even though the context was clear that Trump wasn’t referring to the white nationalists at the time and said so repeatedly. And I say this as someone who is not a Trump fan, partially because of the way he tends to mangle the English language over topics that would be a slam-dunk for anyone else. Well, except for Puddin’ Head Joe and Kamala Harris, but you get the idea.
And it’s not just Trump who’s been the victim of Leftists taking the worst possible interpretation of what anybody to the right of Nancy Pelosi says. Glenn Beck, Fox News, and Newt Gingrich just to name three off the top of my head have all been victims of intentional smears by the Left through mischaracterization, taking statements out of context, or outright fabricating “dog whistles” that “prove” the Right’s racism.
Of course, if the Left can hear these “dog whistles” wouldn’t that make them racist?
Never mind.
The point is the Left treat communication as both a weapon and a shield depending on what side of the political aisle you’re on. The fact the Left is willing to go to bat for people who would kill them at the drop of a bomb vest but not a fellow American who disagrees with them politically speaks volumes to the utter intellectual and depravity we’re dealing with here.
And I think that last sentence covers the utterly stupid part I mentioned earlier.
Look, it’s cool if you think Palestine should have its own country, and if I had my druthers and could reasonably expect the leaders of this country wouldn’t use said druthers to set up base camp for Holocaust II: Electric Boogaloo, I would push for that to happen. The problem is I don’t think we can trust that to happen due to the number of Islamic extremists within the pro-Palestinian movement. Their holy doctrine allows violence against non-believers, and these kids tend to take the Quran very seriously/literally. And considering that same doctrine says it’s okay to lie to non-Muslims…well, let’s just say I’m going to pass on the Trust Fall with these folks.
That brings us back to “from the river to the sea.” I know this is going to surprise you, but I’m not going to be as generous with my interpretation as the Left is. Given the nature of Muslim extremists like those in Hamas to lie and play people for fools, there is no wiggle room here for me. They want to turn Israel into a parking lot, possibly made of glass if Iran supplies them with nukes. Anyone who says differently is an idiot.
Or a Leftist. But again, I repeat myself.
And, no, that’s not sarcasm.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Since the Gaza Strip turned into a war zone, there have been a number of disturbing events. Violence against Jews has risen. Acts of anti-Jewish vandalism are rampant. Leftist strongholds have let the mask drop to show how they really feel about Israel.
In response to this, the Puddin’ Head Joe Administration swung into action. With their fingers fully on the pulse of the nation and how Americans feel about Israel, they gathered their best minds and announced a national initiative to combat…islamophobia.
Remember, kids, this idea came from their best minds.
Since the Left brought it up, I figured we should revisit islamophobia in the current context and have a few laughs in the process.
islamophobia
What the Left thinks it means – irrational fear or hatred of Muslims, currently fueled by high emotions over the Gaza situation
What it really means – a term used to deflect legitimate criticism of Muslim extremists
Let me make something perfectly clear. I don’t hate Islam anymore than I hate anything else. The customs and practices are different, but that’s not a reason to start stringing up Muslims. Just like with Christianity, there are different belief systems under the Muslim banner, some more uptight, others more relaxed. Regardless, I extend that offer of kinship until such time as it gets revoked because I would like the same for my beliefs.
Having said that, Islam has a problem, namely there are some really uptight assholes ruining it for the rest of the faithful. As much as Leftists like to paint people like me as radical extremists destined to lash out with violence, I don’t see that many Amish drive-bys. Mainly because they tend not to have cars, but the point’s the same. Christianity is not by its nature violent. You could count on the two hands of the world’s worst power tool demonstrator the number of Christians who have acted violently in the past century or so. And last time Christians did act violently on a wide scale (i.e. the Crusades), it didn’t work out for them.
Islam, on the other hand…well, let’s just say they have a ways to go in the non-violence workbook. And it’s for this reason people are a little skittish about completely trusting our Muslim brothers and sisters. When Christianity gets radicalized, you tend to get Amway-level aggressive proselytizing. When Islam gets radicalized, you tend to get explosions. They are not the same.
Naturally, the Left has found a way to weaponize prudent caution by shaming people into ignoring it through shame. Islamophobia works in the same way “racist” does with the Left: take any less-than-positive statement, put it through their intersectionality prism (with a quick consultation of their Oppression Decoder Rings), and turn it into hate. You know, just like The Squad!
With regards to the fighting in Gaza, the Left has ramped up the islamophobia rhetoric to paint Muslims as being persecuted by Israel. And, just like clockwork, the squawking points went out for Leftists to recite without self-reflection. Although there are Muslims affected by the current situation, the Left has pulled a bit of a switcheroo.
Take any current Leftist statement about islamophobia, for example. Notice there is one name that never gets mentioned in the same breath as decrying islamophobia. That’s right, kids. I’m talking about Hamas. By only mentioning Muslims, Leftists don’t have to deal with the fact there are Muslims like Hamas running around out there. And they use Israel’s military strength to create a David vs. Goliath where the Muslims (i.e. Hamas) are the underdogs.
That same approach works with islamophobia, too. By painting Muslims as the victims, the Left has made it next to impossible for any legitimate discourse on whether radical Islam is a problem. (Spoiler Alert: it is.) So, all of Islam gets a whitewash and the Left can keep avoiding a major blind spot it has regarding it. A win-win!
Well, except for all the people who are injured, kidnapped, or murdered by the radical Muslims like Hamas, of course.
There is legitimate hatred of Muslims out there, but it’s not nearly as widespread as the Left wants us to believe. But this gives the Left an incentive to pump up the numbers by making any slight against Muslims islamophobic. And I do me any slight. The problem becomes separating the real islamophobia from the bullshit and being unafraid to call it out when it happens.
Guess who I trust least with doing any of that.
Maybe it’s me, but it’s almost like the Left is so focused on fighting islamophobia as an apology of sorts for our response to 9/11, which was to…go after Muslim extremists and their proxies. Even though there were examples of dumb people treating anyone with darker brown skin like a terrorist, most of the anger was directed at those who supported the attack on America.
To the Left, this was a black stain on our history, so they made it a central point of their platform from that point on to reject the idea there are bad Muslims, just good Muslims being persecuted by evil nasty poopyhead Right Wingers.
Wait…isn’t that the same rationale the Left used with illegal Mexican immigrants?
And wouldn’t that be a great strategy for people who want America to be destroyed to exploit? But I’m sure that would never happen, right?
That insinuation may make people call me islamophobic, and I don’t care. The term has lost all meaning for me because it’s been oversaturated like the Travis Kelce/Taylor Swift relationship. At that point, I enter Don’t Give A Fuck Mode. The fact the Left continues to pretend islamophobia is rampant, especially at a time when Muslim extremists are responsible for killing people who were at a fucking music festival, is troubling. How many more people are Leftists going to allow to be killed or hurt just to protect their feefees?
If the media coverage of the war in Gaza is any indication, as many as it takes.
In the meantime, it’s incumbent upon us to keep cooler heads and not treat every Muslim how Leftists are treating Israel right now. We have to encourage Muslims to feel free to express their opinions, even if we disagree with them, and show them love. As the late Martin Luther King Jr. said, “Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” If we want to end hostilities towards Muslims (or any group for that matter), we must start by mending fences.
Of course, once those fences get blown up by people who prefer to kill us than be neighborly, only three words need to be uttered.
Game on, bitch.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
The Israel-Gaza War has only been going on for a little over a week as of this writing (please check local listings for the number of weeks in your area), but some people are already tired of it. After the shocking reports of casualties in Gaza, provided by Hamas by the way, Leftists started calling for a cease fire. This approach isn’t unusual for Leftists, but as you might guess I’m a little skeptical about the underlying reasons.
And by a little skeptical, I mean a lot skeptical.
cease fire
What the Left thinks it means – a way for both sides of the Israel-Gaza conflict to sit down and talk out their differences
What it really means – a way for Leftists to give time for Hamas to reload
The purpose of any cease fire is to try to deescalate a violent situation where both sides have something to gain, namely ending the loss of life and property. This only works if both sides are willing to be honest about ending hostilities, though. If one side still harbors the notion the other side should be relegated to history like New Coke or Corey Feldman’s music career, any cease fire will be temporary at best.
Guess which version of events I’m going with here, kids.
I have zero faith in a cease fire working in Gaza, and not just because of who is pushing hardest for it. The Middle East is one big Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch where everyone has access to the pin. All it will take to instigate the next big global war is someone to tug hard enough that the other parties lose their grip. Then, it’s only a matter of time.
Or Newsweek, for that matter.
I would write a series of books about the number of deceptions coming from the Left and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) just in this first week, but people are already documenting them, so I won’t. Still, there is a fundamental question on the table: why are Leftists working so hard to make the cease fire a thing?
As I noted previously, Hamas is winning the PR war with a healthy assist from the Left and the mainstream media (Is there an echo in here?), so they really don’t have a reason to sit down and work things out with Israel. And, no matter what Israel does, the Left will hold them accountable for all the bloodshed, real or fabricated. That’s not going to make Benjamin Netanyahu want to rush to the negotiating table, either. So, it’s an exercise in futility, which is pretty much on brand for the Left if you really think about it. And I do because I don’t have a life.
But what I do have is an insight on the calls for cease fire. It’s not to broker a peace agreement between Hamas and Israel because neither side has an incentive to negotiate. Hamas is winning the PR war, and Israel is winning the actual war, you know with the bombs and stuff. And with the existing hostilities in that region, peace between the two sides would be impossible until one side is completely depleted. Instead of peace, the motivations behind the cease fire requests come from a much darker, more partisan place.
The Left agrees with Hamas on the state of Israel.
Leftists love to pull for an underdog, and who could be a bigger underdog in this case than Hamas? Even with Iran’s financial backing and the Left’s desire to carry water on the world stage, Hamas is seen as weaker and Israel is seen as the bully. Pay no attention to the fact this most recent round started because of Hamas, they’re just poor people trying to live their lives in an “open air prison. This stuff is ready-made for puff pieces and a 43 part miniseries by Ken Burns, brought to you thanks to generous contributions from taxpayers…I mean viewers like you.
As long as the Left can make the case Hamas is the victim, they will ride that idea as far as it will take them, and there are more than enough Jewish and Gentile Leftists happy to go along for the ride. Any inconvenient details are swept under the rug, and every infraction by Israel from destroying homes to having an overdue library book at the Library of Alexandria will get blasted all over the place. In order to keep that notion in motion, the war has to continue, and ironically it’s a cease fire that will allow that to happen.
Remember what I said earlier about how any negotiations where one party wants to eradicate the other was bound to fail? The sad thing is the Left’s idea of a cease fire is designed to fail. By even pausing the fighting for a day or two, it allows other parties (I’m looking at you, Iran) to supply their side with more money, arms, and recruitment tools to keep the war going. And with greater pressure being put on the Puddin’ Head Joe Administration to push for a cease fire from Congressional leaders and staffers, there’s a chance we could see us cut back on the money and arms going to them. But don’t worry! Puddin’ Head Joe already has an idea about where they could go! [link] But that bad idea is a blog post for another time.
Meanwhile back at the war, there are people on both sides who are caught in the crossfire of combat, and I’m not talking the one between Israel and Hamas. I’m speaking of the ideological conflict at play here. The Left’s desire to stick up for the underdog, regardless of how horribly they act, will ensure Hamas will keep fighting a proxy war the Left is afraid to fight themselves. After all, they might not have a working Starbucks in Gaza, man!
To be fair, the Left and the Right are on equally bad footing when it comes to sending people to war on their behalf, but lately it’s been the Left that’s been beating the war drums like a Buddy Rich solo. Mainly, I think it’s because the Left has come around to the use of force to advance ideological goals. That, and they’re cowards. Nevertheless, as long as the Left has even some semblance of power, they will attempt to make people come around to their line of thinking, one way or another.
Now, for the part the Left hasn’t considered. Hamas doesn’t like us, either. Oh, they’ll gladly take our money and assistance in whitewashing their reputation, but they’re just not into us. In fact, they want us gone, too. So, in other words, the Left is siding with our enemy.
Again.
At least we know the Left is committed to recycling, albeit with bad ideas.
And the cease fire is not just fully in the bad idea camp, it’s become a camp counselor. The Left doesn’t want to solve the problems in Gaza so much as exploit them for political gain. But there is a drawback: when people start seeing the puppet strings, you can’t make the strings disappear. Eventually, people will start looking at who is pulling the strings and drawing conclusions, and that’s not going to end well for the Left.
Maybe we can offer them a cease fire…