Category: Foreign Affairs

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Although the Lexicon primarily features issues originating in the US of A (as opposed to Canada, which is the US of Eh), sometimes the subject matter crosses international boundaries. In this case, the origin of this week’s Lexicon starts in Jolly Old England (as opposed to Canada, which is Jolly Old Eh-gland.)

It starts with an online game called Pathways (think a cheerier version of “Depression Quest”) where the user navigates through a series of events in an attempt to dissuade him or her from falling for online extremist propaganda. Welllll…let’s just say it backfired. Instead of educating users (primarily teenagers) about the dangers of propaganda, it is propaganda in and of itself by painting anyone to the right of Josef Stalin as an extremist.

I could talk all day about propaganda (as my lovely wife will tell you), but the focus of this week’s Lexicon is on the concept of online extremism. I’ll be the first one to tell you the Interwebs is a hotbed of people nuttier than elephant shit, but does that make them extremists?

Depends on who you ask.

online extremism

What the Left thinks it means – Internet propaganda designed to persuade gullible people to adopt right wing beliefs and ideas

What it really means – Internet propaganda designed to persuade gullible people to adopt any wing’s beliefs and ideas

So, where do I begin? Well, let me just start by saying online extremism is not just a right wing issue. There is and always has been a section of online culture dominated by left wing thinking, but they’ve been mostly relegated to backwater channels with an echo chamber bigger than the Grand Canyon. Or, as it’s called today, Bluesky.

That in and of itself isn’t that big a deal to me. I’m a big fan of letting people say what’s on their minds, even if I disagree with it. For one, it fosters more and better communication than banning it out of turn. For another, it’s always a good way to see where the assholes are so you can avoid them. Unless you want to point and laugh, which is easier when they make themselves known. So, there are plenty of good reasons not to silence people.

Having said all that, there are people out there who have completely lost the fucking plot and say/advocate for the weirdest shit out there. And that’s just the diaper fur community. (Safety Tip from your buddy Tom: If you don’t know, don’t look for it. Only furry evil in diapers greets you there.) Up until recently, people have been able to ignore the fringe players because they’ve been woefully unequipped to do anything about it. I knew a Pat Buchanan supporter who talked a big game, but was so short he made Nick Fuentes look like Andre the Giant. Needless to say, he wasn’t considered much of a threat.

Nowadays, it’s that kind of freak that has the power of an echo chamber telling him/her what they’re doing is completely cool and not at all too extreme. And it’s shit like this that got Renee Good shot and killed. Somewhere in her mind, she thought “running over an ICE agent is totes normal, dude” and used that thought to spur action.

Now, who could have put that idea in her head? I mean, it’s not like the Left has painted ICE in a negative light by calling them Nazis or comparing them to secret police or the Gestapo, right?

Except for Governor TIMMAH!

And Governor Gavin Newsom.

And Governor JB Pritzker.

And Senator Jeff Merkley.

And Senator Mark Warner.

And Representative Eric Swalwell.

And Representative Rashida Tlaib.

Wow. Come to think of it, there are a lot of Democrats and Leftists pulling the “ICE is the secret police/Gestapo/fascist/Nazi” card.

So, maybe the Left has a hand in the escalation of rhetoric against ICE, which is inspiring Leftist extremists to act. But remember, kids, it’s the MAGA crowd that are the violent ones because January 6th.

All that IMAX-level projection aside, online extremism is a legitimate problem, one being stoked by people we shouldn’t want to hang out with at all, man. And they all have the same problem: a messiah complex that rivals Oprah’s. With that messiah complex comes a lot of gatekeeping so only the true believers can stick around.

Naturally, that means more sensible people saying “Yanno, you might not want to drive a truck into a bunch of protesters/ICE agents” will be excommunicated and turned into the enemy, even if their opinions align with everything else the self-professed leader believes. The odd thing about these leaders of cults of personality is they often don’t have one of their own, so they borrow from someone else. Even self-styled “free thinkers” may fall victim to the kind of extremism that meets them where their biases are.

Not that this happens to too many people, right? (I’m looking at you, Bill Maher.)

Those assholes can be dangerous, what what of the followers themselves? That’s a bit of a mixed bag. The more gung ho a follower is, the more extreme he or she (still 2 genders) is likely to be. As you get further and further away from the epicenter of extremism, the less likely it is you’re dealing with an extremist. Sure, there are some who will drink the Flavor-Ade because everybody else is doing it (gotta love that peer pressure), but you’re going to find some who see the folly of it all and aren’t as willing to go along to get along.

The problem is neither side wants to separate the reasonable from the batshit insane. That would take too much effort, after all, and we don’t want people to think we’re not down for the cause because we happen to think not engaging in stupid shit is the correct path forward.

This is the time when we have to determine whether the loudest voices are the leaders or just so loud they drown out the actual leaders. I’ve seen this with the gay rights movement, the trans rights movement, the pro choice and pro life movements, the Religious Right, and so many others. And when you’re faced with the loudest voices, it gets really easy to slide into groupthink and become one of the masses, minus the “m.”

But that’s where being able to determine the difference comes in handy. If someone is loud, it doesn’t make him or her right; it just makes them harder to ignore. But is also makes them easier to mock for being loud and annoying, so there’s that.

How this applies to extremism is we have to separate the ring leaders from the ring followers because they are not always the same people. A militant trans rights activist may talk a big game, but wuss out at the first signs of it being go time. These are the ones who probably won’t decide to shoot up a Christian school, but they still have the ability to give those who do have a propensity towards violence to think the only way to fix things is to pull a “Death Wish.” They’re extremists of a sort, but more extremist-adjacent.

Think Charlie Manson versus the Manson Family members who murdered Sharon Tate, among others. The members committed the crimes, but they wouldn’t have happened without ole Charlie.

“But, Thomas,” you might be saying, “are you literally comparing trans activists to Charles Manson?” No. What I’m saying is there are some people who can inspire others to take action they might not otherwise take by instilling them with destructive thoughts. And we’re not just talking about Leftists here, folks. There are plenty of hair-triggers on the Right who would love nothing more than to start shit so they can pretend to be badasses, all from the safety of their double-wides, while others are doing the actual shit.

And all from the behind protection of a computer or phone screen.

There is a term from the Interwebs that describe these people perfectly: keyboard warriors. Now, there are some willing to put the emphasis on the latter rather than the former, which makes for a really awkward time all the way around when the fit hits the shan. (Hat tip to Larry Elder for that one.)

What Pathways gets wrong is it tries to water down the definition of extremism to an absurd degree. Even someone saying “we should be proud of being British” gets looped in with anyone who wants to put every immigrant into a chipper shredder, when that’s simply not the case. There may be some overlap between the two, but not enough to lump the former in with the latter.

Unless, of course, you’re being intellectually dishonest, which Pathways is being. The “right” course of action according to the game isn’t always the most logical. In one part of the game, you are given a choice to ignore what they deem inflammatory rhetoric, look for more information, or go from 0 to extremist by joining in the inflammatory fun. In the game, the only viable option is to ignore the rhetoric. Anything else gets you branded an extremist.

Put another way, the game punishes you for trying to be well-informed.

Which makes you more susceptible to extremist positions.

Which defeats the purpose of the game.

Unless, of course, the purpose of the game is to enable certain extremist positions…

Saaaaaaaaay! I think I’ve stumbled upon the real reason this game exists! And considering it’s targeting teenagers (who cling to popularity and clout like Hunter Biden hangs onto his crack dealer’s number), the goal is to get them to accept a set of ideas so they’ll be popular, cool, and have social clout, all without having to do anything but listen and believe.

Hmmmm…that’s a catchy little saying. I hope nobody unscrupulous ever latches onto it.

Meanwhile, what we can do to avoid being sucked in by online extremism, or extremism in general, is apply a little common sense. If you wouldn’t allow someone else to do it to you, don’t do it to other people. And if someone you know is rushing headlong towards extremism, try to pull them back. If they don’t want to come back from the edge, let them go. It may hurt, but it hurts a lot less than being buggered night after night in federal pound you in the ass prison.

Not that I know anything about that, mind you…







Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Remember the War on Drugs started in the 1980s? I do. My brain still looks like a sunny-side up egg, but that’s not important right now. What is important is America has fought a halfhearted war against drugs and we’ve been worse for wear because of it.

That is until Donald Trump got reelected. Now, we’re putting firepower behind the War on Drugs with the Department of War taking the lead on turning alleged drug trafficking boats into the world’s most addictive flotsam. And, right on cue, the Left has a problem with it. But this week, their efforts went up a notch with several Leftists calling what the President and Secretary of War Pete “Let’s Tap That Keg” Hegseth authorized war crimes.

The accusation is pretty heavy, so let me try to make fun of it!

war crimes

What the Left thinks it means – serious and inexcusable crimes committed by the current Administration

What it really means – the next phase of the Left’s attempt to undermine the military under Trump

The concept of war crimes is rooted in the Geneva Convention (not nearly as fun as a Shriner’s convention, but I digress), and it outlines how enemy soldiers and prisoners of war are to be treated. Keep in mind this is in the aftermath of World War II, where POWs were treated worse than a British substitute teacher in Belfast, so the spirit of the document has a foundation in humane treatment.And should someone or some country decide not to play by these rules, they can get charged with war crimes by the International Criminal Court.

This is a great thing when we’re dealing with warring nations, but what about different types of wars where there aren’t warring countries? Welllll…that’s where things get a little murky, at least for me. When you consider the bulk of the military actions America has undertaken since the Geneva Convention have not been officially declared wars, it brings up the question of whether the concept of war crimes even applies here. That’s where the concept is subject to interpretation, or misinterpretation as the case may be.

Enter our good fiends…I mean friends on the Left. As I’ve noted before, the Left loves it when things are unclear because they can then inject their perceptions into the discussion, even if they’re batshit crazy. Then, by operating in the uncertainty, they can control the narrative, which is always their endgame.

This begs the question of whether blowing up suspected drug runner boats constitutes violations of the Geneva Convention. The simple answer as I see it is not really, and it’s predicated on the fact Congress hasn’t declared war yet. That gives me a chance to talk about Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution again because it’s there that we find who can declare war, and surprise surprise, it’s Congress!

If the Founding Fathers saw the absolute nozzleheads running Congress these days, they might have changed their minds, but that’s a post for another time.

Anyway, the point remains Congress didn’t declare war, as is often the case with Presidents who want to appear like a military leader against foes far weaker than we are. For everything else, there’s hookers and blow…or diplomacy. You know, whichever works.

Further complicating matters (because of-fucking-course) is the War Powers Resolution of 1973. This law requires the President to report to Congress whenever there’s the potential for hostilities to break out, but also allows the President to deploy troops for 60 days without a Congressional vote. So, I’m going to go out on a limb and say the President told Congress (and the rest of the country for that matter) that the Department of War was going to play Battleship: The Narco-Terrorist Edition well before any attacks began, so that requirement was met a looooooong time ago. And I’m gonna say blowing up shit constitutes hostilities.

And now for the best part? The President doesn’t have to have Congress do shit for 60 days, which oddly enough is roughly twice as many days as they’re in session. Granted, I’m guessing things might take a little longer than 60 days because we’re dealing with drug cartels here, but with the current makeup of Congress, a vote would most likely be a mere formality.

So, that’s why the Left went all in on the war crimes idea. If they can convince enough people what the President is doing violates the Geneva Convention, they can sway public opinion to…make drug dealers look like poor victims, I guess? (Hey, nobody said Leftists were smart.)

However, to fully understand the strategy, we need to look back at a recent video from six members of Congress who were either in the military or in the intelligence community. In that video (and in subsequent appeals in the media to take the heat off), they made sure to say the military didn’t have to obey illegal orders. Since then, not a one of the fucknuggets in the video or the Leftists who support the current thing could point to an illegal order the President issued, so that should be the end of it, right?

Yeahhhh, not so much.

The point of the video wasn’t to back up their claims so much as it was to instill doubt in the leadership from the President on down. Now, add in the war crimes element.

For those of you who need help connecting the dots, by suggesting Trump and Hegseth are guilty of war crimes, it reinforces the idea they’re issuing illegal orders, potentially eroding the confidence in the military and political leadership. And that leads to trouble up and down the ranks. If our military has to second-guess every order given, it prevents them from fulfilling their primary objectives: kill the enemy, break their shit, or a combination of the two.

Yeah. Pretty fucking dirty.

I’m sure there are going to be more legal arguments and laws bandied about on both sides of the war crimes question, but ultimately the heart of the matter is the Left is going to have a hard time explaining why blowing up drug boats and killing drug smugglers is a bad thing. And that’s not even getting into whether the actions constitute a war crime.

Not that it will stop Leftists from saying it or further suggesting the military should disobey the President. Even if the war crimes thing gains any traction, Leftists are still going to have to deal with being on the same side of an issue as drug cartels because…Orange Man Bad.

Again, no one ever said Leftists were smart.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

When you really think about it (and I do because there’s nothing good on Netflix these days), humans have a lot of awards they give out to each other. Everything from perfect attendance at school to making significant contributions to the arts or science is subject to getting a trophy, plaque, oversized check, or some other form of recognition.

Of course, there are problems with this, namely trying to cash an oversized check requires oversized identification. But more to the point not everyone who accomplishes something gets an award and others who get them aren’t worthy of them. Either way, feefees will be hurt worse than a submissive bottom at a BDSM club.

Not that I know anything about that, mind you…

Over the past couple of months, people on both sides have been arguing about one prize in particular, that being the Nobel Peace Prize. The MAGA Right think Donald Trump should get it because of the peace deals he’s been brokering as of late between Russia and Ukraine and more recently between Israel and Hamas. The Left, of course, says Trump doesn’t deserve it because he’s an evil fascist Nazi doodoo head.

So, let’s break of a peace of the action (see what I did there?) and talk about this award.

Nobel Peace Prize

What the Left thinks it means – a coveted international award to celebrate those who promote peace around the world

What it really means – an international award given out to people for more ideological than practical reasons

The history of the Nobel Prizes in general is kinda cool. The guy who came up with them in the first place, Albert Nobel, invented dynamite, which makes him an honorary American because we love explosions. If he had invented a way to deliver meat through explosives, he would be possibly the greatest American ever, next to Chuck Norris.

Alas, he reconsidered his role in finding out a way to blow shit up, so he decided to take a more reasoned approach by recognizing people who contributed to the global society in the arts, sciences, and humanitarian efforts. Hence, the Nobel Prizes came to be.

With some prizes, like the prizes for Literature and the sciences, you can point to an actual body of work. We can debate whether the work improves humanity, but it’s there to look at.

With the Peace Prize…well, that’s another story. Since can be more of a squishy term, it’s harder to quantify what constitutes a worthy recipient, so it could literally be any criteria the Nobel Committee wants to apply.

And that’s where politics comes into play.

When you have no hard and fast rules, there are no expectations, just the word of the Committee members saying “this person is worthy of recognition.” Let’s take a look at some of the recent winners.

Yasser Arafat (1994) – Awarded as part of an effort to broker a peace treaty in the Middle East. Also, the leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, a known supporter of global terrorism.

International Campaign to Ban Landmines (1997) – A group that wanted to, well, ban landmines. A noble pursuit (see what I did there), but among its members was noted Leftist organization Human Rights Watch because landmines hurt human rights or something.

Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontière (1999) – A group of medical professionals helping people globally and alerting people about humanitarian crises. Medical help is always appreciated, but I’m not clear on how the whole “raising awareness” part brings us closer to peace. I mean, doesn’t somebody have to actually do shit still?

Kofi Anan and the United Nations (2001) – I got nothing.

Jimmy Carter (2002) – I can make a case for him winning the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to broker peace between Israel and Egypt in the last 1970s, but this time? He was awarded for setting up the Carter Center, which focused on human rights. Unless those rights involved Jews, of course.

Shirin Edbadi (2003) – She was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts to bring democracy to Iran and defend women’s, children’s, and refugee rights. Again, a good cause, but I’m not sure how it would help global peace. It would make Iran a little less hostile in the grand scheme of things, but that’s like Idi Amin telling Jeffrey Dahmer to cut back on the cannibalism.

Wangari Maathai (2004) – She won the Nobel Peace Prize for, as the Committee put it, “for her contribution to sustainable development, democracy, ecology, and peace.” It was almost like the Nobel Committee had to tack on “peace” at the end to justify giving her the award.

Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank (2006) – Collectively they…did something. Not sure what, but it was something about economic and social development…which is peaceful, I guess?

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore (2007) – It was at this point the Nobel Peace Prize became a joke. Not even Dane Cook level, either. They got the Peace Prize for the same reason: being wrong about the environment. And I think Al got it for losing to George W. Bush and being wrong about the environment.

And then we get to the coup disgrace (and, no, that’s not a typo)…

Barack Obama (2009) – He won it before he did anything. You know, like drone striking innocent people?

There are more, but you get the picture. When you look at the full list of Peace Prize winners, you see a definite shift from those who actually contributed to peace and those who are getting a wider berth than Rosie O’Donnell and Michael Moore at an all-you-can-devour buffet in order to shoehorn them into the award.

And the same dickheads who swooned over Obama and Gore winning it are the ones saying Donald Trump isn’t qualified to win it in spite of the fact he’s actually trying to broker peace.

Of course, I’m half-and-half on whether Trump should be in the running. Half of me thinks it would be funny to watch Leftist heads explode at him showing up in Oslo to accept the award before the world. The other half of me thinks he’s trying too hard to get an award that doesn’t have the gravitas it once did. It’s like getting an honorary Daytime Emmy; yes it’s an award, but it’s a shitty one.

And when you consider the political leanings of those who are getting the award over the past 20-30 years, you’re more of a loser for winning it.

I’m sure the Nobel Committee reads my weekly missives judging from the Scandinavian hate mail I’ve gotten over the years, so let me give you a piece of advice. Just because you agree with your politics doesn’t mean they’re advancing peace. By expanding what the original purpose of the award means, you’ve watered it down to the point of irrelevance. I mean, you gave a Peace Prize to a fucking terrorist! Why not give Antifa one?

Wait, scratch that. You’ll take me seriously.

Regardless, you have to be a lot more selective in your selection process. Pay attention to those who are actually trying to bring about peace in our time and not just have the “oh, and peace” at the end. And sometimes you might have to hold your nose and pick someone you hate who is actually bringing about a more peaceful world by, you know, actually promoting peace.

As for the MAGA Republicans who think Trump should get it, I wouldn’t push it. If he can figure out how to get Russia and Ukraine and Israel and Hamas to get to the table and get results, then we can talk about him getting one. Until then, hold your applause until the Nobel Committee gets their heads out of their asses.

So, in 2548.








Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Did you know we were close to World War III? According to the Left, the US attacking Iran’s nuclear sites (which I’m sure were just making glow-in-the-dark snocones) got us involved in a war, one that our Democrat and “Independent” Congresscritters swore up and down was unconstitutional and their fellow Leftists called a war crime. Even Tucker Carlson said the bombing would get us into World War III.

Well, if this was World War III, it was the Rachel Zegler’s Snow White of World Wars.

But that’s not going to stop the Left from bringing it up as often as they can. So, that means we get a chance to point and laugh!

World War III

What the Left thinks it means – an escalation of tensions leading to a war involving and/or affecting the entire world

What it really means – a scare tactic the Left uses whenever a Republican does anything militarily

As much as I hate to admit this, I’m old enough to remember when World War III was a real possibility, or at least it seemed like it to my young mind full of Saturday morning cartoons, popular music, video arcades, and copious amounts of Mountain Dew. The Cold War made nuclear annihilation a real threat, stoked in no small part by movies like “The Day After.” Ronald Reagan even joked about bombing the Soviet Union, which freaked out a lot of people.

Then…it didn’t happen.

All that handwringing, worry, and over-the-top bullshit turned out to be nothing more than a game of Chicken, only with a greater possibility of nuclear fallout. The Berlin Wall fell like a balsa wood shed in a Cat 5 hurricane. The Soviet Bear became closer to teddy than Kodiak. And the talk of World War III could finally be put to rest.

At least until it could be brought up again at a politically expedient time, like when Donald Trump took military action.

And, you’ll be surprised to know this isn’t without purpose. The Left has been trying to paint Trump as the next Hitler. You know, like they did with George W. Bush and Mitt Romney. When you invoke this kind of imagery, it brings up memories of Nazis marching, Adolf Hitler shouting with an audience in rapt attention hanging on his every word, and…wait for it…World War II.

In fact, these days there’s a whole cottage industry around making Trump into Hitler 2.0 by any lies…I mean means necessary. Trump has a military parade to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the US Army? Hitler! Trump pushes for stricter enforcement of immigration laws? Hitler! Trump wears a red tie that hangs down lower than a well-hung midget’s dick? Totes Hitler, guys!

With this in mind, Leftists jumped on the “World War III is coming” bandwagon. And just like Err America, the current leadership of the DNC, and Angel Reese’s field goal percentage, it turned out to be very disappointing. Our bombing in Iran blew shit up, which is kinda the point of bombing in the first place. Iran’s nuclear program took a major hit (figuratively and literally), possibly hindering their ability to develop nuclear weapons.

And Leftists were left trying to make Iran, a country that stands for everything they say they’re against, look sympathetic. You know, kids, sometimes our Leftist friends emphasize the wrong half of the term “useful idiots.”

Even if you think the actions Trump took were questionable, it’s clear what he did was Constitutional, thanks to a little thing the boys in the lab call the War Powers Resolution of 1973. Without going too far into the weeds, this law gives the President the authority to initiate military action without a formal declaration of war by Congress. All the President has to do is let Congress know within 48 hours and get approval for continued military action if things go beyond 60 days.

Contrary to what Jasmine Crockett. Jamie Raskin, and Tim Kaine want us to believe, Trump acted legally and Constitutionally. Not that that’s going to stop them from proclaiming him guilty of impeachable offenses, mind you. And there’s no requirement for any President to give Congress a heads-up before military action is initiated.

Given the track record of some of the Congresscritters with regards to security (I’m looking at you, Eric “Fang Fang’s Bitch” Swalwell), I’m not sure letting them know before the planes get fueled up is the best idea.

Similarly, it’s not a good idea to give into the fear of World War III without taking the time to understand the dynamics of any potential flashpoint. Since we’re here, let’s take the Iran bombing as an example. The intelligence community (which has members dumber than two bags of hammers) said for years Iran didn’t have nuclear aspirations, only to have to come back years later and say “well, maybe they are, but it’s not for weapons.” Yet, there were enough weird coincidences that would lead someone without his or her head up his/her ass to conclude maybe Iran was trying to develop nuclear weapons. To stop that from happening and having them launch nukes on Israel (one of our allies, by the way), Trump decided to roll the dice and bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities.

And shit got blown up real good.

So, is Iran going to strike back at America? That’s hard to say, mainly because it’s hard to fathom in a traditional sense. Our military has enough technology and firepower to blow Iran into the Stone Age, which might be a cultural upgrade at this point. If they were to try to retaliate, it’s going to be on a completely different battlefield with more underhanded tactics.

So, how do you feel about those open borders now, Leftists?

There’s a possibility other countries might join Iran, but then it becomes a cost-benefit analysis more than military strategy. What would be the upside to helping Iran? Aside from sitting on more oil than a triple pepperoni pizza at a nerd’s sleepover, there isn’t much Iran can provide to help their allies. That means the risk is greater than the reward. And do you know why?

Because Trump is fucking crazy.

Or at least he knows how to act crazy when it counts. All it would take for Trump to wake up on the wrong side of the Presidential bed and he could turn Iran and a good chunk of the Middle East into the world’s largest glass sculpture. We could call it “FAFO.”

To elevate the Iran bombing to the level of the bombing of Pearl Harbor or the burning of the Reichstag is an exaggeration that would make Tommy Flanagan look like George Washington. We aren’t any closer to World War III by bombing Iran than if we sat on our hands and pretended Iran wasn’t developing nukes to be used at some point and it’s folly to think otherwise.

Granted, I still have some questions about the circumstances, even though it’s hard to argue against the final result. Having said that, I’m not going to practice my duck and cover skills over it. I’m saving my anxiety for something far more important.

Watching reruns of the Battle of the Network Stars.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

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.

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…