In case you haven’t been listening to Leftists (and, to be honest, why would you), we are at war with Iran. An illegal, unconstitutional, and all around not good war that will result in a gazillion deaths of American troops, all because President Donald Trump wanted to start a war to distract from the Epstein Files, which totally prove he’s a pedophile and Trump redacted all of the references to his pedophile activities!
That and $5 can get you a cup of steamed milk with a shot of coffee at Starbucks.
I’m referring to Operation Epic Fury, because apparently Operation Kick Iranian Ass and Break Their Shit didn’t test well in focus groups. As you might expect, opinions on the matter range from pro-military jingoism to anti-military jingoism. You might say it was Jingoism Unchained.
I’ll see myself out…
Actually, I can’t because I have a Lexicon entry to finish!
Operation Epic Fury
What the Left thinks it means – a lot of saber-rattling from a weak President designed to take people’s attentions away from his shortcomings
What it really means – a long-overdue military strike with the possibility of the shit hitting the fan
War in the Middle East is as constant as Leftists being shrill and annoying. Unlike the latter, however, the Middle East isn’t going to ask to speak to our manager. Instead, they’re going to fight the Great Satan,
And given how the US military is an NRA wet dream, it’s not going to be a long fight.
At least, I hope it’s not going to be a long fight. The last time we got involved in that neck of the world, we were there for a while and it ended badly.
While the warhawks, the chickenhawks, and the jive turkeys battle it out in the Thunderdome of ideas, there are a couple of things I need to point out, both of which are directly related to the Left’s bitching over the war.
First, what Trump did isn’t illegal. There’s a little thing called the War Powers Resolution of 1973 that gives the President a far wider berth to initiate military action prior to a formal declaration of war. As long as the President lets Congress know within 48 hours, he/she (still 2 genders, kids) has a total of 90 days before a formal war declaration has to be made.
And, guess what? He did.
I know Leftists work within a different frame of reality than the rest of us, but you’re gonna have a hard time convincing me following the letter and the spirit of the law is illegal.
Now, for the Constitutional part of the lesson. As yet, there hasn’t been a challenge to the War Powers Resolution’s constitutionality by either major party, and I get why: both sides want to be able to wage war without having to go through the actual process of declaring it. Because of this, the War Powers Resolution has been invoked 130 times between 1973 and 2011. Oddly enough, 130 is also the average age of Congresscritters, but I digress.
The point is until the War Powers Resolution is struck down by the US Supreme Court, it’s as constitutional as, well, the Constitution. Just because Congressional Leftists got assmad they weren’t allowed to blab about it ahead of the attack doesn’t mean the Constitution was circumvented. Given how our Leftist pals have a tendency to leak information to foreign powers (I’m looking at you Eric “Fang Fang’s Bitch” Swalwell), I can understand why the Trump Administration didn’t let Congress know too far in advance.
On a side note, I didn’t have “Leftists cheering for people who literally do what they say Christian Nationalists want to do” on my 2026 Bingo card, but here we are.
As much fun as it is to point and laugh at the Left being caught up on the 20 side of an 80-20 issue, we have to maintain some perspective. War isn’t an IRL Call of Duty game. Shit gets real really fast. And despite the calls of the neocons, the warhawks, and more than a few military hardware suppliers, war shouldn’t be the default position. It should be a last step, period.
This is where things get a little dicey for me. On the one hand, Iran has wanted us dead for almost have a century and wasn’t shy about letting us know. On the other, any American intervention in the Middle East has the potential to be a beachfront quagmire of a clusterfuck. If we want to make progress there, we can’t half-ass it. We have to go in with our full ass and get shit done.
That’s where we’ve dropped the ball in the past. Although the Left accuses the Trump Administration of trying to conduct nation-building in Iran and elsewhere, the fact is we’re more nation-subcontractors. We’ll go in and wreck shit, but once the destruction is done, a lot of times we bail out before the country we’ve turned into rubble and shell casings can ask “So, now what?”
And given the fact we got Iran into this mess in the first place back in 1979, we kinda owe it to Iran to fix this situation.
That’s why we have to be verrrrrrry careful how we proceed with Operation Epic Fury. Especially with the spelling. I’ve already seen the Interwebs calling it Operation Epic Furry, and when you go furry, there’s no going back.
Don’t ask me how I know.
The point is we broke Iran, and now we have to fix it and do it better than we’ve done, well, since 1979. We have a bad track record when it comes to the “so now what” phase of the military action, and that has to stop. In the aftermath of war, there’s a lot of rebuilding to be done, especially when it comes to infrastructure. When we go into a country and break their shit, we look pretty shitty when we disappear like Claude Rains cosplaying as Harvey the Rabbit leaving the people we were helping to pick up after us. Dick move, bro!
Now, we need to approach Iran with the same attitude we had after World War II. Not only did we blow shit up, but we helped rebuild the countries we blew up. That helped build our reputation around the world as one of the good guys, and we need that kind of positive PR these days after decades of being hands-on when it came to blowing shit up, but hands-off when it came time to build shit back up.
And if Trump can do that, he will go a long way towards solidifying his place in history, but grease the skids for the GOP going into midterms and the 2028 Presidential election. Granted, the Left are too busy being tone deaf assholes to field an even marginally passable candidate or come up with a platform that will appeal to people who have normal hair colors, but let’s not count our chickens before they hatch here.
Regardless of how you feel about Operation Epic Fury, it’s a little late to try to pull back the reins to get our war machine to slow down, let alone stop. We’re involved, so we have to be willing to do all of the hard work now and later. If we don’t, we’re looking at having Iran hate us even more than they already did under the religious leadership there before we gave them backstage access to the hereafter.
And the 72 virgins? All dead ringers for Yasser Arafat. Or is that Ringo Starr?
Category: Humor
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
As we get closer to March (check local listings for the month in your area), our thoughts turn to an event that brings smiles to the faces of millions. I’m talking about, of course, March Madness.
But since we’re not there yet as of the date of this writing, we have to focus on something a lot less fun, that being the State of the Union Address which is a whole different kind of madness altogether. This annual speech gives the President a chance to talk about how great and strong America is, maybe hit on one or two red meat issues, and bloviate far too long. And since it’s Donald Trump giving the speech, you know the Left has to try to counter it.
That brings us to this week’s Lexicon entry. During the actual State of the Union Address, some Leftists decided to hold the People’s State of the Union Address. And, yes, it was just as lame as it sounds. But it made Leftists feel better about sucking more ass than a man addicted to donkey smoothies, so yay, I guess?
the People’s State of the Union
What the Left thinks it means – a rally to tell the truth about what’s going on in America right now under President Trump
What it really means – a symbolic gesture without much symbolism
Now, what the Left did in response to the State of the Union Address isn’t new. We have to go waaaaaaaaaay back to…2018, when Leftists held a People’s State of the Union Address to offer an alternative to President Trump’s State of the Union Address. This was a breathtaking affair, complete with celebrities like Mark Ruffalo and Rosie Perez in the house.
Because nothing says “we know what’s going on in the real world” like people who play pretend for a living.
As you might expect, it was as impactful as a Nerf avalanche (Nerf triage kit sold separately), in spite of the press giving it a predictable spit shine. There were other protests, but they were just as inane as this one. This year, they brought the idea out of mothballs and did it again.
Hmmm…I don’t remember these folks having a People’s State of the Union Address during President Brick Tamland’s term. Wonder why that is…
Anyway, the People’s State of the Union Address was a dud, and predictably so. Yes, we get it. You hate Trump, and you tell us every day you hate Trump. Do you need to hold a rally to reinforce you hate Trump? Not really. It’s like the No Kings protests last year: getting Leftists together to show how much they hate Trump, but never really doing anything but speaking truth to the powerless. If impotent rage had a human face, it would be the No Kings protests.
And the People’s State of the Union.
And pretty much anything else the Left has come up with since Trump was reelected.
You know how I know the People’s State of the Union was a dud? The Left resorted to an appeal to popularity to make it sound like it was successful. Leftists crowed about getting 2 million live viewers for their Suck-A-Palooza rally, but the actual State of the Union Address got…an estimated 32.6 million live viewers. For those of you bad at math or Leftist (which aren’t mutually exclusive, I grant you), that means it would take over 16 People’s State of the Unions to equal 1 Trump State of the Union.
Next stop: Getting Your Ass Stomped Ville. Population: the People’s State of the Union audience.
This speaks to one of the fundamental flaws of the Left: they grossly overestimate how popular their positions are. Of course, it doesn’t help that the only people they listen to are other Leftists, so it creates one big echo chamber that would rival the Grand Canyon in size, which is second only to “The View” in terms of a being great big void in America.
As funny as it is to mock the Left for exhibiting cult-like behavior, there’s another layer to this shit, one that I’ve seen as a recovering Leftist. By surrounding yourself only with people who repeat what you believe, you start to create your own reality, which often bears little to no resemblance to actual reality.
In other words, it’s basically Dylan Mulvaney.
While it may be fun and welcoming in your corner of Delululand (not to be confused with Deluluworld on the West Coast), it makes it hard to connect to people outside of it. After all, they might…dare I even fathom it…deny your reality! Then, all Hell breaks loose! After all, if you could be wrong that dressing up like a fairy princess when you’re built like the defensive line of the Seattle Seahawks isn’t realistic, it might make you question what else you believe.
In this scenario, there are two options, three if you count fleeing in terror. You can either accept the new information and integrate it into your life, or you can deny it.
And guess which one Leftists invariably choose.
This leads to a lot of mocking from outside the Leftist hivemind, but it’s becoming a serious problem from a governmental perspective. In order to pass, enforce, and rule on legislation, there has to be a common point of reference. The further we get away from that, the harder it becomes to run the government.
Wait…did I just make an argument in favor of letting that shit go?
Never mind.
The point is when nothing can be nailed down, everything is in a state of flux. A bedrock principle one day becomes vapor the next if enough people believe it and vice versa. But reality isn’t about what you believe; it’s about what is. A dog is a dog is a dog because it just is. Believing a dog is a 2 story Victorian home in Vermont doesn’t make it so. For one, you don’t have to pick up Victorian home shit when you walk it.
I bring all of this up to give you a fuller picture of what the People’s State of the Union actually was: a poorly planned political stunt that will fire up the base, but do precious little to get others to join in their reindeer games. Not even if you get Ben Affleck.
If I may offer a piece of advice to the Left (and, I may because it’s my fucking blog entry), it’s to start thinking about a policy that doesn’t involve a daily reminder you hate Trump. That shit’s played out since his first term in office, and I don’t think there are enough fans to warrant a sequel. With midterms right around the corner, you have to get your shit together and come up with a strategy.
Like maybe not being obnoxious assholes.
But given how Congressional Democrats acted during the State of the Union Address, that’s going to be a big ask.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With the possibility of the SAVE Act becoming law (click here for our outstanding, witty, and pretty spiffy coverage of it), the Left has gone to a tried-and-not-at-all-true method to try to get public opinion on their side: calling it Jim Crow 2.0, just like they’ve done when previous voter ID bills have been introduced in recent years. Since we’ve already talked about voter ID bills previously, I figured I’d focus on the Jim Crow 2.0 part since it’s like a boomerang or a Taco Bell meal: it keeps coming back.
Jim Crow 2.0
What the Left thinks it means – Republican efforts to stop blacks from voting
What it really means – an overreaction to voter ID laws
To fully understand the implications of Jim Crow 2.0, we have to take a look at Jim Crow 1.0. (We’re avoiding Jim Crow 1.5 because it’s a vastly inferior version. Oh, and it doesn’t exist.) Jim Crow laws were a series of laws passed in the South after the Civil War designed to segregate whites and blacks in everything from transportation to education to voting. Let’s just say the South took the loss worse than John McEnroe on PCP, so this wasn’t exactly the best look for the Land of the Free and the Home of the Bottomless Cup of Coffee.
By the time the 1950s and 1960s rolled around, such laws started looking more and more racist because, well, they were. The civil rights movement helped make Jim Crow laws a thing of the past, ensuring blacks and whites could coexist on a level playing field.
Yeah, and if you believe that, I have a Jasmine Crockett victory party ticket to sell you.
Jim Crow laws were a black eye (or an African-American eye if you prefer) on our history and society, so introducing the idea into any conversation has to be done carefully so it’s not taken out of context. Or, if you’re a Leftist, you bring it up when you want to imply something is racist. While the original Jim Crow laws imposed literacy tests and poll taxes among other means to suppress the black vote, the same can’t be said of current voter ID laws, including the SAVE Act.
Well, it can, as the Left has proven, but it’s bullshit.
There is a league of difference between a poll tax and having to pay for a birth certificate to establish your citizenship so you can vote. Take getting a copy of your birth certificate, for example. The cost of getting a replacement copy ranges from $10 to $34. Inconvenient? Maybe. Prohibitive? Also, maybe. But if you are really passionate about voting, you will make it happen.
On a related note, you know what states have some of the lowest costs to get a birth certificate? The evil, backwards, racist South. And what states have some of the highest? The good, smart, progressive blue states.
Isn’t it ironic, doncha think?
The thing about the Jim Crow 2.0 talk is it’s not designed to make you think, but rather to feel. The Left wants whites in particular to feel collective shame over our past, even though most of us (and most of them, for that matter) weren’t alive when those laws were in place. No matter how many strides we make towards racial unity, they will always view whites as fatally flawed and undeserving of forgiveness.
That sentiment isn’t just one way, though. The Left also sees blacks as inferior and without agency. They see other potentially oppressed groups the same way, but for the purpose of this sketch we’re going to limit the focus to blacks given the subject matter. White Leftists in particular feel they have to speak up for the black community because they have both a superiority complex and a savior complex.
One tiny problem, kids. This attitude makes you racist.
Blacks are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves, thank you very much. In fact, there are some I wish would shut the fuck up, but that’s not the point. Blacks don’t need white Leftists to stand up for them. They are motivated, capable, and smart enough to figure shit out for themselves. And since you can’t figure out what a woman is, maybe you should sit this one out.
You know, until 2138.
In the meantime, I have a request for the black community. Call out the Left’s bullshit with the Jim Crow 2.0 talk. It demeans your history and your present, and the more you entertain it, the more you give white Leftists the power to speak for you. Instead, I urge you to take the advise of the great philosopher James Brown, “Say it loud! I’m black and I’m proud!”
Well, either that or, “I feel good!” You know, whichever.
The funny thing about the Left’s resistance to voter ID laws is it flies in the face of what they say they want. They always say America needs to be more like Europe in governance, regulations, and the like. But guess who has voter ID laws.
Europe.
Oops. Better get on board there, Leftists! Unless of course you want to call Europeans racist…
On second thought, you’ll probably do that anyway, so scratch that.
Comparing any voter ID laws to Jim Crow laws is a non-starter for me, not just because I happen to agree with the concept of voter ID, but because the two concepts go together like oil and Joseph Hazelwood. Leftists are going to try to shame you into rejecting a good idea because they don’t have a logical basis for their arguments. Then again, these are Leftists we’re talking about there, and they have a protective order against logic.
Instead of feeling guilty about shit you didn’t even do, push back and ask them why they require photo ID for their events, but not for a democratic vote. Or better yet, ask them for their alternative. And don’t be surprised if they don’t have ready answers because, let’s face it, they haven’t thought beyond the “Jim Crow 2.0” stage.
On the plus side, it will give you an opportunity to point and laugh!
Extremist Makeover – Presidents’ Day Edition
Depending on when you read this, America is either celebrating or just celebrated Presidents’ Day, a federal holiday that is the equivalent of a participation trophy for people we’ve smartly or foolishly allowed access to the nuclear codes. And to be fair I can go either way on that one.
While most Americans outside of furniture stores and car lots don’t celebrate Presidents’ Day with the same zeal as, say, Arbor Day, I think this is a situation where a little makeover might change the perception, if not the one-day-only sale prices at the aforementioned vendors. All it takes is some outside-the-box thinking, and I’m as far outside the box as you can get without being declared legally insane.
And to be fair, I can go either way on that, too.
Let’s deal with the elephant and the donkey in the room. Not all Presidents are created equal. While we celebrate the courage and accomplishments of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Ronald Reagan, Presidents’ Day includes a lot of also-rans who are only remembered by history buffs and kids trying to pass an 8th grade history class. People like Millard Filmore, Iowa’s own Calvin Coolidge, and William Howard Taft. Although I hear that cat Taft is a bad mutha…
The concept of Presidents’ Day is too broad…sorry, too woman, so although all the Presidents have a day, not all of them get the same amount of attention. Some are barely worth a mention at one of their family gatherings, let alone a day where they can be forgotten just like they are the other 364 days a year.
Let’s put a pin on that idea for now. It will play into one of my suggestions later.
Then, we have a political divide wider than the seams in Rosie O’Donnell’s stretch pants to contend with. There are Presidents one side or the other absolutely hate. I’m sure there are people on the Left who would rather we not talk about Donald Trump, Richard Nixon, or Ronald Reagan, and likewise there are people on the Right would gag if they had to mention Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, or Joe Biden in any positive way. That makes the concept of a day to celebrate those who we vehemently disagree with as popular as Nick Fuentes Appreciation Night at the Apollo.
Aside from federal employees, I don’t see a lot of people clamoring for Presidents’ Day to be a thing anymore. Then again, federal employees would lobby for a Kyle the Intern Sneezed Day if it meant they got a day off. Now, the easiest way to make it more popular would be to let everyone have the day off, but even then it would be a crap shoot if people would appreciate the reason why. Americans get Memorial Day and Veterans Day mixed up all the time, so I’m guessing they’re not ready to delve into Presidents’ Day just yet.
That’s where I come in.
The first thing I would address would be the fundamental unfairness of Presidents’ Day for forgotten and/or inconsequential Presidents. They deserve a day where their Presidencies are given the respect they deserve, after all. So, instead of having one day a year where we acknowledge Presidents, let’s have two. And by year, I’m including Leap Year. And more specifically Leap Year Day.
That’s right! Every 4 years, we will have a day set aside just for the forgotten Commanders In Chief like John Tyler, Chester A. Arthur, and Gerald Ford, and it just so happens it coincides with the one day a year that’s shoehorned in there so the Gregorian calendar isn’t thrown off.
Next, we need a new way to evaluate Presidents. Right now, that falls on the shoulders of academics and historians who may be fine intelligent people, but aren’t that much fun at parties. Today’s America demands more voices in the intellectual arena with new perspectives and match-ups.
Yep. I’m talking about social media.
I belong to a couple of Facebook groups that set up imaginary fights between fictional characters, mostly comic book and/or pop culture-based. The discussions can get pretty deep (you know, in between the numerous playground taunts about how dumb a poster is), and the possibilities are endless! Who would win in an arm wrestling tournament, Teddy Roosevelt or Dwight D. Eisenhower? Which father-son duo would win a potato sack race, John and John Quincy Adams, or George H.W. and George W. Bush? Which President would be the best wingman for a night on the town? (Answer: JFK.)
It may seem silly, but that’s what America is these days. This sort of fictional fighting would appeal to the general public. Not to mention, there are betting websites that would love to host something like this, and it might help get more people’s skin in the game. After all, America’s new favorite pastime is online gambling, so lean into that and turn Presidents’ Day into a payday!
I do have one more suggestion, but it’s really radical. I mean, it would take an act of God, a massive societal shift, and some zoning permits to make happen, but if we’re willing, it’s worth a shot.
Elect better Presidents.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
In case you haven’t figured it out from the glut of political ads out there, 2026 is an election year. Didn’t we just have one 2 years ago?
With an impending election looming on the horizon, attention is brought back to the topic of voter ID. Congressional Republicans have introduced the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act, a.k.a. the SAVE Act as a means to rile up their base…I mean address the problem. Of course, Leftists disagree with it because it riles up their base…I mean it will cause fundamental damage to our democracy.
Allow me to cut through the bullshit with…well, my own bullshit.
the SAVE Act
What the Left thinks it means – a racist and sexist voter ID to address a rare occurrence
What it really means – a voting law that has issues, but is trying to come from a good place
One of the fundamental concepts of America (at least until recently) is the concept of the voice of the people being heard, whether it be through a protest or at the ballot box. In the latter case, it’s essential we trust the process so we can trust the results, even if we don’t like them. I’ll be the first one to tell you I didn’t enjoy some of the previous Presidents, but I accepted their victories as legit. Yes, there were always a few cranks out there who claimed elections were rigged, but most of the time they were ignored.
Then the 2020 shitshow happened.
Not only did we have to deal with the insanity of government overreach in the name of protecting people from COVID (unless you were an elderly person in New York State, that is), but we had what can only be called a hinky election. There are a lot of other things it could be called, but I’m trying to stay family-friendly here. And if you don’t like it, go fuck yourself.
Even if you aren’t inclined to believe the election was stolen, there are too many questions without suitable answers even almost 6 years after the fact. How did someone like President Brick Tamland go from getting less than 1% of the vote in the Iowa Caucuses to getting more of the popular vote than Barack Obama without him doing anything more than…being Brick Tamland? At the time, Donald Trump had a 43% approval rating, so it’s hard to believe there was so much anti-Trump sentiment that it would sway the vote.
Unless bullshit was afoot.
It was after the 2020 clusterfuck that Republicans redoubled their efforts to institute voter ID laws, suggesting there were dishonest players out there who were gaming the system. You know, like ACORN. In response, the Left did what they always do: lie their asses off. The Left went from saying voter fraud doesn’t happen to it being rare to it’s only Republicans doing it.
But as inconsistent as their message has been, they are consistent on one thing: they are against voter ID. Their stated reasons are laughable enough, including it being racist and sexist, but the actual reason is much simpler.
It means the Left can’t cheat as easily.
That’s why the Left is bound and determined to tell us blacks and women are incompetent and can’t get their shit together well enough to obtain the documentation the SAVE Act says is needed to prove citizenship. And just what is that documentation? I’m glad you asked because otherwise this would be a much shorter Lexicon entry.
– a valid photo ID
– a US passport
– a birth certificate showing your legal name at birth (because, duh, birth certificate)
– additional documentation (marriage license, divorce decree, etc.) as needed in some circumstances
While the Left focuses on how few people can access these documents, I do take issue with these requirements as they pertain to women. Although it’s not an impossible task, especially if you’re as organized as my wife, it’s still a hassle for people who haven’t had an issue voting prior to the SAVE Act to have to jump through hoops like trained poodles to exercise their voting rights.
And what about trans people? This is going to seem odd coming from me, but it’s still a valid issue for me. To prove you’re who you say you are, you have to produce documentation of a life you no longer lead, which can bring back some painful memories, as well as emotional scarring. I don’t have to dig their lifestyle to defend their right to vote.
Of course, voter ID isn’t the only matter addressed in the SAVE Act. There are aspects impacting voter registration, maintaining accurate voting records, and other forms of red meat for Red voters. This is where it gets complicated for me. I understand the reasoning and appreciate what the SAVE Act is trying to do because, let’s face it, there’s a whole lot of shady shit going on.
Where I part ways with the Right is how many implications haven’t been completely thought through yet. Just with the two examples I came up with above, I can see how this has the potential to backfire on the Right. I know the Left is going to call you (and by extension me) misogynistic, transphobic, and the like, but you don’t have to give them ammunition.
On the other side of the fence, the Left doesn’t really have much to offer in opposition. Between denying there’s a problem and relying on the “racist” and “sexist” labels, you’re not giving people a reason to take your side. Especially considering the absolute fucking morons you’re trotting out to do it. You’re literally making the job easier for Republicans by being so fucking bad at fighting it. Come up with something new, for the love of God, or whatever deity you pray to these days.
Even though it’s flawed, the SAVE Act does have some elements worth preserving. And you know if the Left is shitting bricks over it, it can’t be half bad.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
In case you hadn’t heard (and, really, why would you care at this point), the Grammys were recently held and a lot of anti-ICE sentiments, including from pop star Billie Eilish who said “No one is illegal on stolen land.” I’m pretty sure she would feel differently if there were squatters on her property claiming ownership.
And if you don’t think that would actually happen, look up squatters rights in New York City. Just don’t try their salsa.
Now, someone is holding Ms. Eilish to her word because…her house is on stolen land! Oops.
Anyway, Ms. Eilish’s current squatterhood isn’t the subject of this week’s Lexicon, as humorous as it is. Instead, I’m going to focus on a related subject the Left seems to have problems understanding, property rights. (Granted, I could put in just about anything after the comma and it would still be correct, but work with me here.) I will warn you this stuff is gonna be dryer than Ben Shapiro listening to Cardi B, but I will try to make it entertaining.
property rights
What the Left thinks it means – an outdated concept that reinforces power structures, including racism and sexism
What it really means – a bedrock Constitutional right around which many others revolve
Say what you will about the Founding Fathers (and believe me Leftists have), but two of the things they were passionate about were protecting one’s person and property. In fact, Thomas “You Need It When?” Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration of Independence referenced “life, liberty, and property” which was kinda awkward when you consider he owned slaves at the time. Fortunately, cooler wigs prevailed and he changed it to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” which he most certainly did with Sally Hemmings, if you know what I mean.
Anyway, the point is the Founding Fathers understood the importance of property rights as an extension of human rights. The Bill of Rights itself posed a number of restrictions on government fucking around with our property. Here are a few:
Second Amendment – government can’t take our guns (not that it stopped them before…)
Third Amendment – government can’t use our property to house soldiers without our permission
Fourth Amendment – we have the right for our person and property to be safe from government conducting unreasonable searches and seizures (not that it stopped them before…)
Fifth Amendment – government can’t take our shit without paying us for it (not that it stopped…hey, is there an echo?)
Eight Amendment – government can’t jack up fines, depriving us of money
You could even make an argument for the First Amendment being a limit on intellectual property, but even if you don’t, that’s half of the Bill of Rights dealing at least in part with personal property. Later Amendments also dipped their toes into the property rights waters with a little less fervor and frequency than the Founding Fathers.
Wow. I haven’t seen that many Fs since my last report card.
Anyway, the concept of property rights is woven into our country’s DNA, so it’s not something that we should take lightly. Which means, of course, the Left wants to change that. Yes, I know it’s shocking to think people who believe socialism can work see property ownership and the rights that come with it are a bad thing.
It stems from an economic concept I’ve discussed previously, so of course I’m going to repeat it, called a zero-sum game. Basically, it’s the idea that when someone else wins, you lose. It’s always explained in terms of a pie (mmmmm…piiiiiie), so if someone takes a bigger piece, it deprives others of a piece or an equivalent size of a piece, which the Left tells us is bad.
Here’s where shit gets really weird, kids. Imagine if you will an infinite pie, one where it’s impossible to run out because it’s so massive. Not only will you be able to get your initial slice, but you can go back and get more without negatively affecting others. Or, to put it another way, the economy keeps making pies at a rate that surpasses the desire for it, so there is never a loss for pie.
You know, I’m starting to get hungry for some reason…
Meanwhile, back at the non-pie related subject, the Left views property rights the same way, although with fewer bakery references. If someone owns land or a house, they think it somehow deprives someone else of owning said land or house. Of course, the problems with this line of thought are a) it doesn’t prevent the second person from owning land/housing somewhere else, b) it presumes the first person did something to harm the second person, and c) it’s fucking stupid.
Then again, so are the Leftists getting their collectivist panties in a bunch over a person with land and a house.
You know, like…oh, I don’t know…Billie Eilish?
But apparently that’s okay because she’s saying the right thing about stolen land and illegal immigration. That’s the best thing about being a Leftist: as long as you have the “right” position, all of your sins get forgiven. The caveat is you have to keep the “right” position at all times or else you get excommunicated. Just ask Nikki Minaj.
But while you wait for her to get some time in her schedule, keep in mind the Left have a low opinion of property owners in general, whether it be a landlord or a business owner, mainly because they don’t understand how property ownership is a thing. (I refer you back to the number of Leftists who think socialism can work as evidence.) They especially dislike anyone who owns property and attempts to make money from it, citing it’s greed.
To which I say, “No fucking duh!”
Like it or not, people find ways to make money. Some people try counterfeiting, but most use their tools or talents to satisfy a need. That includes providing housing to people who want to rent a place to live, or who…now get this…need a place to house their goods and services. That in and of itself isn’t evil or even morally gray. It just is.
Which makes it all the more humorous to me when the Left tries to guilt/shame people into feeling bad about making money. There is no shame in using what you have to make a buck. Well, except if you’re a social media influencer, that is. The point is the Left wants you to feel bad because of something you have that they don’t. That’s why they lean into the rhetoric they do. Whether it’s “property ownership is racist” or “companies can go through insurance to pay for damage done” to “no one should be a billionaire” the song remains the same, and it’s no better with autotune.
Expecting a Leftist to be consistent with property rights is like expecting Hunter Biden not to do drugs; it’s theoretically possible, but highly unlikely. That’s why I’ve come up with a handy-dandy little tool to defend yourself against Leftist emotional manipulation.
Okay, I didn’t invent it, but merely adopted it from my schoolyard days. It’s called, “So What?” Whenever a Leftist tries to make you feel guilty about your property rights, ask them “So what?” You can also use the, “And?” approach if you’d prefer. What that will do is confuse them to the point you can make your escape if you so choose. Of course, if you do that, you’ll miss out on their heads exploding, but it saves on dry cleaning bills.
The secret of its effectiveness is in the fact it challenges the Leftist mindset that you must feel bad about property rights. Not only do they not expect it because they’re usually around like-minded individuals who don’t question the bullshit they’re saying, but it forces them to confront the reality that it may not be as morally egregious as they think. They’ll never admit that, though, and will try to double down.
Then, hit ’em with it again.
Blather. Rinse. Repeat.
At some point, the Leftist will either have an emotional meltdown that would make most toddlers look stoic or give up and move on with their days of…wait, what is it Leftists actually do? Oh, yeah, bilk taxpayer money through NGOs or get generous donations from Uncle George Soros to sit on their activist asses and pretend to be doing something meaningful.
You know, like making money off property ownership?
While we wait for Ms. Eilish to give up her stolen land (safety tip: don’t hold your breath waiting), understand the Left will not give up the fight against property rights for you, and in favor of property rights for them. The best way to fight back is to not even acknowledge their version of reality and insert your own, which I guarantee is a lot closer to actual reality.
What else do you expect from people taking their ideological cues from a pop star?
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
This is a topic I’ve wanted to cover for a while, but with the shitstorm of everything going on in the world, I had to put this one on the back burner.
There’s a new epidemic loose in the world, one that is worse than COVID, SARS, and Dylan Mulvaney getting a Broadway gig combined. It’s…whiteness. And it’s not some weird Bluesky bullshit either; it’s coming from the University of Minnesota. (Great. As if having Governor TIMMAH! wasn’t enough of an embarrassment.)
Little did I know my skin color was such as contagion! But if I had to learn about it as part of my research for this week’s Lexicon, you have to! (Don’t blame me. I don’t make the rules.)
whiteness epidemic
What the Left thinks it means – the widespread proliferation of white culture and its negative implications
What it really means – another attempt to make white people feel guilty for something out of their control
Much like Hunter Biden at a crack dealer’s convention, there are some things in life you cannot control, and skin color is one of them. Of course, that doesn’t stop Leftists from trying to make whites feel guilty about it. This is because white Leftists already feel guilty about it and they love to share their misery and expect everyone else to carry the cross they’ve put on our collective backs.
The thing is they’re not completely wrong. Whites have been utter pricks throughout world history. For every Issac Newton or Jonas Salk, there’s been an Adolph Hitler or agent who told Johnny Knoxville he could act. And to be fair there’s been more of the latter than there is of the former.
Now, having said that, unless we are the pricks in the aforementioned paragraph, we don’t have to share in the guilt by default. Last I checked, we haven’t invented a time machine that allows us to go back and prevent bad things from happening…or maybe somebody did and it fucked up the space-time continuum…
That would explain everything post-2020.
Or have I said too much?
Never mind.
The point is we aren’t responsible for the bad shit our ancestors did anymore than they’re responsible for the bad shit we do. Great Grandpa Zeke didn’t invent dub step, after all. That’s on us, and more specifically, the person who invented dub step.
The Left doesn’t see it that way. (White guilt, not necessarily the dub step thing.) To them, anything our ancestors did has to be atoned for right now, regardless of our family history. For example, I have two ancestors who fought for the Union in the Civil War, so that should exclude me from having to feel white guilt, right?
Nope!
Because as the University of Minnesota puts it:
Race matters in the United States because racism still exists and young children perceive much more than we usually realize. When parents and other adults are silent around race, it communicates apathy or approval of racism even if this is the opposite of what adults intend. On the other hand, parents can push back against racism through their words and actions, sending a powerful message to their children.
So, it’s not enough not to be racist anymore. You have to be anti-racist, as the Left puts it. But even that’s not enough unless you do everything the Left tells you to do, and even then that can be undone with an insensitive comment (that only the Left can determine because they’re aware of all the racism out there).
I know I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating. If Leftists are the ones hearing all the racist “dog whistles” that the rest of us can’t, wouldn’t that make them the racists?
I saw something similar to this during my college years at the University of Bedrock (Go Brontosauruses!) with Political Correctness. The Left attempted to change the culture through changing the words people used. On the surface, it was okay because it was sold as being done to raise awareness and be more respectful to others.
Then, everything went banana-shaped.
Once people bought into the idea of Political Correctness, the Left started holding us accountable for the rules they made up, which gave them a lot of unearned power. Then, the rules would change and those who weren’t using the “right” terminology anymore were shunned like a hooker in Amish country.
So much for inclusion and respect for others, amirite?
Although Political Correctness has gone the way of Crystal Pepsi (and thank God for both being out of my life), there are still remnants of it today. Remember how the Left insisted Latinos and Latinas be called Latinx to be more inclusive? Same principle, and same outcome in that it was resoundingly rejected by anyone with a lick of sense.
Eventually, the whiteness epidemic is going to wind up the same way, but it’s going to take some time. And in the meantime, there are some things to consider for our Leftist friends out there.
1. The whiteness epidemic is designed to address racism, yet by definition racism involves either the denigration or elevation of one race over another. So, how does it address racism when it’s racist by its very nature?
2. This is going to be a “whataboutism” but fuck it. Take everything you attribute to the whiteness epidemic and insert any other race or creed. Now, imagine you saying that to a member of that race or creed. More than likely, you’re going to get looked at funny at the very least. You know why? Because it’s fucking bigoted.
3. If whiteness is an epidemic, what is the cure? On the website, you say you want “to better understand the culture of Whiteness and support parents to challenge it, which motivated the Whiteness Pandemic Project, a research study in Minnesota.” If the cure is anti-racism, how will we know we’ve achieved the end of the epidemic?
4. Along those same lines, the way most epidemics are dealt with is through quarantine. How will you separate the parts of white culture you find objectionable from the other parts of white culture that help society? Is it going to be an all-or-nothing approach? And how will you separate white culture from human culture as a whole?
5. And while we’re here, what exactly is “white culture”? It wasn’t that long ago that the Left was calling George Zimmerman a “white Hispanic.” So, would that include him, even though his life choices would repulse a number of whites, including Leftists? What about people of different races who don’t think whiteness is an epidemic or who think white culture is okay? What role do they play in the “whiteness epidemic” and how will you deal with them?
6. Just how far up your ass does your head need to be to think like you do?
Okay, that last one is just for me.
The point is this idea hasn’t been fully fleshed out enough for it to accomplish anything. That may be by design in order to keep money flowing, but from a practical standpoint it’s a not-even-half-baked solution looking for a problem that may not even be a problem for most people. If you want someone like me on board, I’m going to need some more data.
You know. Follow the science?
Or pseudo-science as the case may be.
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
With the recent shooting of Renee Good in Minnesota, a lot of attention has gathered around a single issue. Is it illegal immigration? Nope. Is it federal tax dollars being stolen by foreign scammers? Not at all. Is it, dare I speak it, the proliferation of buttons at the Golden Globes? Yes, but also no.
The focus from both sides of the political shitshow is on domestic terrorism. The Left is pointing at ICE and saying, “See? We told you they were domestic terrorists!” The Right is pointing at anti-ICE protesters and saying, “See? We told you they were domestic terrorists!” And meanwhile back at the Hall of Justice, we have people like me scratching our heads. Mostly because of dandruff in my case, but also because I’m having a hard time understanding how both sides can come to the same conclusion from two different points of view, and yet be completely wrong about it.
Consider this my therapy session. You’re welcome?
domestic terrorism
What the Left thinks it means – right-leaning individuals in the government who are attacking average people without cause
What the Right thinks it means – left-leaning individuals against the government who are attacking ICE to try to prevent them from doing their jobs
What it really means – a term that’s waaaaaaay overused these days
American politics has never been a weak person’s game, although you wouldn’t know it by looking at current Congresscritters like Eric Swalwell or previous Congresscritters like Adam Kinzinger. I mean, we’ve had people duel over political differences, as Alexander Hamilton’s family can attest.
Having said that, today’s version of American politics is a different breed of cat altogether. To say people are on edge is like saying water is wet, fire is hot, and Al Gore is boring. People are willing to die (or in some cases let others die) for an ideological movement so they have a rallying cry. And, without even a hint of irony, they call anyone opposed to them domestic terrorists because, well, that’s how the game is played anymore.
Being a word guy, I take a different approach to word usage than most people. The impact of some words can throw a flaming tanker truck onto the world’s biggest pile of hay drier than the drinks at a Mormon strip club. And let me tell you calling someone a domestic terrorist kinda fits that bill.
Granted, each side has their own idea of what constitutes a domestic terrorist. The Left thinks it’s anyone whiter than Edgar Winter at an outdoor picnic at Ice Station Zero and more to the right than Pat Buchanan. The Right thinks it’s anyone whose hair colors don’t match anything remotely close to natural and have opinions so far to the Left they would make Karl Marx look like Ronald Reagan. Whether you’re MAGA or Antifa, you’re a dangerous extremist to someone.
And therein lies the problem.
With a political landscape so toxic, it gets frightfully easy to demonize your opponents, which ramps up the heated rhetoric. It’s not enough that your opponent disagrees with you; they are your blood enemies. And it even works within the ideological sides, as any Leftist kicked off Bluesky and any Rightist who isn’t 129,000,000% MAGA will tell you, as can your humble correspondent. I’ve been kicked out of so many ideological groups I have boot marks on my ass. Or was that from the time I spent in a sex dungeon in Amsterdam?
Never mind.
The point is when everybody can be seen as a domestic terrorist by one person or another, it dilutes the meaning of the term and makes it harder for us to recognize actual domestic terrorists. Yes, the Left and the Right have their extremists nuttier than squirrel shit, but for the most part they wouldn’t fall into the category of terrorism until they commit acts of actual terrorism.
Which brings us to the “what does that mean” section of the Lexicon entry. And, yes, I realize you ask that question all the time while reading my rants, but this is different. The good folks at Dictionary.com define terrorism thus:
1. the unlawful use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government, with the goal of furthering political, social, or ideological objectives.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism.
3. a terrorist method of governing or of resisting a government.
4. intimidation or coercion by instilling fear
So…that’s neat.
What this means in the context of our current political shitshow is there are a lot of people on both sides (albeit on the extremes) that subscribe to the notion their terrorism is freedom and other people’s terrorism is terrorism. But if you’re using the same tactics, it doesn’t matter if you’re red or blue; you’re a fucking terrorist.
This is why it’s important we don’t lump all of the Left and all of the Right under the same domestic terrorism umbrella. Not everyone is going to pick up arms and start shooting up a Congresscritter’s house. That’s reserved for people hired by Governor TIMMAH Walz.
Seriously, though, we’ve seen how absurd this approach is just by looking at some of the people caught up in the January 6th situation. Yes, there were some assholes in the crowd (I’m looking at you, Nick Fuentes), but not all the assholes got caught, and some of the people who were caught weren’t of the terrorist variety. Of course, that didn’t stop the Left from painting them all as domestic terrorists. Because as we all know grandmas are the real domestic terrorists, amirite?
Actually, I’m not right, in the head or otherwise.
The reason both sides throw the domestic terrorism label around like a football at a barbecue at Tom Brady’s place is because it allows the “otherization” of their perceived opponents. And, yes, Leftists, I see you doing this all the time with your “MAGAt” talk. Not that the “Libtard” calls coming from the Right are any better. Even so, there is a large difference between “MAGAt” and “Libtard” and actual domestic terrorism, but neither side wants to make that distinction because, well, it’s easy, fun, and doesn’t hurt anybody.
At least, not until the guns start firing.
And where we are right now, it’s only a matter of time. All it takes is one asshole to take it upon himself or herself (still two genders, by the way) to take matters into his/her own hands and strike a blow for his/her side. Then, we all become domestic terrorists unless we decide to take a different path.
The first step? Not calling the other side domestic terrorists unless they are domestic terrorists.
The second step is a little harder to accomplish, but it’s no less important. Call out the motherfuckers who are causing all the chaos and tell them to shut the fuck up. I don’t care if you’re Democrat or Republican, socialist or capitalist, a New England Patriots fan or wrong, we have to be brave enough to take on the more vocal provocateurs on our own side. For all of their bluster, there are more of us than there are of them, and judging solely by the idea the loudest voices are often the most chicken shit, they will run for their little hidey-holes the second someone tells them to take a seat.
Then, we get to step 3: realizing both sides of the political divide are people, not ideologies. Granted, some of those barely qualify as sentient let alone human, but we still need to try and find some common ground. I will speak for myself, mainly because I’m the only one who knows me best, but I try to remove the politics from the person and look for something we agree on and go from there.
I love Samuel L. Jackson for no other reason than he has perfected the use of the word “motherfucker.” He and I don’t see eye to eye on politics, but we can groove together on movies. Once you find that common denominator, ideology takes a back seat to fandom. And last time I checked, there has never been a world war started because of a fandom.
Now, online, on the other hand…well, let’s just leave it alone.
But you see the point, I hope. Neither side is comprised of only domestic terrorists, nor should we assume they are. I quote the great philosopher Dave Mason:
So let’s leave it alone
‘Cause we can’t see eye to eye.
There ain’t no good guy.
There ain’t no bad guy.
There’s only you and me, and we just disagree.
And if we can’t trust someone who gave us “Ooh, oh-oh-oh,” who can we trust?
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Ah, Minnesota, our neighbor to the north. (Please check local listings for the location of Minnesota in your area.) What was once the home of occasional professional sports titles (sorry, Vikings fans) is a hotbed of controversy due to a YouTuber named Nick “Don’t Call Me” Shirley. His 43 minute video exposing potential fraud with Somali-run daycares and medical facilities has put the Land of 10,000 Lakes under the microscope.
Which, of course has Leftists fuming. To be fair, though, when aren’t they fuming?
As we start seeing more fallout from this brewing scandal, I thought it would be a good time to take a look at Minnesota through my own perspective. That and the possibility of those sweet, sweet clicks.
Minnesota
What the Left thinks it means – a state unfairly targeted by the Trump Administraiton
What it really means – a state run by incompetents, fraudsters, or both
Minnesota was first inhabited by Native Americans, but eventually had Europeans show up, and they didn’t even bring a hot dish to pass! Those bastards! Eventually, it became a state in 1858 and became the home of many a Lutheran. Most of the time, Minnesota has been seen as quiet, unassuming, and above all else…normal.
That was until recently when Leftists took the state from the home of Spam and Garrison Keillor to a frosty heckscape. It’s like a hellscape, but more in line with Minnesotan phrasing. Granted, recent history has shown the state moving more to the left than a base runner leaning towards first base trying to avoid being tagged out, so the slide towards the heckscape has been slow, yet impactful.
This brings us to the current Governor, Tim “TIMMAH” Walz. You know, the guy Queen Kamala the Appointed thought would make a good Vice President for the same reason Hunter Biden would be a great accountability buddy: because you’re fucking insane. Governor TIMMAH is good at one thing, and that’s throwing shade.
Since Shirley’s video dropped, Governor TIMMAH has responded by… blaming Donald Trump, accusing white guys of fraud, and generally looking like a buffoon. You know, what Governor TIMMAH does every day.
But it’s not like he’s doing this alone, mind you. The Left is doing a lot of heavy lifting to try to protect the image of Governor TIMMAH as anything but a cartoonish crook with CNN playing the role of Atlas. They’ve tried going after Shirley and wound up looking like Governor TIMMAH as a result.
Not to be outdone, CBS (emphasis on the BS) did its own “investigation” and found nothing out of the ordinary. Because as we all know, potential billions of dollars in fraud is just ho-hum. (Note to Bari Weiss: this ain’t the journalism you’re looking for. And I hope you’ll forgive me for the Obi Wan Kenobi hand wave.)
Other outlets like NPR, MS NOW, The Intercept, and even the Minneapolis Star Tribune have helped with the heavy lifting in their own ways. Namely, by attempting to discredit Shirley’s video by discrediting the man himself. Because, as we all know, the real crime here isn’t the alleged fraud, but noticing the alleged fraud.
For you Leftists out there, that was sarcasm.
Now, if this were the only scandal plaguing the Land of Ten Thousand Fakes, we might be able to let Governor TIMMAH off with a warning. After all, he’s not the sharpest bowling ball on the Christmas tree, so he might just be dumber than two bags of hammers. Granted, he is, but that’s not important right now. What is important is this isn’t the first scandal that’s come under Governor TIMMAH’s tenure.
See, there’s a little thing the kids like to call Feeding Our Future, a non-profit organization in Minnesota designed to help feed children in need. What it became was a massive fraud case where millions of dollars were taken in, but few, if any, children got fed. But don’t worry! Governor TIMMAH is on the case! He announced a new fraud prevention program designed to address the Feeding Our Future scandal. And only 3 years after the federal government caught wind of the fraud! Way to go TIMMAH!
But, wait! There’s more! Behind the Shirley video there is another layer of corruption, that being possible fraud through the state’s Child Care Assistance Program. The state gave out money to daycare centers where there was no evidence of children actually on site with hours of operation well outside the norm. Apparently, this situation has been a thing since at least 2018 with a number of whistleblowers coming forward to advise of the potential fraud.
And Governor TIMMAH took that information…and promptly ignored it.
Along with potential Medicaid fraud.
And possible money laundering.
Oh, and maybe funneling money to Al-Shabaab, a known terrorist group operating out of…Somalia.
Hmmm…it seems there are a lot of ties to Somalia in these scandals, including to a member of the Squad, Rep. Ilhan Omar. Although there haven’t been solid links between Omar and the fraud, President Donald Trump wasted no time in making the connection. Granted, this is Trump’s standard operating procedure, so I’m not going to start demanding she address her ties or lack thereof to the Somalian scammers. Besides, she has enough on her plate dealing with allegations she married her brother to commit immigration fraud.
Or so I’ve heard.
Regardless, the Somalian connection is hard to ignore (not that the Left isn’t willing to try, mind you), and people on different sides of the political spectrum have offered thoughts as to why. Conservatives are split between whether it’s the Somali culture or the Muslim faith that drives the fraud. And the Left? Racism, sexism, and Islamophobia, of course.
Now, I can’t speak to the Somali culture part of the argument. I’ve never been to Somalia, and if I did I’m not sure I would talk about it. However, I can speak to the Islamic side of the argument because the Quran is pretty clear about how it’s totes cool to grift non-believers through a concept called taqiyya. Although modern scholars have tried to muddy the waters a bit to suggest Islam doesn’t allow deception towards non-Muslims, even the scholars admit it’s allowed if Muslims are under duress in a foreign country.
You know, like when they’re caught scamming tax dollars from Americans?
Even if you don’t buy the Muslim angle, human nature tells us people will lie to hide their deception, especially if that deception makes them money. Considering the size of the fraud and those who enabled/were enriched by it, they might have a few billion reasons to lie.
So, how do we fix Minnesota? Good question, and one where I don’t have an easy answer. Sure, we could trade the state to Canada for a first round draft pick, but it will only cause US/Canadian relations to get more sour. Rooting out the fraud would be a positive first step, but we’d be fighting the Left (who has a vested interest in maintaining/hiding the fraud) at every turn. Mass deportations? Another non-starter, unfortunately, because the money is still gone and I’m not sure the fraudsters have the cash on hand to start making payments.
Given the extent of the fraud, it may be impossible to save Minnesota without a full-blown political shift. Not that it can’t happen, but I’m more likely to trust 3 day old convenience store sushi than I am Minnesota going red in the near future.
In the meantime, we have to stay on these frauds, and not just the people stealing money from us, either. Every Leftist who says any damn thing even remotely defending or diverting attention away from the fraud needs to be challenged, not on the emotions or the attempts to divert attention away from it, but purely on the facts. Leftists hate that. Deny their bullshit reality and insert your own, and watch them screech in horror.
Of course, I have another suggestion. Leftist millionaires and billionaires talk about how little they pay in taxes, right? Send them the bill for the fraud and demand payment, like, three years ago.