Election integrity has been a pretty hot topic in recent years. (Candidate integrity, on the other hand, not so much.) To address this, the House of Representatives voted on the SAVE Act, or as the kids like to call it the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act. The short version is it updates existing legislation and includes ways for people to prove their citizenship so they can vote.
Which means Leftists are upset over it. Of course, it’s a day ending in “day” so they’re already upset about something. But this time, they’re pulling out all of their favorite shits…I mean hits. It’s sexist, racist, anti-trans, and, this is a new one, a poll tax because people might have to pay to get documentation.
So, is the SAVE Act the second coming of racist voting laws or a step towards more secure elections? And is this another lame segue into a Lexicon entry? The answers are coming up!
the SAVE Act
What the Left thinks it means – a Republican bill that disenfranchises voters by making it more difficult for people to vote
What it really means – a Republican bill that requires voting adults to be, well, adults
According to the bill itself, there are a number of methods of identification that will work to prove citizenship for the purposes of voting, ranging from a drivers’ license with REAL ID to a birth certificate to a marriage certificate and so many others. And even if you don’t have that documentation handy (which, realistically, you should, kids), the bill provides for a way to attest to your citizenship so you can vote. Should be a slam dunk, right?
Not quite.
The Left have been able to convince some of our fellow talking meatbags that requiring identification to vote is a bridge too far. It’s just way too complicated, expensive, and inconvenient to get identification, let alone use it to vote. And as Leftists love to tell us, voter fraud isn’t a thing. Until it is. Then, it’s not that big of a deal because it’s so rare.
That’s what we call “moving the goalposts,” kids.
The fact there’s voter fraud at all concerns me, regardless of who does it. One of the bedrock principles America has is we get to vote for our leaders. Granted, the last few Presidents don’t really speak highly of our ability to find good leaders, but the point remains. Voter fraud erodes that bedrock to the point we don’t even know if the candidate with the most votes will be the winner after the dust settles.
And no, Mrs. Clinton, you don’t fall into this category. No matter how hard you protest, you lost the Presidency because the popular vote isn’t what decides who gets to be President. Now, put on your Make America Great Again hat and shut the fuck up.
At the core of the Left’s assertion regarding voter identification is a belief some people are incapable of fulfilling the task of obtaining the necessary documentation for a myriad of reasons: age, inconvenience, cost, and so on. And, yes, these can be barriers, but they aren’t insurmountable if you’re willing to put in the work.
Cue Maynard G. Krebs.
And I’m only half-joking about that. Leftists are always down for making it easier to vote, mainly because that’s how they can game the system. When you set expectations higher than “must be solid matter,” it irks the Left because it makes them have to do actual stuff to overcome it. You know, like farming out voter fraud efforts to a Leftist organization with ties to our good friend Uncle George Soros.
But I’m sure that would never happen, amirite?
Although they’d be hard pressed to admit it, underneath the Left’s efforts to beat back anything even remotely related to election security is a very bigoted assumption: the less fortunate can’t advocate for themselves. To the the Left, these folks are incapable of much, so they need champions to speak for them. Enter the Leftists! Only they can defend the rights of those poor souls to do nothing constructive for themselves!
That’s mighty white of them! Often, quite literally!
However, by doing this, the Left treats the less fortunate as lessers in every aspect. This reduces these adults to children, incapable of doing anything without Leftists. And what confuses me more is there are people willing to be treated like children because it’s easier than being a ward of the state than a participant of it. I guess I’m just wired differently, what with me being a fan of Atlas Shrugged, “The Prisoner,” and personal freedom.
And, oddly enough, freedom is one of the ways the Left tries to convince people the SAVE Act will curtail theirs. That’s by design. By pumping up the fear, the Left whips up a frenzy, albeit an incredibly uninformed one. There’s a good possibility those who think they’re going to be negatively impacted already have all they need already. If they don’t, there are options that may or may not involve money and aren’t that inconvenient.
But the Left doesn’t want you to know that. They want you to be afraid.
And what’s more, the SAVE Act has only just passed in the House. The Senate still has to take it up, so if you’re affected by it or think you are, you have time to get that documentation or help someone else get it.
But the Left doesn’t want you to know that. They want you to be angry.
Is it just me, or does anyone else see a pattern forming here? It’s almost as if the Left want people not to learn about the SAVE Act and would rather gas up a mob because…well, that’s a good question. Purposely misleading people typically doesn’t end well once the people find out. And with the favorability ratings of the Democrat Party hovering just above that of STDs, they’d better hope people don’t find out anytime soon.
That’s not to say I’m completely happy with the SAVE Act. There are some unintended (or possibly intended) consequences that will affect women, trans people, and anyone else who has had to deal with name changes. It’s already a hassle to get even basic information and documentation updated (thank you, bureaucracy), but to add that hurdle to a Constitutionally protected right? That’s a Bridge to Nowhere too far.
The solution is somewhere in the middle. To balance out the need for election integrity and the need to protect the rights of eligible voters, there should be a way to identify eligible voters that can be cross-referenced with a database that can be updated regularly. Maybe a card of some kind, one that confirms a voter is registered…
Nah, nobody would be dumb enough to invent that. Forget I said it.
All that said, the SAVE Act has good intentions and is attempting to solidify trust in our elections. Maybe the Senate can make some adjustments to address the concerns I raised. Only time will tell if the SAVE Act will be an asset or a liability.
Oh, and before I forget, the answer to my second question is yes.
Category: Humor
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
When Donald Trump won a second stint as President, his supporters saw opportunities to start remaking the government in his image. And for a while, things went swimmingly. Trump’s Cabinet nominees were confirmed, Leftists made asses out of themselves in the process, and some bold ideas got advanced. Everything seemed to be going great.
And then judges got involved.
Time after time, judges ruled and temporarily locked some initiatives or struck down others. While the MAGA Right got upset that who they see as activist judges obstructed Trump’s plans, Leftists cheered, citing checks and balances as justification.
Time to go back to your civics classes, kids, because this one’s gonna be a thinker!
checks and balances
What the Left thinks it means – a Constitutional protection that is rightly obstructing President Trump’s agenda
What the Right thinks it means – a Constitutional protection that is wrongly obstructing President Trump’s agenda
What it really means – a Constitutional protection that is being bastardized due to politics
As you may know or at least gleaned from old “Schoolhouse Rock” episodes, we have three co-equal branches of government: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. In terms of the law, the Legislative branch passes the law, the Executive branch enforces the law, and the Judicial branch interprets the law. And, for the most part, this system works pretty well.
That is until we get into the wonderful world of Executive Orders. Basically, Executive Orders are when the President says “This is the way shit’s gonna be because fuck you I’m the President, bitches!” Granted, this power is limited in one of three ways.
1. Congress can pass legislation to negate or circumvent the Executive Order.
2. The judicial branch can rule the Executive Order breaks federal law or the Constitution.
3. A future President can revise or negate the Executive Order by issuing a new Executive Order.
The heart of the current conflict involves the second one. Since the President is trying to get things done via Executive Orders, the courts can get involved and tell the President to pound sand, as they’ve done repeatedly since the Trumpster resumed the Presidency.
In other words, it’s checks and balances in action. Or is it?
Where things get a bit muddy is in the Judicial branch’s power to interpret the law. If each judge were committed to the rule of law and the Constitution, this wouldn’t be an issue. But since we live in the real world, it is. And we have politics to thank for it.
Much like an STD, politics can turn an important job like interpreting the law into a position where a judge can put his or her thumb on the scales of Justice to rule as he/she fits…or how his/her backer(s) want him/her to rule. But unlike an STD, the only fucking going on is being done in the courts, and it’s going to take a lot more than the right meds to fix things.
In recent years, politics has wormed its way into the judicial branch, whether it be from the Left or the Right. And when you really think about it, having political backers support you in any number of ways makes it easier for judges to say “fuck it” and rule the way the backers want them to, which makes the checks and balances part of the equation a lot less just.
The Right, especially the MAGA Right, think the solution to the problem is impeaching judges, which has gotten predictable pushback. Although this is a strategy, it’s not a good one because it sets a bad precedent, one that Leftists will definitely use. Judges can be impeached, but there has to be something to it besides “this asshole is blocking what we want to do.” In most cases, actually, that’s not a crime so much as it is a service to the country. Even so, impeaching a judge because you don’t like his or her ruling sets the table for when the opposing party gets into power and you find some of your favorite judges getting shit-canned for obstructing the President’s agenda.
And outside of “American Idol” or “America’s Got Talent” you really shouldn’t have a favorite judge. The judicial system is not a place for idolatry or fandoms.
Now that I’ve pretty much confused/bored/enraged/amused you, let me get back to the main subject of this Lexicon entry.
The Left is using the checks and balances card as both a shield and a sword (which would be pretty cool now that I think about it). On the one hand, it’s used as a shield to absolve the judges of any criticism of their rulings, no matter how fucked up they are. They can throw up their arms and say “well, the judge is only acting as a check on President Trump’s power, so it’s okay.” But just wait until the US Supreme Court makes a ruling they don’t like and their love of checks and balances.
The way they use the check and balances like a sword is to annoy MAGA supporters. All it takes is a “ha ha Trump lost in the courts again” and the MAGA Right goes ballistic. Which is exactly what the Left wants the MAGA Right to do because it plays into their narrative about Trump supporters being unhinged and incapable of accepting any negative outcomes.
And, to be fair, some of the MAGA Republicans are playing a little too closely to the typecasting.
Of course when the roles are reversed, both sides flip like an IHOP cook working straight commission per flapjack, but that’s not important.
What is important is recognizing the checks and balances as they’re being used today don’t work as intended. The Founding Fathers set up the checks and balances system to ensure all three branches of government could keep each other honest without one branch getting too much power. Nowadays Congress has electile dysfunction, so even the simplest of tasks become an exercise in futility or gets loaded down by more riders than a Hell’s Angels convention clashing with a rodeo convention. We’ve already touched on the problems with the Judicial branch, and that leads us to the Executive branch.
And the less said about that, the better.
So, how do we fix it? Unfortunately, we can’t. Even if we elect good people (which are rarer in politics than the way Count Dracula likes his steak), they will get ground up by the political machine, run by people who have long since thrown away any concept of following the rules as written. The only way to get things back on track is a bit on the drastic side.
We have to nuke the site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.
A bonus 500 Leftist Lexicon points if you got that reference.
Seriously, we’re at a point where the checks and balances are imbalanced either through bureaucracy, lust for power, or just general dumbfuckery, and neither major party wants to do anything about it. They would prefer to be outraged when the checks and balances don’t go their way than to actually make sure the checks and balances are still there in the first place. (Spoiler Alert: they ain’t.)
So, the only solution I can see is to hit the reset button and start over. I’m guessing it’s somewhere under the Washington Monument because why wouldn’t it be there. Good luck getting to it, though.
Under advice from my lawyer, I’m not allowed to say anything more on the subject. Good luck on finding that button!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week – Special Edition
Yep. You’re getting two Leftist Lexicon entries this week. You’re welcome. Or I’m sorry. You know, whichever.
If you’ve been paying attention lately (and if you have, I’m sorry), there’s been a bit of an uptick in protests lately. And in some cases, these protests have resulted in property damage, particularly to Tesla owners, dealerships, and even charging stations. Good thing Leftists haven’t made electric vehicles a major part of their future endeavors…oh, wait.
Anyway, there’s a name that’s been bandied about as being behind these temper-tantrums…I mean protests, and that name is ActBlue. Anyone who’s followed politics in recent years has probably heard of them in one fashion or another But are they getting into funding protests, if they haven’t been involved previously? Let’s find out. Time to break out your SCUBA gear so we can do a deep dive.
And don’t worry. Your diving suit doesn’t make you look fat.
ActBlue
What the Left thinks it means – a valuable PAC that supports Democrat policies and politicians
What it really means – another way for Leftists to fuck up the country
Aside from being a pain in the ass, ActBlue is a non-profit organization that is a hybrid of PACs, which allows it to make payments to individual candidates’ committees as well as independent expenditures. Our good friends at OpenSecrets give a better description in their glossary under “Carey Committee.” To put it mildly, it’s basically playing both sides of the game because the rules surrounding PACs are fucking stupid.
Anyway, ActBlue’s purpose is to help Leftists raise money for causes or candidates they like. Of course, they’re not affiliated with any specific candidate due to the aforementioned PAC rules, but given their giving seems to be particularly one-sided, it’s a sure bet they aren’t going to be throwing money to anyone to the right of the Socialist Socialite.
In and of itself, that’s not a reason to rag on ActBlue. You can swing a dead cat in Washington, DC, and hit at least a dozen people either getting PAC money or lobbying on behalf of a PAC who wants to give their money to a candidate or cause. Of course, you might want to check DC laws about swinging dead cats before you try it. Under advice from my lawyers, that’s all I’m allowed to say at the moment.
This is where the other part of the PAC Frankenstein monster comes into play. Although they can’t endorse a candidate, they can still advocate for different causes. You know, like posting bail for George Floyd protestors in Minnesota. You remember the George Floyd protests, right? All the looting, fires, and general mayhem. I know Gwen Walz has fond memories of that time, but most of the rest of us aren’t fucking insane. Because the funding was for a cause, ActBlue was able to skirt any legal issues, or if they weren’t nobody bothered to bring them up on charges.
That is until recently. ActBlue has found itself in the metaphorical crosshairs (in Minecraft) of Republicans due to some minor little hiccups with their credit card donations. You know, a minor little thing like accepting donations without proper verification, which could open the door to fraud, accepting foreign donations for American elections, and…I shudder to think of it…funding another Nickelback album.
To my Canadian readers, replace “Nickelback” with “Lizzo.”
This concern was shared by others outside of Republican circles because of the implications, so it wasn’t just a conservative talking point. But the fact this fundraising organization would let such a huge security risk go by without so much as a sideways glance would raise some red (or in this case blue) flags.
Then, there’s the whole bail thing, I referenced earlier.
Recently, ActBlue has been in the news for not the best of reasons. For example, several senior executives resigned in the span of a couple of weeks, throwing the organization into turmoil. In fact, that’s exactly how the New York Times termed it, and if they’re calling it out, you know it’s gotta be a complete flaming shitshow! And there’s nothing that instills more confidence that an organization is to have a lot of long-time and high profile figures disappear in a cartoon cloud of dust.
Now, ActBlue and it’s charity arm are being accused of funding organizations linked to terror groups and I’m not talking about “The Squad.” With the aforementioned security issues, ActBlue has a major headache on its hands.
And now ActBlue is being implicated in a recent rash of attacks on Tesla products. Elon Musk alleged five ActBlue funded groups are responsible for these attacks, resulting in vandalism and property damage. So far, it’s just an accusation at this point, so for legal purposes I can’t say they’re guilty and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law to the point it would make the lawfare waged against Donald Trump look like traffic court.
Did I say that out loud? Sorry. Please don’t sue me.
As much as I enjoy watching ActBlue get the kabob treatment, a lot of the damage has already been done. By using the law to their advantage and skirting security measures, it has been a Leftist fundraising juggernaut, helping to advance causes and politicians that hurt this country. So, good job, kids!
To be fair, ActBlue is doing what other PACs are doing or may be doing, which is damnation enough as it is. Personally, I don’t care if you’re raising money for Leftist causes or Rightist causes because 1) it’s their rights as Americans, and 2) I’m not donating to them because 3) I’m too damn poor. Where I draw the line is when you’re dealing in shady shit to accomplish your goals. And from the research I’ve done, I get a pretty good feeling ActBlue is shadier than an albino’s favorite outdoor spot.
Yet, the existence of ActBlue calls into question the Left’s calls to curtail “dark money” and big money in general in politics. ActBlue has raised billions of dollars for Leftist causes, so they have a vested interest in keeping them around. On the other hand, Leftists like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth “Chief Running Mouth” Warren brag about how they’re funded by the “little guy,” not the big money donors. (Unless you count Big Pharma, of course.) So, which is it? Do you want to get the money out of politics or do you want to continue with the way things are?
My money is on a third option: allowing money in politics, but only for Leftists.
Regardless, ActBlue has been effective, but may be done in by sloppy security measures. If so, it will be replaced by something or someone else so the cash can keep flowing because that’s the way the grift continues. Kinda depressing when you think about it.
So, do what I do: point and laugh!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Being a Leftist in the second Donald Trump Presidency has to be rough. Not only do you have to deal with knowing the man you’ve tried to sue into oblivion is in the White House again, but you’re whiny pussies on top of it. Because or in spite of this, Leftists have taken up the mantle of being “the resistance,” which gives them a source of inspiration to do things.
Like vandalizing Tesla vehicles.
And with a cable news network giving these actions a resistance tag, it’s bound to empower more Leftists to resist.
On the bright side, it gives me a opportunity to mock them!
resistance
What the Left thinks it means – standing up to the fascist/authoritarian Trump Administration and conservatives
What it really means – Leftist pussies cosplaying as badasses
Back in the heady days of 2017, Leftists were coming off a stunning upset after Trump beat former First Lady, Secretary of State, and general horndog enabler Hillary Clinton. As any mature adult would do, they looked back at the loss, recalibrated their strategy, and came back with a new approach to winning elections.
I’m kidding. They started pretending to be fictional characters.
Whether it was invoking the Rebel Alliance from “Star Wars” or Lord Voldemort from the Harry Potter books (before they decided J. K. Rowling was too toxic for…checking my notes…standing up for biological women against transgender women), the Left went into full-blown delulu mode. This served a few purposes, not the least of which was making themselves into the heroes and, by extension, their actions righteous. This made even their most egregious actions justifiable in their eyes since the “evil” they were fighting against was worse.
Ah, moral relativism. Ain’t it great?
Empowered by their self-righteous indignation, the Left was able to parlay that into action, namely riots…I mean protests. Whether it was the George Floyd protests, Black Lives Matter, or taking over a section of Seattle and setting up an autonomous zone (CHOP/CHAZ for the people playing along at home), Leftists were able to grab attention and headlines.
Oh, and a few criminal charges. You know, for being dumbasses.
With the second Trump Presidency underway, the “resistance” has gone back to their old habits and become assholes again. When they aren’t going after Tesla vehicles (and the people inside them), they’re organizing protests in each state and boycotts. Because nothing sticks it to The Man like…gathering in public areas with signs and not shopping.
Don’t look at me. It doesn’t make any sense to me either.
And that’s pretty much the problem with the resistance we’re seeing these days. The closer you look at it, the less sense it makes. Sure, there are some causes like trans rights, immigration, and whatever the fuck Representative Jasmine Crockett says on any given day, but most of it is a patchwork of smaller causes coming together to fight fascism, authoritarianism, or whatever the fuck Representative Jasmine Crockett says on any given day.
And speaking of faux edgelords, another way the resistance is making itself known is through politicians using vulgarity. Granted, I don’t have a leg to stand on here because I can swear like a sailor with Tourettes sometimes, but then again I’m not Chuck Schumer or Elizabeth “Chief Running Mouth” Warren. Namely, old people. Watching Schumer and Warren do their watered down impression of Andrew Dice Clay while talking about political issues isn’t edgy; it’s cringy as fuck.
And if you’re watching Chuck and Liz, you’re not Betty White. She could pull off being vulgar at an advanced age. You can’t. You’re as edgy as a Nerf ball when you swear just to be swearing.
In other words, keep it up, you two! You’re doing great!
While I’m waiting for Bernie Sanders to break out an f-bomb during a speech, I can see where the resistance is headed: to the same junkyard Occupy Wall Street wound up. Although we still remember the name, they didn’t accomplish anything. I mean, aside from proving Leftists could fuck up a one-step instruction manual when left to their own devices.
The only thing that gives me pause is how violent the Left can get when pushed. Granted, you can push most Leftists pretty far by merely existing, but most of the time they won’t try to fight back. That is, unless they have the advantage. Just ask Kyle Rittenhouse. Even then, they are at a distinct disadvantage because they vastly overestimate their ability to avoid retaliation. The thing about engaging in violent behavior is there is always a chance for the other party to engage in violence right back. Just ask Moldylocks.
And as much as I would like to say Leftists know how to fight, let’s just say they make Pee Wee Herman look like Chuck Norris. And I mean right now, not when the former was…enjoying an adult movie a little too much. Maybe some of the trans women can teach the Left how to fight, provided you use their proper pronouns or else things could get messy.
Just remember, kids, trans women are women. Just bigger, stronger, taller, and overall more masculine women.
There is one constant with any type of Leftist resistance: the Right will always be on the hook for violence. No matter how much blood gets spilled from Leftist attacks, how much intimidation Leftists inflict on others, or how much property gets damaged as a result of one of their temper tantrums, the Right will always be seen as the ones who are most likely to commit violent acts. In fact, Representative Maxine Waters even said Trump wants a civil war to break out.
This is after Leftists vowed to get more aggressive in opposing Trump’s plans. Oh, and the number of Leftists who wanted Trump dead in one form or another.
You sure it’s the Right that’s getting violent? Because I would think you would know, considering the Right has more guns.
In the end, there are very few Leftists who are actual badasses. Seriously, if you can make a Leftist run for a safe space by eating Chik-fil-A in front of them, he/she/it poses no real threat to life and limb. Some “resistance.”
Having said that, the best advice I can give you is to be aware of your surroundings and the situation. Leftists will do anything in their power to get you to react badly to what they say or do. They want you to throw a punch or shove them because then they can claim to be the victims. And as long as there’s at least one more Leftist to corroborate the story, you will be the villain. Don’t give them that satisfaction. Don’t go looking for trouble.
If you must engage, keep a cool head about you. The worst thing you can do to a Leftist who wants to start shit is to not even acknowledge it. Shrug it off and go on with your day. If you want to take your chances, try the Thomas Two-Step Program for Dealing With Leftists.
Step 1: Point
Step 2: Laugh
Do not attempt to do this if you are mobbed by Leftists or the Leftist in question is bigger than you are because physical harm may come to you. If you need to, bring a hoss of a man with you to be your second. That way you’ll not only have some muscle to protect you if the Leftists want to start shit, but also have a witness to counteract the Leftists’ victim narrative.
Plus, you’ll have one other person who can also point and laugh, so triple bonus!
In the end, though, the current Leftist resistance is as dangerous as walking through a Leftist’s gated community with a “Coexist” t-shirt on. At least until they call security on you for trespassing in their neighborhood, but you get the point. And just like the resistances before them, the current one will end up with a lot of assmad Leftists, a lot of side-splitting laughter from the Right, and nothing actually getting done.
Fine by me!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
I am happy to announce our long national nightmare is over. As of Monday, March 3rd, we…finally have a new Secretary of Education! Although I doubt we’re going to see steel cage matches at Cabinet meetings (then again, this is the Don’t Give A Fuck Trump we’re dealing with here, so I can’t write it off completely), Secretary Linda McMahon might do something even more awesome: getting rid of the Department of Education.
While Leftists worry about how their scam…I mean money laundering…I mean direction for public education will impact the country, some of us (like your humble correspondent) are just saving up our money to spend at the DOE fire sale that will come about if Secretary McMahon can make good on her promise.
With public education coming under more scrutiny in the past few years, a little more scrutiny of the federal government’s role in it is warranted. And since we don’t have any experts on the payroll, you’re stuck with me.
I’m sorry. Or you’re welcome. You know, whichever.
Department of Education
What the Left thinks it means – a vital part of the government charged with ensuring the quality of American education
What it really means – a dumpster fire fueled by waste, corruption, and Leftist incompetence
Although the shitshow that is the Department of Education is relatively recently, its history goes back a while. Thanks to Andrew Jackson, the department came into being in 1867, so we have another thing he could have been impeached for. But it wasn’t until 1979 that the Department of Education became a Cabinet post. This meant two things: 1) DOE staffers could finally access the White House salad bar more than once, and 2) it became a far heavier hitter than it was before.
And that made it a target for lobbyists, especially teachers unions.
Since then, we’ve seen a strange inverse relationship. We keep spending more on education, but getting worse results. In spite of this, Leftists keep insisting more money needs to get spent because…well, they haven’t figured that part out yet, but I’m sure they’ll get to it. And I’m sure the Department of Education will get right on that.
Wait. You mean they’re too busy taking policy cues from teachers unions to do anything about it? Oh, silly me!
And therein lies a problem. When you have the ear of a powerful entity who will do what you want, you’re going to keep pushing the envelope more than a postal employee working straight commission. That leads to the organization moving away from the main reason it was established and moving towards whatever the unions want regardless of whether it helps the people they claim to be representing.
And if the Department of Education were in a BDSM relationship with teachers unions, it would definitely be the bottom. (Author’s Note: if you don’t know what I’m talking about, you’re better off not knowing.)
But where do politics enter into the picture? Many educators lean so far Left they could stand on the ground and be parallel to it at the same time. So, if they want the Leftist point of view to dominate the classroom, they have a vested interest in keeping the Department of Education in line with their vision. And how do you keep that happening? Why, voting for fellow Leftists! Oh, and attacking anyone who wants to throw a spanner in the works.
That explains the anti-DOGE sentiment with the Left, come to think of it. But I’m sure it’s just a coincidence.
One thing the Left had going for it was parental ignorance. For a looooooooong time, parents really didn’t pay attention to what their children were learning. Sure, you’d see a conservative mother complaining once in a while over a math question that involved unnecessary race elements, but these were the exception not the rule.
Then COVID happened. With public schools being shuttered tighter than a wet prostitute’s dress, parents had to take a more hands-on approach and got a chance to see what passed for education these days. To put it lightly, they weren’t happy. Out of this came groups like Moms for Liberty who (despite being labeled extremist by the dipshits at the Southern Poverty Law Center) had a core belief that parents have a say in public education. How radical!
And I mean that in the 80s sense, kids.
Although Ronald Reagan and other Republican Presidents have called for the abolition of the Department of Education, it’s always been a pipe dream, thanks in large part to the media repeating Leftist squawking points (because, well, the media are Leftists, too). Plus, the Department of Education has been such a part of our societal conscience that it’s hard to imagine what it would be like not to have it around.
That’s where I come in.
I am one of those folks who was educated while the modern Department of Education was a gleam in a bureaucrat’s eye. Granted, it was around the time when dinosaurs roamed the Earth, but I kept my cave drawings to refer to here. Up through the 4th grade, school was the way it was presented to me, but by the 5th grade, I noticed a subtle change.
And it involved the Pledge of Allegiance.
In the 4th grade, my class would recite the Pledge every day without fail. It became a part of the school day, one that I didn’t fully appreciate at the time because I was a dumb kid. Then in 5th grade…we just didn’t do it anymore. It wasn’t the lack of the Pledge that caused the slide in educational quality, mind you, but it was the touchpoint where I noticed things were changing. Being the youngest of three boys also gave me an insight into what my older brothers learned, and even then I noticed the stuff I was learning wasn’t as extensive as it was with them.
And judging from the advent of Common Core math, standards have gone down further than a toboggan run down the Grand Canyon.
With results like what we’ve seen since the Department of Education became a Cabinet post, why should we keep it around? No matter what excuse Leftists come up with to keep it on the payroll, the results we’re getting aren’t worth the money we’re spending to get them. Something has to change.
Many parents have looked to homeschooling and private schools as potential fixes, and they’re not wrong. Call me crazy (and you wouldn’t be wrong to do so), but it seems the further away from Washington the control of education gets, the better it gets. And, really, you’re not going to find a federal bureaucrat who will give as much of a shit about the students at your local school than you do. Even if you don’t have a kid in school, you kinda feel like you owe it to them to support the school in some fashion because a) you want the best for the kids, b) you want to set a good example, and c) you’re not a complete shithead.
And this is the best reason to give the Department of Education the rhetorical Tombstone Piledriver. The closer the parents are to the people making the decisions, the more of a reason the decision-makers have to listen. And if someone has a torch and pitchfork concession on the way, you can shop locally, so win-win! You may run into the same hassles you do now with teachers unions and their political lackeys, but the bureaucracy will be far easier to navigate, and you won’t have to fight DC traffic unless you live there.
So, if you haven’t guessed by now, I’m all behind Secretary McMahon’s goal to lead the Department into oblivion. And that’s the bottom line ’cause Stone Cold said so!
And by Stone Cold, I mean me.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
This week has been a goldmine for content, but not if you’re on the Left. Seems one of their favorite sinkholes…I mean news networks is having to make some cutbacks, including the firing of some on-air talent like Joy Ann Reid.
Sorry. I have to take a moment to let the laughter subside at using “talent” and “Joy Ann Reid” in the same sentence.
Several hours later…
Okay, I’m back. Now where was I? Oh yes, talking about MSNBC! Because I’m a giving person, I want to give it the attention it deserves and the audience it is sorely lacking. With the tens and tens of my readers out there, I can see their ratings skyrocket!
So let’s get into it.
MSNBC
What the Left thinks it means – a valuable cable news source full of diverse opinions and smart analysis
What it really means – the Air America of cable news
As a recovering journalism student and a child of the 70s and 80s, I was there when cable news really became a fixture in the reporting game. Yes, back in the days when various hair products gave us hairstyles that were hard enough to take a sledgehammer to without a single strand being out of place, cable news was a bit of an oddity at first because we weren’t sure just how much news there could be on any given day. Sure, if you had a couple of high profile stories, you might be able to stretch it out over an hour or two, but 24 hours?
Well, that’s why God made filler content.
As cable news found out you could make any story run for hours by a) reporting it, b) analyzing it, c) bringing in panelists to analyze it, and d) repeating the cycle, more people decided to jump in the pool. Nowadays, cable news is dominated by Fox News, with CNN and MSNBC not so close behind. Fox News’s popularity is understandable, as they seem to have the hot newsreader demographic on lockdown. CNN is a shadow of its former self, both in content, quality, and ratings.
That brings us to MSNBC. They are the number two cable news network (both literally and figuratively), and they have a loyal following. And so did Charlie Manson, but that’s besides the point. With Donald Trump coming back into the White House like a wrecking ball, one would think they would be set up nicely to rake in the money bashing the President left and, well, further left.
You would think that, but these are Leftists we’re talking about here. They tend to make money in spite of themselves, and MSNBC is no different. If you are an opposition network when a President from a particular party is in power, it’s practically a license to print money. Fox News did it under Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Brick Tamland, and MSNBC kinda did under George W. Bush and the first Trump Presidency.
There is one slight problem with that, however: the potential lack of crossover watchers. The harder you lean into a particular ideology, the harder it gets to get viewers outside of that ideology. Fox News gets away with it because, well, hot newsreaders, but MSNBC is a bit harder of a sell. I mean, who wants to listen to a bunch of unattractive smug assholes complaining all the time? If I wanted to do that, I could just go to a Leftist rally.
And in some cases, my attendance would double the attendance.
Just look at their prime time line up. Aside from Rachel “I’m Only Here One Night a Week But Still Manage to Rake in $25 Million a Year” Maddow, who else is there? Lawrence O’Donnell, whose inability to grow an audience is only surpassed by his contemptuous arrogance? Joy Ann Reid…oops! Too soon? Chris Hayes?
Wait. Has anyone seen Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow in the same room at the same time? I’m just asking questions here, kids.
And that’s pretty much the list of heavy hitters MSNBC has. Everyone else, including Al Sharpton, is either washed up or a virtual unknown. I’ve seen SyFy movies with more star power. And when you’re dealing with attracting an audience, you need more than an ideological connection.
The other thing that hurts MSNBC is repetition. If you watch Rachel Maddow (and for God’s sake why would you), you’re going to get the same perspective, sometimes even down to the same squawking points, on another show. And another show. And another show. And…well, you get the picture. The lack of variety tends to bore an audience.
Now, before you say “Faux News does the same thing, idiot,” let me remind you Fox News does bring on Leftists in prominent (and more watched) shows to offer opinions, as wrong-headed as they are. MSNBC typically doesn’t, or when they do it’s self-styled Republicans who are so far left they make Karl Marx look like Ronald Reagan. Not quite the same thing, kids. It’s closer to what the kids like to call “controlled opposition.”
The MSNBC business model reminds me of the Leftist attempt at talk radio, Air America. If you don’t remember it, be glad. I’ve talked about it before, so I’ll be brief here. Air America tried to create a Leftist talk radio network by taking the right wing radio network model and just putting in Leftists. And it worked about as well as you’d think.
And who had a show on both Air America and MSNBC? Rachel Maddow. Dun dun DUNNNNNNNNNN!
Okay, that has nothing to do with anything. Moving on…
The bad news for MSNBC right now is it’s not as much of a cash cow as it once was and should be given Trump Presidency 2: Electric Boogaloo. There are going to be more cuts coming, and it’s going to affect more and more people. And you thought corrupt politicians sweat a lot when the Epstein Files got released! But there is a way out, one that CNN is trying to do and having marginal success doing.
Try reporting the fucking news with some balance.
Sure, you’ll lose the hardcore MSNBC audience who counts on you to feed them the misinformation they want to hear, but you’ll gain a little credibility in the process. Not much, I grant you since, well, you’re MSNBC, but it might make for an interesting experience for you all. Not every idea that comes from your hivemind is a good one (see Harris/Walz 2024), and not every idea that comes from outside of your hivemind is a bad one (see DOGE). By opening your ideological lens a little wider and giving different perspectives equal footing, I guarantee you’ll find solid footing again.
Just in time for Elon Musk to buy your sorry network.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
For those of you who don’t know, I studied journalism in college. And in my defense, I was young, dumb, and in love. Now, I’m old, dumb, and in love, but that’s besides the point.
I bring up that therapy-inducing memory to ease you into this week’s Lexicon entry involving journalism. During my studies, the Associated Press was one of the gold standards in the news game and was generally considered a neutral source of information. Oh, how times have changed.
This past week (please check local listings for the week in your area) the AP broke the cardinal sin of journalism by becoming the story rather than reporting it. And it’s all over a body of water, the Gulf of Mexico/America. President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order renaming the Gulf, but the AP refused to acknowledge it. As a result, the White House barred an AP reporter from an Executive Order signing ceremony and other events and trips on Air Force One, which of course lead to the AP suing members of the Trump Administration for the act.
And you thought high profile divorces were messy.
Anyway, for its efforts to gain my attention, let’s take the Associated Press on a tour of Leftist Lexicon Land!
the Associated Press
What the Left thinks it means – a trusted news source and vibrant defender of the free press
What it really means – another water carrier for the Left, this one masquerading as a wire service
To complete my old curmudgeon cosplay, I must invoke the “back in my day” power.
Back in my journalism days, there was an expectation of neutrality in news reporting because journalists at the time believed personal biases would get in the way of the public interest. This commitment to serving the public before advancing an agenda is what helped build a stronger, more intelligent society.
Then Watergate happened. The country’s eyes were opened to the dirty corners of our halls of power, and it created a rise in the interest of journalism as a form of activism. Now, instead of just reporting the news, reporters would seek out the news related to a particular evil they wanted to expose and uproot.
There is nothing inherently wrong or unethical in this, mind you. But it opens the reporter up to letting emotions (and possibly greed) taint the end result. Yes, you’re still trying to meet the public need for information, but you also have a personal stake in the outcome. That leads to potential conflicts of interest.
Not that modern journalism has any problems with that. This may come as a surprise to you, but our media sources tend to lean left more than a runner trying to avoid getting tagged out at first during a pickoff attempt. In other news, the Chicago Cubs are already eliminated from post season play before spring training, but that’s not important right now. By taking a side, journalism has gone from being watchdogs to lapdogs, and as much as I love lapdogs, I would prefer journalists play it straight.
The Associated Press used to do that, but has since moved more towards the Left, as slight as some think it has. Even if it’s considered to be factual and, thus, credible, the bias still poses a problem because it can lead to misinformation.
Of course, the AP and its defenders will say it’s fighting against misinformation through fact checks, even the slightest implication that is supported by an extrapolation of the fact checks they do can be misinformation in and of itself. Take the fact checks the AP does and who tends to be the target of those fact checks, namely conservatives. Leftists claim fact checkers have to do more fact checking on the Right because they lie all the time, but there’s one tiny problem with that.
It’s a little thing the kids like to call confirmation bias. When you have a set of beliefs as we all do, you tend to reject information that contradicts those beliefs and accept information that conforms to them. So, when a certain allegedly credible source of journalism decides to fact check the Right more than the Left, that gives the impression that…wait for it, kids…the Right lies more than the Left.
But it also gives the impression the AP covers up the lies of the Left more frequently.
Of course, Leftists and the AP would never admit that because it would expose the misinformation they both agree with, but that’s that’s neither here nor there. The point is the AP has a credibility problem.
Which brings us to their lolsuit. (And, no, that’s not a typo.)
The AP is arguing their ban violates the First and Fifth Amendments, more specifically the freedom of the press and due process, specifically. Not to be pedantic, but both arguments are bullshit to anyone with even a Schoolhouse Rock level of Constitutional knowledge. Or anyone who can read, which might be over the journalism class’s pay grade, but here we go.
The freedom of the press argument doesn’t work because of five little words from the First Amendment. Sing along if you know the words:
Congress shall make no law
Since this beef is between the White House and the AP, Congress doesn’t have a role and, thus, the First Amendment doesn’t apply. Even if you accept the notion freedom of the press is being violated by the Administration, there is a secondary problem, that being access. Just because you’re a reporter doesn’t give you a VIP pass to go where you want for a story. You see, the freedom of the press doesn’t equate to a right to access. What the AP’s First Amendment argument tries to do is establish they have a right to be where the President is.
Of course, if I were advising the legal team defending the Administration officials, I would limit that access to only when the President is in the can, but that’s just me.
More to the point, the press pool tends to be rotated and cover various beats, so the AP being excluded from certain events isn’t as egregious as they want you to think it is. And what’s more, there are these things called pool reporters who compile the news from multiple sources and pass it along to those media outlets who didn’t get the luck of the press pool draw. This doesn’t impede the AP’s ability to distort…I mean report the news, so there is no violation.
In short, get that weak-sauce shit outta here, AP!
Now for the Fifth Amendment. Let’s start with the text itself.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness agThe ainst himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The AP’s argument in this case is based on the “due process of law” element, suggesting their ban was put in place without being allowed a day in court. Aside from all the reasons I cited above as far as access, there’s also another pedantic but vital detail: there is no allegation of a crime. This whole thing, as fucking stupid as it is, surrounds the name of a body of water. Even if the Gulf of Mexico self-identifies as the Gulf of America, it matters not. The AP isn’t being denied due process so much as it’s being denied a spot at the table over a disagreement outside of any legal constructs.
No allegation of crime? No violation of due process.
Checkmate, bitches.
Of course, the AP and its defenders will try to argue the contrary and may actually score a court victory depending on which Leftist judge gets a chance to shit on the Constitution to give them a victory over the Evil Orange Man. Which will give them reason to crow…at least until the case makes it to the Supreme Court or gets laughed out of court by a judge who reads beyond an AP reporter’s grade level.
How the mighty have fallen. From globally trusted news source to the punchline of a blogger’s weekly journey into Leftist madness.
Seems they’re getting off a little light, don’t you think?
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.