When you really think about it (and I do because my social life makes the Amish look like Charlie Sheen), there are a lot of logistical pieces in motion with any deportation process. For one, where do we keep the alleged illegal immigrants while they await their day in court? I have some ideas, but I’m not sure the Leftists crying about “due process” would like them.
Let’s just say they would get to know the illegal immigrants up close and personal.
But where there is a challenge, America finds a way to address it. In this case, we opened a new detention facility in Florida called “Alligator Alcatraz.” Even though it hasn’t been open for very long, it’s already garnering a lot of controversy, from allegations of detainee mistreatment to, and I wish I wasn’t making up, selling merch. Some Leftists have already started calling it “Alligator Auschwitz” because “Trump is literally Hitler” or some shit.
Either way, I would be remiss in my bloggy duties if I didn’t cover this in some fashion, so here we go!
Alligator Alcatraz
What the Left thinks it means – a concentration camp for people who are accused of not being here legally because of their skin color
What it really means – an outgrowth of the Left’s approach to illegal immigration
If the past couple of months has told us anything, it’s that the Left hasn’t met an illegal immigrant they don’t like. And the worse the criminal, the better. Under the watchful eye of President Brick Tamland, illegal immigration blew up more than Rosie O’Donnell with an allergic reaction. Such a large influx not only created strains on our social safety net, but created a nightmare for anyone who tried to enforce the law.
So, that’s why Leftists chose to ignore the law. Well, that, and they’re power hungry assholes, but still.
And under President Tamland, the scheme worked perfectly. More illegal immigrants came into the country with only a fraction of them or the ones already here being returned. All the Left needed to do was not to pick bumbling idiot to be the head of the 2024 ticket.
But, they did it anyway.
Now that there’s a new sheriff in town, there’s been more of a concerted effort to deport illegal immigrants, especially ones who have committed heinous crimes like human trafficking, smuggling, abuse, even murder. And that’s not exactly a small number, kids. This change in approach created a new set of headaches in order to deport the bad apples by the book.
Of course, my idea to use them to test the range of catapults was soundly rejected, but not for a lack of effort. Missed opportunities, I guess.
Anyway, the legal process requires the accused get their days in court, but considering the immigration courts move only slightly faster than continental drift, there came the need to house the accused in the meantime. This is where sites like Alligator Alcatraz come into play.
Now, this next part may be hard for Leftists to understand, so I’ll try to be as clear as I can. These facilities aren’t meant to be the Ritz Carlton. They’re going to be bare bones and intended to keep the bad guys inside. It’s not meant to be nice; it’s meant to be such a deterrent that people with an IQ above the number of people who still think Bluesky could become the next Social Media Platform Formerly Known As Twitter won’t want to go there.
As bad as it’s meant to be, we still have at least some standards to maintain. Meals, sanitation, access to legal counsel, the potential for buggery, and other essentials, for example. This is where the Left says Alligator Alcatraz falls short. Allegations of worms in food to large insects to a lack of sanitary conditions came flooding in faster than illegal immigrants under President Tamland.
This is where my bullshit meter starts going off. A lot. Some of the complaints like large bugs to sweltering temperatures can be explained simply: it’s fucking Florida. Some of the others, like the allegations of worms in the food, seem too horrible to be real. And when you consider Alligator Alcatraz had food trucks come onto the site, I’m going to say the claims of worms in the food might be exaggerated.
Unless those worms were of the gummy variety.
Another reason I have to call bullshit on many of the claims being made about conditions at Alligator Alcatraz is who is making them and who is reporting them. The source for the allegations is detainees. On the surface, they would be the best people to report on conditions inside the facility, but there’s one tiny hitch.
They’re fucking criminals.
Criminals from pickpockets to mass murderers all deal in some level of deceit, especially when they get caught. Nobody’s ever guilty. They’re all the victims of circumstance or a miscarriage of justice. Even if they’re caught red handed, they’ll say “It wasn’t me” more often than Shaggy.
In other words, they have a vested interest in lying. Not unlike the media covering the controversy, who have a vested interest in making anything related to Trump into the worst possible thing ever. I haven’t been able to confirm this independently, so take it with a grain of salt, but if what I’ve heard is true, there have been zero journalists who have been inside Alligator Alcatraz. That means the only source for these stories are those with a predisposition to lie.
Fucking brilliant.
And don’t get me started on the whole “Alligator Auschwitz” shit. Calling the facility a concentration camp, even in jest, is not just factually wrong, but grossly inappropriate. What’s more, none of the Leftists making these kind of remarks has stepped foot inside of Alligator Alcatraz, so they’re speaking out of their asses.
You know, like any other day.
Of course, this is done to play up the “Trump is literally Hitler” angle…again. At this point, the Left has invoked Nazis more than the History Channel and on far less justifiable grounds. And at least the History Channel has “Forged In Fire” which kicks all kind of ass, unlike Leftists.
Having said all that, I have a bone to pick with the way the Right is acting when it comes to Alligator Alcatraz. And by bone, I mean an entire fucking T Rex skeleton.
To some on the Right (I’m looking at you, Laura Loomer), this is all one big joke with alligators eating illegal immigrants as the punchline. This isn’t a joke, folks. These are still human beings. Yes, human beings who have committed a shitload of crimes against others, but human beings nonetheless. Their detainment shouldn’t be used as fodder for t-shirts, tacky souvenirs, and happy photo ops. It should be treated with the seriousness of the situation. The more you don’t, the easier it gets for the Left to paint you as inhuman monsters devoid of any decency whatsoever.
Not that they don’t already think that, mind you, but don’t give them the ammunition to keep doing it.
I see Alligator Alcatraz much like I see DOGE: a decent idea executed poorly. But it’s not the concentration camp the Left wants us to think it is, nor is it the Disneyland with more MS-13 members the Right wants us to think it is. It’s a metaphor for how fucked up we’ve gotten as a society. Yes, we need to find places to detain illegal immigrants while they get due process, but this may not be the way to go. Instead, send them to be with people who will truly appreciate the cultural gifts they bring to the country.
That’s right. Let’s send them to Beverly Hills.
Category: Justice
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
There was a time in our nation’s history when we were scared of communists and what they were capable of doing. The less psychologically grounded of us saw communists everywhere from school boards to boxes of breakfast cereal. (I knew there was something off about the sun on the Raisin Bran box!) Then, we realized communists were less threatening than a Nerf marshmallow (and only slightly less appetizing) and the “Red Scare” was over.
Now, the people who laughed at the “Red Scare” have a scare of their own: they see fascism everywhere. It’s gotten so all-encompassing, Leftists have resurrected a Nazi term to describe law enforcement officers, that being the Gestapo. Although I’m not sure what a chilled vegetable-based soup has to do with anything…wait, that’s gazpacho. Never mind.
Since there’s not much to talk about with gazpacho, let’s look at the Gestapo instead.
the Gestapo
What the Left thinks it means – the group of fascist enforcers oppressing minorities
What it really means – an overused term designed to defame law enforcement doing its job
Back in the days of Nazi Germany, there were numerous enforcement arms to keep order and beat back opposition. One of these was the Secret State Police, or Gestapo. To put it mildly, they were not nice people. Surely, anyone who gets called the Gestapo would be guilty of the same atrocities, if not worse and/or more, right?
Wellllllll…that’s stretching things more than Reed Richards at a yoga retreat.
Remember, the Left has been calling Republicans Nazis for decades. That includes Mitt Romney, who is the human equivalent of dry white toast. And the same Mitt Romney Leftists praised for standing up to President Trump. What a difference a decade makes.
Well, that, and a new villain for the Left to turn into Hitler 2.0.
Of course, this is by design. Leftists love to paint themselves as the last line of defense between democracy and authoritarianism, even as they resort to authoritarianism to “defend” democracy. But since they’re on the “right side of history” it’s okay to be utter hypocrites apparently.
With increased scrutiny on illegal immigration, the Left’s new favorite fascist straw men are ICE agents. After all, they’re…let me check my notes here…enforcing immigration laws. Those bastards!
To any rational person with a semblance of knowledge about the illegal immigration issue right now, the ICE/Gestapo comparison makes as much sense as anything Queen Kamala the Appointed says. But that hasn’t stopped the Left from making the comparison whenever possible.
And speaking of Queen Kamala, her stumbling mate Governor Tim “I’m a Football Coach and Don’t Know What a Pick Six Is” Walz was one the voices making the connection. At a recent Oversight Committee meeting, Democrats kept hammering this comparion like they were carpenters working straight commission. If I didn’t know better, I would think they were anti-law enforcement! I mean, didn’t the Left say attacks on law enforcement were signs of being traitorous anti-Americans?
Oh, wait. That was the FBI.
When FBI agents started to go after President Trump, the Left cheered. Doesn’t matter whether the charges were more full of shit than Port-A-Potties at a music festival catered by Chipotle, what mattered was the FBI was just going their jobs in enforcing the law. And why not? I mean, it’s not like FBI personnel were giving money to Democrats…oh, wait…
Surely I can’t be the only one to see the irony here. Leftists who bent over backwards to defend the FBI against accusations of political biases by invoking the “just doing their jobs” line are now getting their collectivist panties in a wad over ICE agents doing their jobs. I wonder what could be different?
Oh, yeah, they’re not in charge of ICE anymore. It’s under the leadership of the Trump Administration, which is totes full of fascists because shut up fascist. And since they’re totes fascists, ICE is the Gestapo!
Except…they’re not. If you pay attention to the video footage (which I do because I make stamp collectors look like extreme athletes), there’s no torture, no cases of excessive and unjustified violence, nothing anywhere near the level of actions the actual Gestapo took. It’s political hyperbole cranked up to 948, only because the Left’s dials don’t go up to 950 yet.
Normally, we could chalk this up to politicians being bullshitters, but these aren’t normal times. In fact, we may have blown past the exit to normal a few light years back and we’ve turned off the GPS telling us to turn the fuck around.
In recent years, support for political violence against opponents has risen on both sides of the gulf between parties and ideologies. In case I haven’t made myself crystal clear on this, political violence is a non-starter with me, regardless of who is the target. This is how terrible shit starts, shit you shouldn’t wish on your worst enemies because it tends to boomerang at some point. Not to mention, it makes you look like a total douchecanoe.
With the Left’s framing of ICE as the modern day Gestapo, they’re encouraging, if not out and out justifying, violence against ICE agents. Invariably, this is going to make some Leftists froggy, so when they jump, they’re going to be met with force. Then, the Left will decry the violence against peaceful protesters (who just happen to be looting, burning, and assaulting people other than ICE agents) and gin up support to fight back against the “Gestapo” just like their WWII-era relatives did.
One tiny problem with that. Well, more than one, but this is the one I want to mention here. You see, political violence against the opposition is part and parcel of the 14 characteristics of fascism as observed by Umberto Eco, or at the very least an outgrowth from them.
In other words, Leftists are trying to out-fascist the people they claim are the fascists because democracy or something.
And given how many times Leftists have supported rioting, looting, arson, and the like within the past 5+ years (I’m looking at you, BLM), it’s not out of the realm of belief that they’re okay with the current anti-ICE riots going on in California right now. After all, they’re on the “right side of history” according to them. Of course, if they knew history to begin with, they wouldn’t be trying to downplay the violence they’re explicitly and implicitly encouraging.
But no matter how much the Left cries “Gestapo” in lieu of “Wolf” it’s still bad optics that will only encourage more people to support ICE in the short term, and possibly the long term. The longer the chaos in California continues, the more people are going to support efforts to stop it.
Especially if they pull a real dick move and do something like mocking a working mother trying to get to work while these overgrown toddlers “protest.” But I’m sure no Leftists would be that fucking dumb, right?
Never mind.
Keep doing what you’re doing, Leftists. I’m sure being on the wrong side of public opinion will work this time!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With the illegal immigration situation heating up under President Donald Trump, the Left has taken it upon itself to try to keep him in check. So far, that’s been limited to supporting vi0lent criminals connected to existing gangs, crying “due process” at the drop of a hat, helping illegal immigrants avoid ICE agents, and the like. And they’ve been successful…in looking like dumbfucks.
But recently some Leftists decided to push the issue at a New Jersey ICE facility under the auspices of oversight. Now, as a Congresswoman has been charged with assault against an ICE agent and other Congresscritters starting a hand-wringing letter writing campaign, I can officially say they’ve succeeded in out-dumbfucking themselves.
Not all is lost, however. Not only to we get the chance to laugh at the absurdity of the situation, but we also get a chance to further examine what oversight is. (Okay, so the former may be better than the latter, but work with me, people!)
oversight
What the Left thinks it means – making sure the Executive Branch is doing what it should, no matter what it takes
What it really means – a concept that has escaped the federal government some time ago
The first question we should ask ourselves is “What does Thomas look like naked?” After throwing up the last 3 days of contents in our stomachs, we can move to a more relevant and less vomit-inducing question: who has the power of oversight and where does it come from? To answer the second question first, when a Mommy and a Daddy really love each other…
No, wait, that’s a different question. Never mind.
The power of oversight resides with Congress as an extension of Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the US Constitution. I say it’s an extension because it’s not really codified in the Constitution and came from where all good ideas start, the Supreme Court. In Anderson v. Dunn, a unanimous High Court ruled Congress had the authority to conduct oversight as a means to uphold its rules. Not a bad ruling overall, but it had the potential to be abused.
Like we’re seeing now.
These days oversight has been mostly a joke played on us by both major parties. Instead of keeping the Executive Branch in check, Congress has decided meaningless hearings and endless investigations that lead nowhere is the order of the day. Even when the evidence is so obvious even Stevie Wonder could see it, we’re treated to a lot of sound and fury, signifying…well, less than nothing.
How many times have we watched Congresscritters preen before the cameras with gotcha questions and more interruptions than Mel Tillis with the hiccups, only to have nothing get done as a result? Lois Lerner, Hillary Clinton, Peter Strzok, Anthony Fauci, and so many others (albeit most of them tend to swing to the Left) get grilled, found to make contradictory statements (also called lying) under oath, get exposed as frauds, and then…they get to walk out without so much as a wrinkle in their dress clothes. The aforementioned Mr. Wonder has better oversight.
This is due to one thing both major parties hold dear: not giving a fuck. When Republicans are in power, they don’t give a fuck about oversight because then they’ll be under the microscope when Democrats are in power, and vice versa. After all, if all the criminal behavior in the halls of power are exposed, the country as a whole could lose faith in our government.
Or as I call it, any given Tuesday.
Although I have to give props to the Congressional Democrats who decided to put oversight into hyperdrive, they made two key mistakes. First, Congressional oversight doesn’t extend to anyone who isn’t in Congress. That means Newark Mayor and potential gubernatorial candidate Ras Baraka doesn’t get to use it to cover his trespassing. Oops. In an attempt to come up with a suitable punishment for Mayor Baraka, I have the following solution: have him remain Mayor of Newark, New Jersey.
Second, and this is important, it doesn’t excuse you from any crimes committed while you’re doing this oversight. You know…like, oh I don’t know…physically assaulting people. Although potential fistfights in Congress is an entertaining prospect, we can’t let a legitimate (albeit underused) power devolve into violence. At least not until I can secure the Pay Per View rights and a cut of the concessions.
Now, before you Leftists continue to downplay the events and turn the Congresscritters involved into heroes, let me ask you a question. Why is it this same passion isn’t being tapped into when a Democrat is in the Oval Office? And the same goes for Republicans when there’s a Republican President. The very nature of politics is shady shit, so it behooves you to keep your house in order if for no other reason than to get a leg up on your competition.
Oh, and there’s the whole strengthening the tattered fabric of this country thing, too.
There’s a reason Congressional approval ratings are more underwater than the Titanic, and not even a Leonard DiCaprio/Kate Winslet vehicle with a Celine Dion song attached to it is going to fix it. For this situation to right itself, Congress has to take oversight a lot more seriously. Not to the extent of attacking ICE agents, mind you, but closer to holding bad actors accountable, regardless of which side of the political aisle they belong.
And that means no more endless investigations and multiple hearings without consequences. If you find out someone you’re investigating broke the law, charge his/her ass! It’s going to make the judicial system in the DC area work overtime and the prisons might be a bit overcrowded, but it’s worth it if only to keep the people we elect to high office in check, even if we can’t vote them out due to them having war chests the size of the combined GDP of third world countries.
Hey, if the Chicago Cubs can win a World Series in my lifetime, anything is possible!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
In my 55 years of kicking around this ball of rock and water we call Planet Earth, I’ve seen some pretty amazing things. The first Space Shuttle flight. The Berlin Wall coming down. Internet porn…not that I know anything about that, mind you. But this past week, I saw something that caused me to almost swallow my face.
Leftists finally found asylum seekers they didn’t support.
President Donald Trump granted refugee status to white South Africans who were fleeing racial oppression at the hands of their government. So far a whopping 59 white South Africans came to America. And, predictably, the Left lost its collectivist shit over it trying to explain it away through cries of “racism” in lieu of “wolf” and whataboutism to the extent my Bullshit-O-Meter overloaded.
At the heart of this controversy is our asylum process. To put it mildly, it’s more fucked up than having Hunter Biden as an accountability buddy/crack dealer. So, naturally, it’s worth exploring further.
asylum
What the Left thinks it means – a means for oppressed people to come to America and seek a better life
What it really means – a process that needs a serious overhaul
To say our immigration policy is more fucked up than Sybil on LSD is an understatement, but we do try to set forth a semblance of a policy. In some cases, a situation is so dangerous or dire that we have to make exceptions to the normal immigration rules. That’s where the asylum process comes into play. Although it’s been abused…I mean used as a catch-all by previous Administrations that will remain nameless (but it rhymes with Slow Mindin’), there are certain criteria that have to be met before it can be granted. And even then, there’s the wonderful world of bureaucracy to deal with, which makes the process even more frustrating and/or dangerous.
This is where the Left gets things wrong when it comes to asylum. As much as “no one is above the law” has become a mantra when it comes to President Donald Trump, the Left believes the law can and should be circumvented for every Tomas, Ricardo, and Jaime that arrives at our southern border without even trying to seek asylum. Although it’s amazing elected officials are ignorant of the laws on the books and the concept that breaking these laws is a crime, it did lead to one of the most epic takedowns in Congressional history.
Oh, and a tip for the gamblers out there. If you ever bet on the number of fucks Tom Homan gives, always bet the under.
This brings us to the current situation involving the white South Africans. President Trump called what they experienced as a “genocide,” which is a gross overstatement and unnecessary given the conditions already in place. However, there are details that can move that needle one way or the other.
It started with a little thing the kids call apartheid. For almost 50 years, white South Africans treated the black population as second-class citizens at best. This was a bad idea, not just because it was racist and stupid, but because the whites were and still are vastly outnumbered. This practice got the boot in the 1990s due in no small part to Nelson Mandela.
Then, something predictable happened: the oppressed became the oppressors. Once black South Africans got into power, the urge to flip the script was too great, and the white South Africans found themselves on the wrong side of the apartheid stick.
Where things get really funky (and not in a Parliament Funkadelic way) is the passage of a law where white South African farmers had to give up portions of their land without compensation because racial justice or something. Even if you think it’s okay given how much property white South African farmers own, the civil libertarian in me (and hopefully in you) says that’s not right. If you own something and any entity takes it from you, you are due compensation of some kind, whether it be monetary, legal, or legislative.
Now, remember the criteria for asylum I referenced and linked earlier? One of them involves persecution or possible persecution on the basis of…race. And, surprise surprise, white South Africans have a pretty good case for that based on the aforementioned land law.
Oh, and there’s the “Kill the Boer. Kill the Farmer.” song popularized by anti-apartheid groups and more recently by Julius Malema, a political leader in South Africa. While Leftists swing between “it’s not about white genocide” and “it could be construed as being in favor of white genocide,” the simplest explanation is…fuck yeah it’s about white genocide, and only fucking dipshits would say it wasn’t!
Oddly enough, the Leftists who think it’s not about white genocide are the same people who take Donald Trump literally whenever he says anything even slightly controversial in a joking manner.
Regardless, the white South Africans have a legitimate case for asylum, so why is the Left complaining if following the law is so important to them? You know, aside from being hypocritical asshats. Fortunately for us, they’ve tipped their hands early and often. It’s all about racism. Sure, Leftists say it’s Trump being racist because he’s allowing white South Africans to get asylum, but it’s the other way around; Leftists want to deny them entry because of their skin color.
Simple enough, but there’s another reason related to the race issue. Leftists have tried to turn racism from hatred of another race (which it is) into hatred of another race with the inclusion of power (which is bullshit). Without going too far into the weeds, let’s just say the Left’s revised version of racism does more to create minority victims than actual racism does, which makes it racist by definition. Funny how that works out, isn’t it?
Why do I mention this? For one, it pads out the Lexicon entry a bit. But more to the point, the situation with the white South Africans puts the Left’s definition of racism on its head. They may own the vast majority of the land, but that in and of itself isn’t power. The power in South Africa is clearly on the side of the black population, so the Left’s dynamic doesn’t work. But since they can’t admit that, they pretend a) it doesn’t exist, b) it’s totes different because reasons, or c) Orange Man Bad!
The problem, of course, is the law itself. Racial persecution is clearly written and is hard to argue against in this case, but dammit the Left is going to try!
Which is why I think we need to overhaul the asylum process when we’re overhauling our immigration system. To the Left’s credit, they are correct that economic issues are a valid reason to consider offering asylum to others, especially if we want to be seen as a land of opportunity. The question becomes where do we draw the line. The way we’ve done it recently is not sustainable and creates a dangerous strain on our social safety net. If we demand these potential asylees bring something worthwhile to the table (i.e. marketable skills, a good work ethic, etc.), we run the risk of looking heartless or driven solely by materialism.
Beyond that, the current asylum process can take years. There’s tons of paperwork, red tape, and contradictory practices to overcome. So, we’re left with the challenge of streamlining the process while keeping as many relevant avenues to asylum open without stretching ourselves too thin.
Good luck with that.
Seriously, the best way I can figure out how to tick all of these boxes is to create a system to separate the different types of asylee claims to maximize the speed at which they can be processed. And with specialization, it’s going to create a stronger knowledge base overall. Instead of having to have 100 people looking at the full gamut of cases, you can have 10 people working on economic asylum requests, another 10 working on racial asylum claims, and so on. Through that process, the groups of 10 are going to gain an intimate understanding of that particular process. Then, if you have a case that covers more than one asylee area, they can be called in to offer their expert opinions.
With everything electronic these days, doing a background check and filling out paperwork can be quicker and easier. It shouldn’t take cutting down a forest for a mountain of paperwork to come here under dire circumstances. There are other reasons to cut down a forest, after all. (Just kidding, environmentalists!) And we can hire some of the Sallie Mae folks to do the background checks, which will guarantee the asylees can be found.
And finally, and this is the hardest part, we need to approach each claim the same: with a healthy mix of optimism and skepticism. Not every asylum claim is truthful, but we can’t assume they’re all fraudulent. It’s going to take some research and knowledge of world events to pick out the bad actors from the legitimately needy.
That eliminates TikTokers.
But it opens the door for people like me who are curious, compassionate, and cynical. In fact, Gen X is gonna be flush with job opportunities for decades to come, so win-win baby!
As far as the white South Africans, welcome to America, where most people will welcome you and those who don’t claim to be all about diversity. Ignore the latter and you’ll be fine. Most of us do, and those who don’t are getting something out of it, like content for a mildly successful weekly blog series written by a handsome, well hung, and incredibly sexy man.
And since you haven’t found that one yet, read mine!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
The Leftist world was all atwitter (or if you prefer all aX) recently with the story of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a poor illegal alien soul who was deported back to his home country of El Salvador, allegedly without due process. Without going too far into the weeds, let’s just say you’re more likely to catch Bernie Sanders flying on a private plane than you are to understanding the ins-and-outs of this case.
Wait. Scratch that.
So, to borrow a phrase from hack comedians, what’s the deal with deportation? It’s a complicated issue that deserves sober thinking to understand the gravitas of the subject. But since I’m already a few beers into this, you’ll have to put up with me.
deportation
What the Left thinks it means – a practice that needs to be done by the book, no matter how long it takes
What it really means – the legal consequence for illegal immigration
Contrary to what Rep. Jasmine Crockett says, illegal immigration is a crime. The law in question is the Immigration and Nationality Act which, along with other laws and regulations, provides direction for the immigration and deportation processes. Seems everything should be in order, right?
Not so much.
Much like Disney with negative reviews of “Snow White,” our political class loves to ignore the laws on the books when they’re inconvenient. And let’s just say the immigration laws are mighty inconvenient to the Left. After all, that’s the use of following immigration laws if they prevent you from ensuring Democrat control? You know, aside from those laws being the fucking laws.
That’s not to say Leftists don’t follow the laws all the time. In fact, one area where they demand the laws be followed to the letter is in…you guessed it, Frank Stallone. Actually, it’s deportation, which is really convenient considering it’s our topic for this Lexicon entry. After allowing people to enter the country through our southern border like wine moms going to a Taylor Swift concert, it’s funny to watch Leftists be such sticklers to the letter of the law.
And by “funny,” I mean calculated.
I know I’ve mentioned our good friend Saul Alinsky so often I could be his agent, but one of his Rules for Radicals applies here: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” Since Republicans believe in the rule of law (unless they find the laws inconvenient for political gain), the Left knows it has them in a box when it comes to immigration. If we have to follow the laws when it comes to stopping illegal immigration, we have to follow the laws when it comes to deportation.
And that’s where Constitutional law comes into play. The US Supreme Court previously ruled all aliens are entitled to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. So, that means regardless of the way they come into the country, they get their day in court.
A noble gesture in theory, but a burden in current practice, thanks to a little thing the Leftist kids like to call the Cloward-Piven Strategy. In short, this strategy is designed to achieve Leftist goals related to poverty by forcing the system to get overwhelmed. And guess how that gets accomplished: illegal immigration.
“But wait, Thomas. Wouldn’t illegal immigrants be ineligible for federal benefits?” you might ask. Or “Are you aware you’re not wearing pants?” The answer to the former is they should be, but thanks to loopholes in the law and soft-hearted and soft-brained politicians (I’m looking at you, Gavin Newsom), they gain access.
So, what does this have to do with deportation? By having to follow due process and the delays caused by so many illegal immigrants being processed over the past few years, the strain to the social safety net continues unabated.
That is, until President Trump got back into the Oval Office and decided to start enforcing immigration law. In the first six weeks, the Trump Administration deported 27,772 illegal immigrants, which is a step in the right direction. Where I think they’ve gone wrong is through fast-tracking the process. Yes, I know this plays into the Cloward-Piven and Alinsky playbooks, but it’s necessary to ensure the Left has no room to bitch. Not that it will stop them, mind you…
Nor will it stop the Left from lying. With the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case alone, we’ve seen attempts from the Left to paint him as an innocent victim denied due process and attempts from the Right to paint him as a gang-banger terrorist who has been legally deported back to his home country of El Salvador. Well, the truth is a bit murkier than these extremes are letting on.
First off, Kilmar Abrego Garcia freely admits he entered the country illegally, but has received a court order preventing him from being deported back to El Salvador out of fear of being attacked by a rival gang. So, not only have we confirmed he’s a member of a gang (MS-13 to be exactly, and I ain’t talking about Microsoft) and that he’s not supposed to be here, but he’s already had due process. But he also has a court order that should have protected him from deportation, as well as a questionable designation as a terrorist.
That means…well, a whole lotta shit, to be honest. If we deport him, we run afoul of the legal process. If we don’t deport him, he will still be affiliated with MS-13 which could put us in mortal danger.
Congratulations. We’re now in Kobayashi Maru territory.
The only way forward is being transparent, follow the law, and, oh yeah, stem the flow of illegal immigration to give the system time to catch up. And guess what the Trump Administration is doing? They’re cracking down, and that’s resulted in reduced encounters at the US/Mexico border. It’s a start, but there’s still a lot more to do.
First of all, let’s stop treating gang members like terrorists. Not only does it set a bad precedent for future Presidents, but it gives Leftists ammunition to call the deportation process into question. And, let’s face it, it’s not exactly the swiftest nor the clearest process in government. Plus, it elevates gang members, which only feeds their egos and gives them enough bravado to commit bigger, more audacious crimes. That, in turn, may cause other gangs to try to play catch-up, making the gang problem even worse.
Second, as much as the Trump Administration wants to rush through the deportation process to get results, we have to play it by the book. It won’t stop Leftists from lying or making gang-bangers look sympathetic figures, but it cuts the due process complaint they have off at the knees. And at the very least, it will make Leftists look like Cotton Hill, which will never fail to make me laugh.
Lastly, it’s long past time we overhaul our immigration and deportation policies. And that requires taking a hard look at our border policies. We can’t keep letting anyone with a sob story (and without paperwork) walk in unexamined while others jump through bureaucratic flaming hoops to gain legal entry. As draconian as Leftists think Trump’s border enforcement may be, it’s working. That gives us time to get our house in order.
If you really think about it (and I have because I’m as boring as an Amish rave), the deportation issues we’re seeing now are an outgrowth from the immigration issue. The more illegal immigrants come into the country, the more deportation orders have to be made once they’re caught. Of course, Leftists will continue to push for sanctuary cities and sanctuary states because, well, they don’t have to deal with the aftermath since they live more in the suburbs than where the illegal immigrants are.
So, let me float this idea, one that I’ve modified from Governors Ron Desantis and Greg Abbott. While they flew illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities and states, I want to send them to the residences of those who insist on being sanctuary cities and states. Preferably, to the houses of those politicians who made those things possible. Maybe that will drive home the point that illegal immigration isn’t something we should encourage.
Or, at the very least, we can point and laugh as we give Leftists exactly what they said they wanted.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
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
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
History has a tendency to repeat itself at times when you least expect it. Or, if you pay attention to Leftist rhetoric (which may be against the Geneva Convention, or at the very least the 2024 Shriners Convention), it happens every time a Republican gets into office. And if you’re not paying attention, you will Nazi this coming.
See what I did there?
In the waning hours of the Brick Tamland Administration, history repeated itself when he announced the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. This sentiment was echoed by Queen Kamala the Unappointed (see what I did there?), Senator Kirsten “I’m Angela from ‘The Office’ Without the Charm” Gillibrand, and Leftist groups like the Center for American Progress. And just like the previous times the Equal Rights Amendment was at the center of conversation, advocates are proclaiming its necessity to ensure equality between/among the sexes.
Yeah, about that…
Equal Rights Amendment
What the Left thinks it means – a ratified Constitutional Amendment necessary to ensure equality of the sexes
What it really means – an irrelevant Constitutional Amendment that Leftists want to enshrine anyway
Although it’s become a hot topic, the Equal Rights Amendment has a bit of a history. It was first proposed in 1923 as part of the women’s suffrage movement. Eventually, the ERA finally came into being as a proposed Amendment in 1972. The wording is as follows:
Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.
This is where things get a little tricky for the ERA. Although it was passed by both houses of Congress, 38 states still had to ratify it, and there was a time limit placed on it. This time frame expired on June 30, 1982. So, that should be the end of it, right?
Ooooh, sor-ray. The Left continued to push for the ERA to be ratified like they would get an ice cream cone after it happened. Well, that explains why Brick Tamland was hot and heavy to get it ratified. Anyway, Virginia ratified the Equal Rights Amendment in January 2020, barely missing the deadline by…let me check my notes here…almost 40 years. So, so close…
In spite of this, the Left continued to push for the ERA to be ratified because a) the conditions were met aside from the time frame, and b) they really wanted women to have equal protection as men. You know, back when they thought there were only two genders? (And at the break, it’s still Genders 2, Leftists 0.)
On the surface, what the ERA stands for is pretty reasonable and a good step. We love people to be treated equally in theory. These days, though, the practice is situational and only when we’re directly impacted. You know, just like when Leftists support police officers until they don’t? And, surprise surprise, the Left is the same way when it comes to women.
The Equal Rights Amendment has become obsolete because society has changed without it. Today, women occupy many high profile positions in business, politics, OnlyFans, and so on. In some areas, they’ve even surpassed men. Maybe it’s just me, but the fact women have these positions shows the ERA is a non-starter. What more equality do women need that isn’t already covered by laws and society?
The quickest answer for the Left is abortion, or as they call it “bodily autonomy” or “health care.” Or maybe they can just call it infrastructure like they did everything else for a time. But even this fails with a cursory knowledge of recent Supreme Court rulings that made abortion a state issue rather than a federal issue. Then, there’s the logic problem. Abortion laws by definition affect women more than men because…and I can’t believe I have to say this in 2025…MEN CAN’T GET PREGNANT. Equality of rights based on sex can’t apply here because there is no equivalent male counterpart to abortion. Oops.
The wage gap? To my knowledge, there are no laws on the books right now mandating women be paid less than men for doing the same job. What’s more, there are already laws and practices on the books that prohibit it, thus the ERA would be a redundancy like having two Leftists scream about the pay gap when none would suffice.
So, this begs the question of why the Left hasn’t done anything substantive about the ERA since the Reagan era. The simple answer? Leftists don’t really give a fuck about women, just their votes and money. The more complex answer? Leftists need women to be victims, even if it’s self-inflicted victimhood. Challenging the ratification status of the ERA or even coming up with another attempt to ratify it when they had control of both houses of Congress was never a top priority to the Leftists in power. After all, we had to save the rare triple breasted albino puddle jumping raven! And how do I know that bird is rare?
Because I just made it up.
Imagine being a Leftist woman and having your equal rights take a back seat to an animal that may or (probably) not affect the world in any way, shape, or form. That should make any sensible Leftist female (a stretch, I know, but I like to dream) pack up shop, take their pink pussy hats, and look for a non-Leftist man to settle down with. But since they think they’re victims of “The Man” or “The Men” or “The Patriarchy,” they stay firmly planted in the back seat and let other causes take all the attention.
And the ERA is part is the mythical carrot that keeps them there.
But there is another angle that few, if any, have explored: the impact the ERA will have on the trans community. While it’s easy and fun to mock the Left’s inability to follow actual science and conclude most people fall into one gender or the other, there is a perverse genius involved. If we accept the Left’s idea that even genders are more complex than they actually are and that there are more that can be claimed merely with an assertion, it throws a lot of things into question.
Like…oh I don’t know…the Equal Rights Amendment.
Once the Left gets a foothold on a legal matter, they will use it as a catapult for other matters only tangentially related to the original matter. That’s how the gay rights movement went from merely asking to be treated like regular people to “bake the cake, bigot.”
I have no hard data to back this up (aside from the fact the Left abandons women like Leonardo DiCaprio does when they turn 25), but having seen how the Left has used other social issues to push an alternate agenda, I can’t rule out the possibility of the ERA being “ratified” by Presidential fiat being used to further their transgender agenda. Or as I am calling it the transgenda.
See what I did there?
Although the Left is going to call the next steps in the ratification process uncertain, that’s only because they know as much about the Constitution as they do about economics: very little, but they’ll still try to convince you otherwise. The fact remains the Equal Rights Amendment had its shot to be ratified within the time limit Congress set and it wasn’t. No matter how many social media posts or proclamations from current and former political figures get made, the ERA is DOA, and it doesn’t l0ok like the Left wants to do the heavy lifting to make it a priority.
Which is fine by me. I’m not a fan of redundancy except when it comes to my jokes and pop culture references, but it’s clear America has moved past the notion that women have only certain societal roles. Now, we can confidently say women can fuck shit up just as well as men can!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
I know, I know, everybody’s talking about Presidential pardons this week, but I’ve never been one to follow the obvious path. Besides, that subject has been done to death, resurrected, done to death again, resurrected again, and done to death a third time.
Instead, I have a riddle for you. What do Donald Trump, Daniel Penny, and Jack Phillips have in common? Aside from being relatively sure they all wear pants, breathe oxygen, and occasionally enjoy a little thing the kids like to call eating, they’re all the victims of lawfare. And, not coincidentally, Leftists also hate them for daring to defy their will.
And when you can’t beat ’em, you sue them…or something like that.
lawfare
What the Left thinks it means – a made-up term used to demean efforts to hold people accountable
What it really means – abusing the legal process to get what the Left wants, one way or another
As I said recently, the Left understands the power of money, even they don’t understand basic economics. And with that knowledge of power, they know how to use it to get what they want. Usually, this is done at the legislative level, but there are times when it moves into the halls of justice.
And not even the Super Friends can get them out.
Meanwhile, back at the main point, lawfare is how the Left uses the power of money to get what they want. With the help of trial lawyers (who tend to be Leftists either out of education or shame at getting paid tons of money to be shitty people), lawfare leverages the power of money and the legal system to dole out punishment.
This is done in one of two ways. First, there’s the gradual erosion of a target’s finances until he/she (because there’s still only two genders) is so poor by the end of the process any monetary judgments in his/her (still only two genders) favor get swallowed up by the fees incurred to fight the fight in the first place. That’s even worse than getting a moral victory.
The other way lawfare works is suing people into capitulation. In this way, the law becomes the punishment for not being a Leftist. Some victims would rather knuckle under when faced with the prospect of a lengthy legal process, so the Left gets what they want. That’s how the ACLU got any showing of Christian faith out of the public school system. I haven’t heard them trying to get Islam out of public schools yet, but I’m sure they’ll get around to it…maybe…you know, after the new year…in the 38th Century.
While we wait, we can take a look at the aforementioned lawfare victims to see the effects it has on them.
Jack Phillips: He is the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, which became Ground Zero for a legal battle over gay rights. When a same-sex couple came in and asked him to bake a cake for them. When Phillips refused, the couple filed a complaint to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission arguing the refusal violated public accommodations laws. After a lengthy process, the US Supreme Court gave Phillips the victory, but that didn’t stop Leftists from continuing to file lawsuits against him and his bakery. And that has cost him time, money, employees, and reputation. All because a gay couple tried to force him to bake a cake against his religious beliefs.
Donald Trump: Where do I begin with this one? When he wasn’t being President of the United States, he has had to deal with lawsuit after lawsuit, court case after court case. It’s not like he doesn’t have the money to fight back, but having to deal with the sheer volume of lawsuits, based on bullshit or not, is an emotional drain as well as a financial one. This one hits a little deeper than the Phillips situation because even if he gets the bulk of the suits tossed out because of the aforementioned bullshit, there will still be people who will point out he was still convicted. Can’t win for losing.
Daniel Penny: Although he’s the newest member of the lawfare club, he’s no stranger to the depths Leftists will go to punish a person. Penny was riding the subway in New York City when Jordan Neely started harassing fellow riders and threatened to kill people. Penny took Neely down and allegedly killed him with a chokehold. Even with the sheer number of witnesses, video footage, and expert testimony supporting his case, he’s still having to go through the legal process because the Left needs it to be another George Floyd situation. After all, why let a good made-up scandal go to waste?
In each case, the Left is using the law to extract a pound (or should I say ton) of flesh from their victims. But it has a ripple effect. Not only does it drain the spirit and bank accounts of those who get targeted, but it sends a message to others not to cross the Left or else you’ll get what the targets get. Most of the time, this works because, well, Leftists love to use the government to get you to comply. There’s a reason why the saying “You can’t fight City Hall” is still around today: because fighting City Hall is like taking on Mike Tyson in his prime, not when fighting a social media star.
And since not everyone can afford a lengthy court battle, most of the time we will have to give in, no matter how righteous the cause may be. The downside to that is it enables Leftists to keep using lawfare to get what they want. However, there are some things you can do en masse.
First, check to see if you elect judges. If so, they can be voted out, especially if they keep enabling lawfare instead of doing their jobs. Failing that, there’s always elections. As we’ve recently seen, it’s possible to change the direction of an area or even a country if enough people get out and vote out the bad actors. (If only we could do the same with Hollywood…)
But there is something else you can do: use your voice outside the ballot box. Whenever you see someone getting the shaft (because that cat Shaft is a bad mutha…), read up on the case and talk about it. Sunlight may be the best disinfectant, but social media makes that sunlight a fuckton more powerful.
Of course, there’s my favorite: pointing and laughing. Leftists hate to be mocked even a little bit. (See Bluesky for evidence.) When you see a Leftist engaging in lawfare, mock them mercilessly. Sure, you might get pulled into a lawsuit yourself because, well, Leftists are litigious babies, but you will have the First Amendment on your side. Or should have it on your side unless Leftists go judge shopping to find one who thinks the First Amendment is a suggestion. But, seeing a Leftist’s head explode as you turn their sacred cows into hamburger will warm even the chilliest of hearts.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to deal with 493 lawsuits filed by Leftists who are offended by me constantly pointing out there are two genders. See you when I get out of court!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With President Brick Tamland announcing he was not limping…I mean running for reelection, the eyes of the world turned to Vice President Kamala Harris as the heiress apparent. And that means we get to do a deep dive into her accomplishments so far.
Fortunately for us, that deep dive doesn’t take that long since she’s accomplished what other Vice Presidents before her did: Jack Shit, and Jack left town.
But one role she had was Border Czar. Or not, depending on who you ask. In true Tamland fashion, she was put in charge of looking into the reason why so many illegal immigrants are coming here. (Spoiler Alert: it’s because we have the best free shit in the world.) And in true Harris fashion, she visited El Paso and called it a day. But she hadn’t been to Europe, either, so it’s totes cool, guys!
While the Left tries to figure out what excuse to use to try to cover up Harris’s ineptitude on the border, it gives us a chance to wade into the wonderful world of what a Border Czar even is.
Border Czar
What the Left thinks it means – a title bestowed upon Vice President Harris by evil Republicans to try to connect her to the border crisis (which doesn’t exist, by the way)
What it really means – a meaningless title given to a meaningless figurehead
The concept of policy czars has been around for a while. The first ones came about during the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Presidency to address certain aspects of World War II and the economy, but later expanded into areas like combating drug abuse, reading, and weatherizing. (And I wish I was kidding about those last two.)
Put bluntly, being a policy czar today is like being salutatorian of summer school: only a few people actually care about it and even fewer will remember it. And in the end nothing gets done, really.
Which means it’s a perfect gig for someone with a lot of time on his or her hands and who isn’t expected to succeed in any meaningful way. You know, like the Vice President.
It also means it shouldn’t be done just to put a body in a seat when it come to addressing a high profile issue like illegal immigration. Depending on which lie you want to believe, our southern border is either perfectly secure (but Republicans are totally to blame for record-breaking crossings) or less secure than an unlocked Ferrari in South Central LA. And for your eagle-eyed readers out there who click on the links, you’ll notice these statements come from two different members…of the same Administration. But you know who didn’t weigh in on the border situation?
The fucking Border Czar herself.
Now, I’m no policy wonk, but I would think one of the most important elements of being a Border Czar is presenting a consistent, fact-based message. Unfortunately for us, the Tamland Administration’s consistency is in denying the problem exists until it gets to a point where they have to do something to make it look like they’re doing something. Meanwhile, illegal immigration is still very much an issue, despite Harris’s brilliant message to some looking to enter the country illegally: do not come.
Well, Kams, they’re not listening. Or maybe they’re trying to figure out your message amidst the vomited word salads you frequently put out there as cogent statements.
Maybe that’s why the Left is trying to scrub the collective memories of the general public by denying she was the Border Czar. After all, Kamala Harris has to beat Donald Trump, even though she’s never won a national election by herself yet. The last time she tried to win the Presidency she pulled out of the race before the Iowa Caucuses after Tulsi Gabbard bitch-slapped her into oblivion.
It also means I got the same number of delegates Harris did and I didn’t even run.
It’s clear Harris’s role as Border Czar has been a dismal failure (and I’m being verrrrrrrrrrrrry generous here). This begs the question of why we need one in the first place, especially considering we already have one: the President. If you remember your civics homework (or in the case of Leftists if you’re hearing this for the first time since you blew off civics to protest), the Executive Branch is responsible for enforcing the laws of his country. That means the President and his staff are the Czars and they’re not doing a good job.
That means anybody who is called a Czar becomes a lightning rod to absorb any criticism for when they fuck up their one jobs. But, as with so many government jobs, you can’t be fired for being incompetent. If anything, it’s a career enhancer. (See the current President and Vice President for two examples.) Plus, you get a nice stipend and a government pension, and that much capital goes a long way to fix any hurt feefees.
But the immigration problem is still there. Pretty soon we’ll have to throw the concept of the Border Czar on top of the pile of other well-meaning, but poorly-executed government ideas, like the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, and making the Socialist Socialite a Congresswoman. Yet, there isn’t really much of a will to do anything about the problem from the Czar on down because there’s too much to be gained by both sides of the issue. The Left use illegal immigration to help their candidates win and create a “humanitarian crisis” that only Big Daddy Government can fix. The Right use illegal immigration to create scary scenarios where all the jobs are taken, only violent criminals make it across, and no one but them can fix the problem.
But where the Right gets it right (see what I did there?) is in pointing out the national security aspect of illegal immigration. Open borders, such as the kind promoted by the Tamland Administration, create gaps in our security network. And with Leftist dipshits on record as not wanting to even look for illegal immigrants let alone deport them, those gaps are going to get wider and harder to close. Worse yet, we don’t have much of a strategy for dealing with the implications.
Certainly this is something a President (or a prospective President) should take seriously enough to do more than appoint some toadie to do nothing and get paid for doing it. The last guy who even attempted that got called all sorts of names, ironically by some of the people currently in charge of the failed border policy but are now trying to copy what Donald Trump did. See, President Tamland can’t help but plagiarize!
Ultimately, though, we don’t need a Border Czar in the same way we don’t need an extended warranty for a beater from Uncle Sleazy’s It Was Like That When We Got It Used Car Emporium where their motto is “No Refunds.” It’s a worthless position that should already be covered by the existing leadership structure.
Then again, this is the federal government we’re talking about here. Expecting leadership in Washington is like expecting the hooker to fall in love with you after you pay her. Not that I know anything about that, mind you…