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…
Category: Justice
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
It’s been a busy couple of weeks as political figures and politically adjacent figures have had their days in court and come out with convictions (the legal kind, not the moral kind). First, we had former President Donald Trump get convicted on 34 felony counts in a trial even Stevie Wonder could see was legally shaky. Because he’s a legal scholar, you guys. Surely, there’s not another way you can interpret…ohhhhhhh! Moving on before I get in more trouble.
Then, President Brick Tamland’s son, Hunter Biden, caught three felony convictions for lying on federal gun forms to illegally obtain a firearm while being a drug abuser. Wait a minute…I thought stricter gun laws were supposed to prevent this kind of thing! But that’s a blog post for another time.
In both cases, the Left cheered the rule of law. After all, both had their days in court and they met their fates. So, there’s nothing more to say, right?
Wrong, because if there wasn’t anything more to say, this would be a really short Leftist Lexicon entry.
rule of law
What the Left thinks it means – a fundamental principle where everyone is treated the same in the eyes of the law
What it really means – a fundamental principle where everyone should be treated the same in the eyes of the law, but isn’t
For all of their faults, the Founding Fathers understood the potential for dishonest people to put their thumbs on the scales of justice. That’s why they included specific limitations in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights to mitigate those instances whenever possible. Granted, I’m not sure they could have foreseen the sheer scumbaggery of some legal “professionals” (I’m looking at you, Michael Avenatti), but they did the best they could with the scumbags of their era.
What they didn’t foresee was the power of politics and wealth on judicial proceedings. In some cases, the guilty are set free because they could afford better lawyers. In others, the innocent get railroaded because of factors beyond the facts of the case.
And then we have the Donald Trump and Hunter Biden cases. Since I’m not a lawyer, I won’t pretend to know all the ins and outs of the proceedings, but I can speak to what I know.
You can stop giggling now.
With the Trump trial, there was a clear bias against him starting with Alvin “Not One of the Chipmunks” Bragg. Bragg is one of those District Attorneys that has to be elected rather than appointed, and he ran on a platform of holding Trump accountable, as did the other candidates he ran against. New York Attorney General Letitia “I’m Not Rick” James, who was also elected on a platform of getting Trump, didn’t help alleviate questions of impartiality.
Of course, there was Bragg’s move to elevate Trump’s crimes, which were misdemeanors under the law, to felonies because…reasons, I guess? Actually, I’m not even sure he knows why other than it’s what he promised to do when he ran for District Attorney. All I know for sure is there were shortcuts taken to achieve the end goal. And gain the fawning adoration of Leftists and media folks (sorry, for repeating myself). Of course, those shortcuts may lead to not only an appeal, but the entire verdict being overturned, but hey. Bragg and James made good on their campaign promises, so all’s good, right?
I quote the great philosopher Lana Kane from “Archer”: Noooooooooope!
The thing about the rule of law that sticks with me is it isn’t about the final verdict so much as it is about how that verdict is reached. There is a process that has to be followed to ensure there is as level a playing field as possible for all parties. When political and media parties get involved, that playing field gets less even than highway lines painted during a 5.8 earthquake.
But it isn’t a one-way street. While rushing to prosecute a former President because he happened to beat an unlikable candidate in 2016 certainly shows the effects of political biases on legal proceedings, the same can be seen when political biases are used to slow down proceedings. That brings us to Hunter Biden’s recent convictions.
The Constitution guarantees the accused the right to a speedy trial, but when your daddy is the President, that speedy trial gets slower than Al Gore’s speech on Ambien. And it’s even worse if you’re the one taking the Ambien.
Although Hunter’s gun case is the one we’ve just experienced, he’s also on the hook for possible tax crimes. And thanks to his daddy and his lackeys in the IRS and Department of Justice, there were delays in prosecuting the Huntster. Oh, but that didn’t stop that same DOJ from dragging its feet of clay in prosecuting Hunter’s federal gun charges as well.
Does that sound like the rule of law being respected to you? If so, seek help.
Although the delays are humorous in a way because President Brick Tamland is bragging about pushing for stronger gun laws, it doesn’t speak well of his efforts or the rule of law when people under his…well, I wouldn’t call it leadership so much as being lead-ership are throwing a Sahara Desert’s worth of sand in the legal machinery to avoid embarrassment. Of course, if these folks really cared about not causing President Tamland to be embarrassed, they wouldn’t have allowed him to run for a first term, let alone a second term. Oh, and here’s another tip for the President: if you want to avoid embarrassment from your family, don’t let your son be a fucking crackhead!
What the Left’s approach to the rule of law is if you make the laws you make the rules, which is admittedly the way things have gone in recent years. From a political perspective, it’s ruthless, cutthroat, and devoid of a moral framework, which means it’s perfect for today’s government. But when the political makes a move into the judicial, it doesn’t work so well because invariably you are going to run into people who try to stay true to the words and the meanings of the law. That’s why Leftists hate originalist Supreme Court Justices. If you believe the law is written in stone, there isn’t any wiggle room. If you believe the law is written in erasable marker, you can create your own wiggle room and get rid of it when it’s no longer necessary.
The Left does have respect for the rule of law when it comes to precedent, namely any precedent they agree with. For decades, the Left relied on precedent to force through whatever it wants from abortion to gay rights to Affirmative Action. After all, if you get a court to agree with your interpretation of the way things should be, it’s all the Left needs to turn it into 50 more things tangentally related to the original decision because precedent.
The problem with precedent, though, is it can be overturned by later rulings. Take Plessey v Ferguson, for example. The court wrongly decided state discrimination laws did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment as long as things were “separate but equal.” Of course, they never were, but still. Just because Plessey was precedent doesn’t mean it was good precedent. Then, Brown v Board of Education pimp-slapped “separate but equal,” thus relegating it to law texts, history books, and the occasional blog post by some asshole trying to make a point about the rule of law.
The Left’s situational love of the rule of law is telling, and it’s not telling us anything good. When an ideology bases its appreciation for it on whether it gives them a desired result, the rule of law becomes more of a club than a scale, which cheapens it. The good news is the highest court of the land is in the hands of people more inclined to respect it than use it like a cheap hooker. And the greatest part of it all? Leftists paved the way to make it happen!
Thanks, Harry Reid!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Lately there have been quite a few stories about people taking up residence in a property they don’t own, a practice known as “squatting.” And it’s not just catching on here, but in England as well. Yes, Chef Gordon Ramsay had to deal with squatters in one of his pubs (and I’ll bet there was a lot of profanity used in the process).
So, why the sudden interest in squatting? I’m glad you asked…or I asked…either way I’m glad the question was asked. Otherwise, this was going to be a really short Lexicon entry. It’s easy to blame it on President Brick Tamland’s economic policies being so shitty it puts the toilets at Chipotle to shame, but there’s a bit more to it.
And that means I get to talk about it.
squatting
What the Left thinks it means – people taking over properties for necessity
What it really means – people deciding to say “fuck property rights because reasons”
The history of squatting is long and distinguished. And by distinguished, I mean absolutely fucking nuts. Long story short, people have taking up residence in other people’s homes for centuries and there have been various ways to deal with them. Usually, these methods involve violence, but then lawyers and politicians got involved, so things had to change.
Hence, the creation of squatter’s rights. Yes, the same geniuses who couldn’t find their ways out of a non-existent paper bag decided people who openly break the law needed rights that would prevent them from being prosecuted for…breaking the fucking law. Every state has its own set of laws/guidelines/mere suggestions on squatting, but the result is the same: people taking something that doesn’t belong to them and not compensating the owner in any way.
Hmmmm…sounds like theft to me, kids!
Unfortunately, not everyone agrees. Squatting is rampant in Georgia, Texas, and Florida, and the laws (until recently) have put the onus on the property owners to jump through bureaucratic and legal hoops to get squatters to leave. And when you consider the squatters are stealing income from the property owners by not paying rent, that puts quite a burden on someone who is just trying to abide by the law.
Hmmmm…sounds like gun control laws, kids!
More to the point, however, is a notion Leftists have tried to push in recent years, that being housing is a human right. That has opened the door for people to assert squatting rights to inhabit buildings. But we’re not talking run down apartment buildings in bad neighborhoods or buildings on the verge of being condemned here. It seems squatters want to live in nice places. And since these nice places are often owned by greedy landlords or companies, it’s clear the squatters have the clear moral authority to take over these properties and make them into…well, unsafe hovels to be honest.
That’s where political ideology comes into play. With law enforcement in different parts of the country being weaker than the plot of a Michael Bay movie, squatting has become one of those ho-hum crimes. You know, like robbery, purchasing a child for sexual purposes, and violence. (And that’s just in California!) And guess who’s been at the forefront of all of this?
Leftists. Every. Damn. Time.
But don’t you make any bad comments on Facebook or they’ll throw not just the book at you, but the entire fucking library!
Anyway, a lack of enforcement makes squatting that much easier because trying to evict them is considered a civil matter instead of a criminal one, so the police are less likely to help. (Need I remind the men and women in blue we’re dealing with property theft here, not just some squabble between people?) Throw in the probability of fraud in the form of non-enforceable contracts or even non-existent contracts, and squatting becomes more criminal in nature.
But since the victims of these crimes are property owners (who Leftists think can just give up some of their property to those less fortunate because compassion), the Left doesn’t see the problem. At least, not until they find their luxury homes overrun with Phish groupies whose only source of income is investing their belly button lint in the NFT market.
For those of you unfamiliar, NFT stands for Nobody’s Fucking Trading.
Through this class warfare, the Left is able to perpetuate the idea of righteous takeover of other people’s properties under the notion of a right to housing. However, there’s a flaw in that thinking because of the nature of rights as compared to entitlements, which the “right” to housing is closer to being. A right is something you already have, like the right to free speech, gun ownership, and voting. You simply need to exercise it.
On the other hand, an entitlement is something you’re owed for one reason or another, like a pension or Social Security. With entitlements, there is a debt to be paid or a wrong to be righted. With housing, there is no real debt, wrong, or other obligation that can be addressed by a property owner giving up some or all of his/her property.
Hence, the Left pushing for people to feel entitled to other people’s shit, but shrouding it in the notion of a right. Most Americans take rights pretty seriously. Not as seriously as anything Taylor Swift is doing these days, mind you, but it’s still up there. By framing housing as a right, it cranks the level of seriousness to 11, and we’re more likely to treat it like a right.
Which is just what the Left wants.
After all, the Left believes government is the source of all good in the world, the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, and the only way to achieve justice. If enough people believe housing is a right, there’s a good chance someone’s going to ask that all important question, “Where are my car keys?” Oh, and the other question, “Why isn’t our government doing anything about this?” Then, just like Oprah with a new scam to get wine moms to buy stupid shit with her name on it, government swoops in to save the day!
Only, the exact opposite happens.
Where things get really messy is when you consider the impact on contract law. Whenever there’s a transfer of property of any kind, there’s going to be a written agreement between/among the parties involved. And, yes my Leftist friends, this is a contract, and it can be legally enforced. When Leftists decide squatting is okay, they’re also saying, “We don’t give a fuck about that contract you have!” And as we’ve seen with other ventures (can you say “Obamacare”?), as long as the Left thinks they can do something better, they’re going to do it, whether you’re involved or not. After all, they’re smarter than the rest of us. Just ask them!
Yet, these same Leftists can’t figure out how this idea can backfire on them, or when it actually has. Remember the fuss Leftists made about Ron DeSantis and Greg Abbott sending illegal immigrants to “sanctuary cities”? If you think about it (and I have because I have a life that makes Boo Radley look like a bon vivant), the same approach can be applied to squatters. From what I’ve heard, Martha’s Vineyard has plenty of space and people willing to help! And if anyone asks, say you self-identify as an illegal immigrant!
But if we want a more realistic, yet less humorous solution, I have one: make squatting a criminal offense, like Ron DeSantis did. I’m sure Leftists are going to fight this in court because, well, that’s what they do whenever someone passes a law to unfuck a situation they created, but it will be interesting to see how the Left’s lawyers are going to argue theft, fraud, and property destruction are civil matters. Have your popcorn ready for those arguments, kids!
In the meantime, property owners need to keep up on what’s going on at their properties and follow the rules so the government knows who owns a property. Granted, this won’t stop squatters and their Leftist enablers from trying to pull a fast one, but it will make it a lot harder for them to convince the government and police they have a valid claim to the property. Make it as tough on them as they would make it on you if you had a squatter.
And, at least for now, stop short of booby trapping the property. Fences make good neighbors, but shrapnel wounds…not so much.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
The buzz around Washington DC this week was around the Congressional testimony from Special Counsel Robert Hur and his report about President Brick Tamland. The report itself is here, but the short version is the President violated the law, but the Department of Justice didn’t think he could be convicted because he’s a sympathetic doddering old fuck.
The Left has done a great job in making it seem like the Hur Report exonerated President Tamland, even going so far as to make the case Hur overstated the President’s memory problems, among other failed attempts to discredit the report and the Special Counsel. Regardless, the Hur Report and its impact on President Tamland’s Presidency (as well as Leftist sanity) is worth exploring further.
the Hur Report
What the Left thinks it means – a report from a moron that exonerates the President from hiding classified documents in various locations
What it really means – a disappointing political paradox that we should have seen coming
The life cycle of a modern political scandal is as predictable as the ending of a mystery novel written by your average social media “star.” The politician breaks laws that would get anyone else outside the ruling class thrown in prison for years. The media find out about the crimes committed and either attempts to hold the politician accountable (if he/she is a Republican or conservative) or downplay it in the hopes the scandal goes away (if he/she is a Democrat or a Leftist). People outside the media bubble find out and start asking questions. The politician and his/her handlers hold off on explaining anything until the questions get too close for comfort. Then, the politician and his/her handlers address it without actually addressing it, thus pissing off some people (namely those who think the laws should apply to everyone) and pleasing others (namely people who are a short skirt and pom-poms away from being full-blown cheerleaders). And after a little while, it all goes away, save for the gnashing of teeth who really wanted something done.
There are some variations to this framework that pop up from time to time, but it’s pretty much the same from Ronald Reagan to Brick Tamland. I mean, how long have we known Eric Swalwell slept with a suspected Chinese spy and he’s still not spending his days getting a tan at Gitmo? How many politicians wound up on Epstein Island and are still running around free? That may be the most disturbing, disgusting, and disheartening thing about all of it: no matter what, you’re more likely to get Dylan Mulvaney to stop being an attention whore than you are to get a politician to see any time on the business end of a conviction.
That brings us to the Hur Report. First off, how dare you assume the report’s gender? More importantly, th0ugh, is what the report lays out in stunning detail is just how fucked we are with President Tamland at the helm of the ship of state. Here are some choice cuts.
– The President remembered the month and day of his son’s death, but aides had to provide him with the year.
– Aides would provide information when the President seemed to be having trouble.
– The President admitted to having documents he wasn’t authorized to have, albeit with some chronological difficulty.
– He forgot when he served as Vice President.
– The President admitted to memory issues after the fact, citing his long history in government as the reason.
But I’m sure it was just his stutter.
Wait, why does the ship of state say Exxon Valdez on the side?
Seriously, these issues (among the several he’s had this year alone) paint a vivid picture of a man well past his prime trying to do a job that taxes men decades his junior. If there were ever a case for invoking the 25th Amendment, the last year or so of President Tamland’s performance would be it. On the one hand, it would get spun as a political move (which it would be anyway because Leftists). On the other it would lead to President Word Salad (which would make for worse decisions, but a better 2024 outcome for Republicans). So, pick your partisan poison, I guess.
The problem the Hur Report creates for Republicans is how weak the aftershocks make them look. President Tamland is clearly mentally diminished due to age, the onset of Alzheimer’s, or him just being dumb as a stump to begin with. Yet, Leftists keep saying he’s mentally sharp as ever. So, either he shouldn’t be President because he’s no longer capable of performing “Three Blind Mice” on a children’s toy flute let alone the country, or he shouldn’t be President because he’s corrupt as fuck.
And Republicans can’t stop tripping over their own dicks to make either case, which gives the Left an open field to make whatever case they want, such as the bullshit “he was exonerated” line that’s been repeated ad nauseum.
More to the point, though, the Hur Report and Hur himself makes the argument why President Tamland shouldn’t be allowed to be in an Office Depot, let alone the Oval Office. For all the talk he’s done about white supremacists being a major threat to the country, the biggest threat is Tamland himself. Think back to the days when Leftists called out Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump for being mentally unfit during their respective Presidencies. I’m not sure how many fucks they gave at the time, but I’m guessing it was pretty close to zero.
Now, their past is coming back to haunt them. That is, if the GOP would hold them to the standards they set. The Hur Report gives them the tools they need to put away a pretty big tool, but for some reason they’re happier making broad statements in Congressional hearings and creating viral moments than putting on their Big Congresscritter Pants and doing something other than voting for more money for Ukraine and Israel.
And people wonder why I’m voting for C’thulu/Sweet Meteor of Death 2024.
Unanimous Opinion
The Supreme Court’s recent opinion regarding President Donald Trump’s ballot status was correct. And here is why this it the correct outcome of this court case.
First off, the 14th Amendment was born in the aftermath of the War Between the States. Many of it’s clauses were written for the situation of the time and place. The goals could not be accomplished by legislation alone.
The insurrection clause in particular was written as a punishment against the leaders of the Southern States. Banning them from public office. Not because they rose up against the Union. But as revenge by the Northern States who did not want to seat the former Confederate officers in Congress.
Secondly, President Donald Trump has NOT been found guilty of insurrection or participating in an insurrection, or leading an insurrection, or inciting an insurrection against the United States. Thus, he cannot be removed from any ballot or banned from holding office because of an insurrection.
And lastly, the events of January 6th were not an insurrection by any stretch of the imagination. The video evidence speaks for itself and to this truth as does the testimony of credible eyewitnesses.
So there you have it. Three valid reasons why the Supreme Court’s opinion on this matter is the correct and just opinion and why it was unanimous.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
When Alabama comes up in the news, it’s usually in relation to a citizen doing something insanely stupid. This week, however, the state made the news for something at least somewhat smart.
Which, of course, made Leftists freak out.
Recently, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled frozen embryos are considered children and subject to the same legal protections as other children under the state’s abortion laws. Of course, Leftists started raising all sorts of objections, ranging from the chilling effect (their words, not mine) on In Vitro Fertilization to the ruling being the result of Donald Trump (surprise surprise) to there not being enough oat milk for the Left’s free range Cheerios. And you know how serious they are when they start putting up stupid memes comparing chicken eggs to embryos to show how “stupid” the ruling was.
The concept of when life begins is subject of a lot of debate and all of it surrounds the embryo. Which means we get to talk about it, and by talk I mean you get to read my semi-informed opinions on the subject!
embryo
What the Left thinks it means – a prospective human
What it really means – the formation of a human baby
So, when does life begin? That depends on who you ask. The people who know a thing or two about human physiology will tell you it begins when there is cellular division, which can’t happen without a spark of life. The people who flunked out of human physiology class and became Leftists say life begins once the fetus exits the birth canal. Up until that point, it’s just a clump of cells.
That’s going to come as a surprise to any test tube babies out there.
Regardless of where you fall on the spectrum of when life begins, there is something perverse about how the Left treats embryos and fetuses for that matter. Instead of seeing them as humans, the Left sees them as objects without agency and, thus, useless to their political agenda except as an accessory to abortion rights. After all, a woman can continue to vote for Leftists, but an embryo can’t.
And as long as the Left continues to support abortion on demand (and contrary to what they say, some of them do), they will have a vested interest in dehumanizing a human life. Make no mistake, kids, an embryo is a human life. I’ve often wanted to ask pro-baby-death…I mean pro-choice advocates what comes out of the womb if it’s not a baby. Is it a basketball? A Shetland Pony? The transmission for a 1956 Buick? I’ve never had the chance, but a man can dream…
Meanwhile back at the main point, the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision makes sense in the context of protecting life. Once you dig past the sensationalist headlines and Leftist mischaracterizations, there is a real issue at stake. One of the lawsuits that lead to the decision involved a hospital patient who tried to take out some of the frozen embryos, got freeze burned, and dropped the embryos, causing them to die. Now, for the pro-baby-death…I mean pro-choice crowd, this is literally the kind of thing they claim to be against: letting women choose what they want to do with their bodies. The couple in this case chose to freeze an embryo, and the patient stripped that away from them.
Not that you would hear that from the Left, mind you. To them, the decision is backwards because…feefees. And to make sure the gay community got a shoutout, Leftists said the decision strips same sex couples of the ability to start a family.
Okay, time out here. Extending the legal protections of life to embryos prevents gay couples from having families? Well…let’s see if I can put this tactfully…how in the Wide World of Fuck does that make any sense? If these same sex couples want IVF to have a child, there’s nothing in the ruling that would prevent that. The same goes for couples looking to do IVF. All the ruling does is make it illegal to kill embryos and set up punishment for those who kill them. That’s it.
It was at this point we realized the Left was full of shit.
But, wait, it gets better! Leftists are now saying they will be freezing embryos and claim them as exemptions on their taxes. The thing is such an action would not only support the pro-life argument, but also the argument people are overtaxed as it is. To put it another way, and I’m speaking for myself here, your terms are acceptable.
In their attempts to look and sound smart on this decision, Leftists have exposed their true nature. They don’t care about embryos at all. They care more about the votes they get from the mothers of those embryos and any self-reflection on whether there’s a human life at stake is strictly optional, but highly discouraged. It’s this lack of consideration that drives me to be more on the pro-life side personally, even though I’m much more libertarian towards others. My personal opinion applies to me, myself, and some guy named Earl.
In the meantime, I think I’ve found a way to get more Leftists on board with protecting embryos. Tell them the embryos self-identify as trans. They’ll fall all over themselves to prevent any of them from dying or look like hypocrites in the process. Either way, the embryos get to live!
And that’s a win for everyone. Especially Earl.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Unless you’ve been living under a rock (or in Amish country), you’ve heard the term “border crisis” tossed about like a frisbee at a stoner festival in Colorado on 4/20. While the Puddin’ Head Joe Administration has been busy handling the really important issues, like finding out who has been buying Bibles, the southern border has seen numerous illegal immigrants crossing practically at will. And it’s left officials in southern states looking for help.
Maybe they haven’t heard about the Bible buying epidemic.
It was only when Texas Governor Greg Abbott did something (and by something, I mean a few things) about the situation that the Left got upset. I mean, how else are they going to make illegal immigrants vote Democrat if they aren’t allowed to enter the country illegally?
Seriously, though, we need to dig deeper into the border crisis because…well, there’s a lot of shit behind it.
border crisis
What the Left thinks it means – an overblown non-issue that shows how Republicans hate immigrants
What it really means – a serious crisis caused by both major parties giving zero fucks about immigrants
The history of immigration laws in America is…well, a little on the confusing side. Put simply, a country that was founded at least in part on immigration from foreign lands decided to limit immigration in 1965 because…reasons, I guess? But that hasn’t stopped people from wanting to come to America, and it certainly hasn’t stopped people from taking shortcuts to come to the Land of the Free and the Home of Anchor Babies and Green Card Marriages.
Since illegal immigrants tend not to fill out census forms, it’s estimated that there are over 11 million of them in America right now. That’s over 10 Rhode Islands and almost 20 Wyomings. And keep in mind this is just an estimate. The actual number could be higher or lower, but the fact it’s more than the populations of all but 7 states tells me there’s an issue.
Not that the Left agrees there is an issue, mind you. The Puddin’ Head Joe Administration has gone from claiming the southern border is secure to saying it would be secure if it weren’t for those pesky Republicans and their dog to saying it hasn’t been secure for a decade. Even Mitt “I Ain’t Shit” Romney tried to blame Donald Trump for the border crisis.
Good thing Kamala Harris the border czar or we’d be fucked! Oh, wait, we are, and it’s not just because Vice President Word Salad has zero ideas of what to do.
The fact is the past 3 years of the Puddin’ Head Joe Administration’s border policy has resulted in more, not less, illegal immigration. But now that the 2024 elections are coming up and voters see the President as less effective on the border than a bubble pipe in a gang war, they’re going to get serious and…adopt some of the same policies they decried as racist and xenophobic when Trump suggested them. Brilliant!
Even if Puddin’ Head Joe goes full MAGA, it’s not going to solve the border crisis. And the same will happen if Donald Trump wins the Presidency again, and it’s for the same reason: because the majority of politicians don’t want to solve the problem. Remember, one of my immutable truths of life is government is not in the problem-solving business. For the Left, there is too much money and power to be gained by letting people enter the country like hookers and blow at Hunter Biden’s place. For the Right, there is too much money and power to be gained by stoking the fear illegal immigrants are taking American jobs and taking money out of social programs. And any attempts to change the status quo is going to piss off one side or the other.
So, why not piss them off by doing something?
The fact so many Leftists are going after Governor Abbott for securing the southern border of his state and for sending illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities is a sign they know how bad the border crisis is and are freaking out that a Republican governor had the balls to hold the Left at their word. Throw in Ron Desantis, and you have two Republicans willing to do something about the problem.
And now that several other Republican governors are backing Abbott’s play? The Left is in full-blown freak out mode, or should be if they were aware of the implications of the policies they’ve been pimping for years.
And they aren’t. They’re too busy either trying to continue to spin Puddin’ Head Joe’s border failures as not his fault or looking for an alternate candidate to support, like…oh, I don’t know…Nikki Haley? Either way, the Left can’t bullshit their way out of this. Their hands are pretty dirty, which given how they don’t like to work, is ironic, don’t ya think?
However, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the Right’s failures on the border. Yes, Donald Trump promised a border wall, but there are ways to avoid the walls altogether, such as tunnels under the wall or into states where they give illegal immigrants a pass, like California. Throw in the growing fentanyl epidemic being funneled through these and other tunnels and human trafficking being done in conjunction with illegal immigration and you have a multi-front problem that neither major party has any idea of how to address. It’s one thing to show compassion to those who are seeking asylum due to political violence or civil unrest, but it’s another thing to let every Tomas, Ricardo, and Hernando across the border under the assumption they’re asylum seekers.
But that’s the Left’s plan. By lumping those attempting to go through proper channels to come to America with those just looking to get free shit, the Left paints a picture that doesn’t match what’s going on in an attempt to get you to let your emotions override your logic. As long as the border crisis continues, the Left will use this tactic to take your mind off the ever-rising numbers coming into America through dishonest means.
But that’s why we should counter the pulling of the heartstrings with hard numbers and logic. The border crisis is no longer about alleged asylum seekers, but encompasses more criminal activities the longer we sit around with our thumbs up our asses. First off, that’s very uncomfortable and may lead to carpel tunnel syndrome. Second, and more importantly, we’re playing with human lives here. Taking a stand against the Immigrat-a-palooza going on under Puddin’ Head Joe and the ineffective “solutions” that take no real action to secure our border is the only way I know to respect our national sovereignty and protect as many people as we can on both sides of the border.
Then, maybe American can return to the Land of the Free and the Home of the 99 Cent Menu at Taco Bell.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
By the time you read this, the Left will still be coping with the resignation of former Harvard President and known copycat Claudine Gay and trying to rewrite the narrative to make her into the victim of a vast right wing conspiracy. By the way, Hillary Clinton, please call your office. That part was predictable.
What wasn’t so predictable was the Left falling all over itself to redefine plagiarism to make it more acceptable. Granted, the Left loves to redefine words with the regularity of a guy who eats a lot of fiber and prunes, so it’s not surprising they would do it here. It’s the sheer fucking stupidity behind it that has me dumbfounded, but not speechless (which is a good thing because if I couldn’t put my thoughts into words, this would be a very short blog).
plagiarism
What the Left thinks it means – a not-so-serious offense where someone wittingly or unwittingly copies the work of another
What it really means – intellectual theft
When I was growing up…errr…going from childhood into adulthood, I was taught copying someone else’s work without attribution was a grave error. I’m talking worse than wearing leisure suits unironically here, kids. I will admit to having done it back when I was young and stupid, but now that I’m old and stupid, I know the error of my ways. By copying someone else’s work and claiming it as your own, you are at best depriving the owner of the original work of recognition.
So, why in the Wide World of Fuck is the Left suddenly okay with plagiarism?
To be fair, they’re not completely okay with it. Just if the wrong people use their stuff. See how Twisted Sister lead singer Dee Snyder reacts to Donald Trump supporters using “We’re Not Gonna Take It” as a theme song. Of course, he’s okay with it being used as a theme song for anti-gun activists and Ukrainians, so…yeah.
This isn’t to say he’s not within his rights to dictate who can use his song. Even though I don’t agree with the political reasoning behind his decisions, I can’t object to what he’s doing because it’s his intellectual property, and I’m sure Leftists would agree without question.
Just not for the intellectually consistent reason.
Let’s say someone were to copy an article by Taylor Lorenz and try to pass it off as his or her own. The Left would have a shit fit. Of course, this would never happen because a) you’d have to be dumber than a bag of hammers to do it, and b) Lorenz has the intellectual vigor and rhetorical skill of moldy bread. Copying one of her pieces is grounds for being declared mentally incompetent in 16 states.
That was before Ms. Gay, of course. As of this writing, there have been 40 instances where she has plagiarized someone else’s academic work while writing hers. Most of the academics she’s plagiarized and other academics have defended her, going so far as to say they don’t feel it was plagiarism. Now, this is where shit gets weird. Instead of calling it what it is, Leftists came up with new excuses, ranging from “sloppy attribution” and “sort of more like copying other peoples writings without attribution” to suggesting it’s more commonplace and, thus, not as big of deal as it’s being made out to be. Some went so far as to say the charges were “mostly bogus.“
And if you had “anti-plagiarism is racist” on your 2024 Stupid Shit Leftists Say Bingo card, you have a winner! Because Leftists have to bring race into everything from plagiarism to getting the wrong kind of cage free organic free range cruelty free bananas from Whole Foods, it was only a matter of time before Ms. Gay’s race was brought into it. And it wasn’t just one or two outlets, either. There were a litany of “muh racism” takes from all the predictable sources. Why, it’s almost like they…plagiarized their responses!
Or they share the same brain cell. You know, whichever.
More to the point, though, should the Left’s indifference to plagiarism spread outside the halls of academia, it would have a detrimental effect to any intellectual property. Patent law, copyright law, and even laws surrounding parody would definitely take a hit. As much as I’d like to see 50 porn “parodies” of Barbieheimer (all shot, produced, and released within at a pace that would make Roger Corman look like an overmedicated sloth), I’m not sure this is the direction we should want to go.
And think of the impact to social media sharing sites like YouTube, whose copyright system is more fucked up than Keith Richards as an AA sponsor. Or Keith Richards in general. Any video posted could get taken, renamed, and rebroadcast, including any previously copyrighted material. That in and of itself would impact a certain bay of pirates sailing on the interwebs.
Now, who would be hurt most by this attitude? Maybe…oh, I don’t know…the Leftists in the performing arts community? After all, if plagiarism is fine and should be excused with the lightest of wrist slaps, there’s nothing preventing someone like me from copying a Tyler Perry movie or a Cardi B song and calling it my own.
I mean, aside from me having taste, that is.
This is a situation where the Left’s adherence to social justice comes back to biting them in the collectivist ass. They can’t hold Ms. Gay accountable for what she clearly did because it would look racist and sexist. But in doing so, they’re going to be hurting their financial bottom line sometime in the future because they are undercutting intellectual property rights, which is how many of their prominent donors make their money. Hope it’s worth it.
Meanwhile, Ms. Gay is no longer President of Harvard, but is still employed as…a political science professor. Granted, plagiarism isn’t necessarily a criminal matter, but the fact she only got a demotion speaks volumes about how Harvard and the Left have put not being called racist and sexist above not enabling plagiarizers, in direct defiance of the rules Harvard has for its students. That’s right, kids. College students are now held to a higher intellectual and ethical standards than one of its professors.
At least for now. It’s only a matter of time before Harvard will have to deal with a student who uses the precedent it set with Ms. Gay to argue (and I daresay successfully) there is a double standard between students and faculty and demand plagiarism be allowed across the board with little to no penalty to the offender. And we thought Harvard fucked up its response to anti-Israeli protests on campus!
The Left’s response to Claudine Gay’s frequent plagiarism reveals fundamental flaws that benefit no one. Unless there is protection of intellectual property, we might as well start emulating China. Oh, wait…
Either way, Ms. Gay doesn’t have much to worry about. After all, she may not be President of Harvard anymore, but she’s already built up quite a resume to run for President of the United States.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
If you heard a loud squee recently, it came from the collective orgasm the Left had after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled former President Donald Trump could be removed from the 2024 ballot. The reason cited (and gobbled up by every Leftist like a crack whore looking for a fix) was the “insurrection clause” of the 14th Amendment due to what the court found was Trump supporting an insurrection on January 6, 2021.
Even though there’s a lot of debate over whether January 6th constituted an insurrection (short version: it wasn’t), there was no surprise the Left would try this tactic, and it would be a matter of time and/or court shopping to find a bunch of black robed dupes willing to do what Hillary Clinton couldn’t: visit Wisconsin more than once. Oh, and beat Donald Trump.
This gives us a chance to take a closer look at the “insurrection clause” to see what all the hubbub is.
“insurrection clause”
What the Left thinks it means – a provision in the 14th Amendment that disqualifies Donald Trump from running in 2024
What it really means – more proof the Left can’t read the Constitution very well
The 14th Amendment covers a lot of ground, but the part the Left has focused on is Section 3:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
And when you consider the Left believes Trump supported the January 6th “insurrection”, it’s not hard to come to the conclusion they did. Too bad that conclusion makes zero sense when the facts are examined.
I’ve discussed the “insurrection” previously, but the TL;DR (Too Long; Didn’t Reblog) version is January 6th wasn’t an insurrection because it doesn’t fit the legal definition of one. Furthermore, there’s an extreme leap of logic that has to be made to make the argument, namely the “insurrectionists” who were there to support Donald Trump would have needed to be in favor of overthrowing him for it to be an actual insurrection. After all, Trump was still President that day.
But leaps of logic alone aren’t enough to totally mock the Left’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Nah, we also need to mock their inability to read the damn thing from top to bottom. For this, we need to look alllllllll the way down to Article 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The case that originated this clusterfuck of a legal decision is Anderson v. Griswold, which brought up the question of whether Trump could be disqualified from the ballot under Colorado law. Although each state has the power to determine its own election laws, the application of law in this case runs afoul of the very Amendment being used to deny Trump his name on the ballot.
Remember that pesky thing called due process, kids? Yeah, it wasn’t used here. Trump wasn’t a direct party to the lawsuit, but his right to due process was violated in that he was essentially convicted of insurrection without every being charged or convicted of it. The special counsel’s indictment doesn’t even charge him with it! Also, he has yet to be formally charged with it!
So, what did the court do? Determined he was guilty because…fuck if I know.
The reason they gave was a “preponderance of the evidence,” would could mean anything from a hand-written letter on White House stationary signed by Trump saying “I’m going to incite an insurrection today, and it will be the best insurrection ever,” to the court not wanting mean tweets anymore. As of yet, I don’t think we’ve seen the evidence the court referred to, and I’m tempted to say we’re not gonna because that might expose the entire ruling for the farce it most certainly is.
Back to the point about due process. Insurrection is a federal crime, which means only the government can bring the charges. Since that hasn’t happened, the Colorado Supreme Court wouldn’t have the standing to bring the charges, and without there being an actual charge or conviction, there can be no application of the 14th Amendment. And without there being an actual trial (sorry, Ted Lieu), Trump was denied due process. Not even a fucking stupid statement from Colorado’s Secretary of State declaring Trump guilty of inciting an insurrection will overcome that.
How fucked up is this situation? A former Trump lawyer not known for sucking up to him after being let go says the US Supreme Court could rule 9-0 to overturn the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling. And this is a guy who has said Trump was “toast” in his criminal indictments.
If this wasn’t bad enough, there’s even some debate over whether the “insurrection clause” would even apply to the Presidency. Given how loosely the law has been interpreted to disqualify Trump, I’m sure the Left would be willing to stretch the logic so much Reed Richards would need a chiropractor. In my non-legalese reading of it, I can see where it could be, but it’s not nearly as much of a slam-dunk as the Left thinks it is. There’s just enough wiggle room for Trump to argue it doesn’t apply (even though the arguments I’ve put forward above about the lack of due process would be stronger, but I’m not advising him).
Then, there’s Section 5:
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
What the Colorado Supreme Court did completely ignores this part of the Amendment used to remove Trump in the first place. Congress didn’t disqualify Trump via legislation (and, to the Leftists reading this, this is not an endorsement of such action being taken). It was done by a majority of judges who are clearly incapable of ruling within the confines of the law. Leftists may be okay with it, but wait until it gets turned around on them.
If this decision is upheld by the USSC, it sets precedent, which can be used to disqualify politicians from both sides based solely on a politically-convenient interpretation of “insurrection” and a process where a favorable court decision is more certain than if you asked Hunter Biden if he wants crack for Christmas. Let’s take our good friends from the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest from that bastion of progressive living, Seattle. What the group did and advocated could be considered an insurrection (personally, I don’t, but for the purposes of this sketch let’s say I do). Using the Left’s argument here, no one who participated in CHOP would be eligible to run for public office.
And neither would any of the politicians who supported CHOP.
Then, all it would take would be a Republican with more balls than sense to find a court in Texas that would rule so and before you can say jurisprudence, a good chunk of Democrats would be out of a job. And it would be thanks to the Left’s “Orange Man Bad” rhetoric.
Okay, I’ll admit this sounds too good to be true because, well, Leftists have more double standards than they have genders (this just in…still 2), but it would be detrimental to the country as a whole. It would be weaponizing the legal system to get what an ideologically-driven segment wants. Or, as the Left calls it, Tuesday.
Regardless, the “insurrection clause” being used in Anderson v. Griswold shows a level of desperation on the Left because they know Puddin’ Head Joe is slightly more popular than an anal cavity search done by Willie “Giant Hands” McStuffins, and his accomplishments on issues that really matter to the people are sparse at best. He can’t run on the economy (but he can run from it), foreign policy, or any of the kitchen table issues that Joe Six Pack and his family worry about on the daily. But at least he can run on being the first Administration to hire incompetent and dishonest trans people, amirite????
To try to curtail a possible Trump 2024 victory, the Left counted on the courts to eliminate him from the running before the caucuses and primaries could begin. If the High Court (as opposed to the court in Colorado who appeared to be high when they rendered this dumbfuck decision) rules according to the law, there should be no doubt it will get overturned. If they rule according to political ideology, it will get overturned most likely, but it will have the stink of partisanship all over it and the Left will redouble their efforts to expand the court.
And, yes, my irony meter overloaded after typing that.
In the end, it should be noted there’s a reason the “insurrection clause” is rarely used and/or prosecuted: because there’s a fine line between legitimate protest and insurrection. Redressing grievances with the government is protected by the First Amendment. Acting out in a way that threatens the very fabric of our government isn’t. To conflate the two for the purposes of electoral victory is dishonest, detrimental, and a dick move.
If you read this before Christmas, I wish you the happiest of holiday seasons.
And if you read this after Christmas, I wish you the happiest of post-holiday sales.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
I’m beginning to think Elon Musk got me in the Secret Santa draw this year because he just gave me one hell of a Christmas present! Musk filed a lawsuit against one of my favorite Leftist “news” sources, Media Matters, alleging the clown show… I mean news organization defamed the Social Media Network Formerly Known as Twitter through manipulating the algorithm to make it appear the network supported Nazis.
As we’ll see in a bit, manipulation is on-brand for Media Matters. While Leftists call them a “media watchdog group” or “a left leaning nonprofit“, the truth is much less squishy and harmless.
Media Matters for America
What the Left thinks it means – a non-profit organization exposing the lies of the Right
What it really means – a tax-exempt propaganda/misinformation arm of the DNC
Media Matters started from somewhat humble beginnings, at least by DC standards. It was the brain child of conservative-turned-Leftist and noted liar David Brock in 2004 and was designed to counter what Brock considered a right wing bias in media.
I’ll wait until you catch your breath from laughing so hard before I continue.
Ready? No, I see you’re still laughing, so I’ll wait a bit.
Now? Nope, still laughing!
Okay, since we’ll never get through this piece if I wait for you to stop laughing at Brock’s stupidity, I’ll go on without you.
Anyway, Brock’s asinine empire was built on a foundation of countering what he considered right wing lies with…left wing lies. Early on (and even to this day in some cases), Media Matters resorted to taking comments out of context to fabricating context for “gotcha” purposes to out and out lying to paint conservatives as liars.
But they’re seen as reliable sources of news. Or not.
Makes you really trust their reporting, doesn’t it?
Regardless, the Left sees Media Matters as a vital tool in the war against misinformation, which is funny considering the Left is generating misinformation on the daily about everything from Bidenomics to the war in Gaza to, well, fighting misinformation. Of course, this hasn’t stopped the Left from talking about the “chilling effect” the lawsuit will have and how it’s done to silence criticism. Of course, it’s all bullshit, but Leftists are gonna Leftist.
Of course, this flies in the face of the Left’s own rhetoric from alllllll the way back to 2020 regarding COVID-19. Back then, the “misinformation” was grounds for Twitter accounts being terminated, jobs being lost, and lives being ruined. In these cases, the Left said these were all fine because bad speech has consequences, which it does. Just ask The Chicks (formerly The Dixie Chicks).
But when it comes to Media Matters, the Left’s commitment to bad speech having consequences is weaker than a mixed drink at a strip club. Not that I know anything about that, mind you…
Anyway, when Media Matters lies, the Left runs with it. Maybe this has something to do with some Leftist media types being in bed with them. Or, it could be the fact they’re all fucking Leftists. Regardless, as long as the Left embraces Media Matters as a reliable and viable source of information, that symbiotic relationship will continue.
But, that doesn’t absolve them of lying for political benefit, nor should it. I have a great disdain for liars regardless of what party they inhabit, so it’s not a political thing with me. Media Matters has not only crossed the line, but did a flamenco dance over it to emphasize just how much they’re willing to draw attention to the fact they’re liars.
Legal experts are split on the merits of Musk’s lawsuit, but there are a few things I have to point out for our Leftist friends.
1) This isn’t a free speech/First Amendment issue. Lying is not necessarily protected by the First Amendment, as can be evidenced by libel, slander, and defamation lawsuits. If someone knowingly lies about another party with the intent of damaging that party, all free speech arguments go out the window because there’s provable malice involved. Wait a minute…doesn’t Musk’s lawsuit involve defamation? Why yes, yes it does!
2) The Left’s reaction to the lawsuit shows a level of desperation. As easy as it is to portray Elon Musk as the big bully in this case, the fact the Left is jumping between “Media Matters told the truth” to “Media Matters is a victim for being targeted” shows me they are trying to play both sides to see what works. If Media Matters is telling the truth, why try to portray them as victims? If they’re being targeted, wouldn’t a court case and possible trial bring that out for the world to see? Although it’s possible the two things can simultaneously be true, I’m betting the Left is shitting themselves because they know Media Matters is going to be exposed, which will also expose other Leftists.
3) The facts may not be in Media Matters’s favor. If what is being reported on the conservative media side is correct, an internal investigation showed how Media Matters gamed the X system to create a false narrative about X and Musk by extention. Given how Leftists reacted after the Social Media Network Formerly Known as Twitter stopped letting Leftists dictate things, it’s not that unlikely Media Matters took it upon themselves to get revenge by “proving” Musk’s “far right leanings.” (For the record, Musk appears to be more libertarian in approach, which to Leftists is far right. Consider the source.) Also, considering The Twitter Files brought plenty of receipts to the chagrin and disdain of the Left, I wouldn’t be surprised Musk has the goods…again.
4) Media Matters is bunch of fucking liars. Even if you agree with them, you can’t ignore the fact they’re not on a name basis with the truth. And you can’t be serious about fighting disinformation without getting your own house in order. But, of course, you will ignore this because Media Matters is on your side. All the better for me, since I can continue to point and laugh at your hypocrisy.
Whether Elon Musk’s lawsuit against Media Matters for America goes anywhere is immaterial at this point and certainly immaterial to my position on them. There’s an old saying about not being able to polish a turd, but Leftists aren’t willing to give up on trying that with Media Matters. The only thing that comes out of that is shit all over their hands, which will go well with the blood they have on their hands for being warmongering assholes.
And it will be fun to see Media Matters and Leftists enter the Find Out stage of Fuck Around and Find Out.