Justice – Something About Everything

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

If you’re like me (and if you are, I apologize), you’ve been following the Lindsay Clancy shitshow…I mean trial. I touched on it briefly last week, so if you want to read it before getting into this week’s entry, check it out here. If you don’t want to, click on the link anyway because reasons.

Anyway, one of the twists I didn’t see coming was a renewed discussion about the 19th Amendment. The odd thing is members of the Left and the Right are coming out and suggesting it may have been a mistake.

And all it took was a triple murder of children to bring both sides together.

So, let’s dive in!

the 19th Amendment

What the Left thinks it means – an important Constitutional Amendment enshrining the right of women to vote

What the Right thinks it means – one of the biggest mistakes we ever made as a country

What it really means – a Constitutional Amendment that underscores the power women have in government

The 19th Amendment reads as follows:

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Wow. Looks like there was a time when the federal government didn’t need to overexplain something! Color me impressed!

Seriously, the 19th Amendment came about during a time when women were becoming more visible in everyday life and in politics. Although the origins of the women’s rights movement started in 1848 in New York, the 19th Amendment wasn’t ratified until 1920. After centuries of being considered non-factors, women finally had the power to make their voices heard.

And in 2026, many are wishing they would shut up.

I’m kidding, of course. As much as I like to point and laugh at Karens wanting to speak to managers and shake my head as others defend a triple murderer because uterus, I have been blessed to have many strong, intelligent women in my life, not the least of which being my wife.

And, no, she is not standing behind me as I write this. After all, she knows where I sleep.

Just kidding, honey! Love you bunches!

More to the point, not all women are psycho hosebeasts with the morality of Hunter Biden at an all-you-can-snort cocaine party on Epstein Island. For example, I would think Margaret Thatcher would be bitch-slapping the Lindsay Clancy fangirls and telling them in no uncertain terms murdering three kids is bad. Of course, if Thatcher were doing that today, we might have a zombie problem, which is just a bit more important than a triple murderer.

Since 1964, more and more women are voting, outpacing the number of men voting in Presidential elections. Even before then, voting data showed women tended to vote Democrat. With this combination of factors, women became a voting bloc that could no longer be ignored.

And yet, Republicans have for a looooooong time, as shown by the gap between women voting Democrat and women voting Republican consistently being in double digits. That, and the fact Democrats pandered more to women than a nerdy simp trying to get the attention of an attractive woman.

Not that I know anything about that, mind you…

Although this explains why Republicans might want the 19th Amendment to go the way of Jeb Bush’s Presidential aspirations, it doesn’t excuse it in light of current events. With the Left being eternally confused about what a woman is, this is an opportunity for Republicans to reduce that gap if they’re smart.

Unfortunately, that’s a bit of an ask these days. After all, all the Left needs to do to mobilize women is to mention abortion rights and wait for the votes to roll in…oh, wait, that’s what they do when they’re fabricating votes to cheat…I mean win elections. But the game plan is still the same.

1. Invent an emotionally-based threat to women.
2. Create ads that play with women’s emotions.
3. Rely on their allies to amplify the threat to women.
4. Blather.
5. Rinse.
6. Repeat until the election cycle is over.

Let’s just say this tried and true method that gets results doesn’t put women in the best light. Yet, it’s tried and true for a reason: it works. The Left continues to use women for votes and money by exploiting female psychology, which tends to prioritize emotions. Although emotions can play a part in our ideologies, it doesn’t always work out when it comes to electing competent people.

If you doubt me, I have two words: Joe Biden.

But it took a triple murder of children for people on both sides of the aisle to reconsider if women should have the right to vote. Personally, I think that breaking point was when older women started to identify with Taylor Swift’s music, but that’s just me.

What’s also me is a bit of pushback on repealing the 19th Amendment. In spite of the outbreak of winemomitis so prevalent in today’s society, I still think women can make good decisions. The fact I got married shows that!

More to the point, women aren’t purely emotional creatures. They just think differently than men do, which is necessary for both genders (and, yes, still 2 genders, kids) to be better people. If we want to have a better society and government, we need to be better people, and taking a significant chunk out of the voting pool because of the actions and sentiments of some freaks doesn’t achieve that.

There’s also a Leftist workaround already in place to deal with the repeal of the 19th Amendment should it come to pass. All Leftist women have to do is self-identify as men and fellow Leftists in positions of power will let allow it. Except, of course, if you’re a man self-identifying as women to play in the WNBA, that is.

Instead of repealing the 19th Amendment, there has to be another option. And being the idea guy that I am, I think I have one. I call it the “Are You Fucking Stupid?” test.

Prior to getting a ballot, a potential voter, man or woman, must submit their recent social media history to election officials. If a majority of them have to ask if you’re fucking stupid, you don’t get a ballot. I’m not talking about having shitty taste in music, movies, or the like. If your serious posts on issues make you look like an idiot, you clearly lack the intellectual heft necessary to vote.

That eliminates the TikToker vote, and it helps to clean up social media for people who have more than two brain cells to rub together. So, win-win!

In the meantime, I urge anyone who has second thoughts on the 19th Amendment to really think about the implications of such an action. You would be condemning an entire gender to disenfranchisement all because some of their sisters decided to back a triple murderer because fee-fees. That’s not fair, nor is it advisable.

Remember, as the great philosopher LL Cool J so eloquently put it, Mama said knock you out.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

As much as I like to keep my thumb firmly up the ass of politics, social issues, and pop culture (hey, don’t judge me, man), there are times when I notice a convergence of a couple of topics that hasn’t been discussed at all. This requires a keen mind, a calm demeanor, and a way with words.

And since that guy is on vacation right now, it’s up to me.

There are two recent prominent court cases that dominated the public’s attention. The first was the trial of Karmelo Anthony, who was convicted of murdering Austin Metcalf at a track meet in 2025. The other is the ongoing trial (please check local listings for the status of the trial in your area) of Lindsay Clancy, who is accused of killing her three children in 2023. Aside from the murder aspect, these two cases couldn’t be more different.

Until you look at the people following the trials.

And I’m not just talking about some of the people who covered them as journalists. I’m talking about the brainless asshats who invent “facts” to devote their undying support for…the murderers.

Yes, we’ve gone that fucking stupid.

Gad Saad was instrumental in creating the concept of “suicidal empathy” where those who would do us harm rely on our humanity to help them destroy ourselves. I would write about it, but so many others have done a much better job than I ever could. However, using suicidal empathy as a starting point, I think I’ve stumbled upon another equally destructive concept.

homicidal empathy

What the Left thinks it means – We have no fucking clue.

What the Right thinks it means – Mega dittos. We don’t know what he’s talking about either.

What it really means – a psychological need to protect those who victimize others

To show you I’m not talking out of my ass (for once), I’ve been following the Karmelo Anthony trial on Facebook and following the Lindsay Clancy trial online, mainly through YouTube. Not exactly the kind of hard-hitting journalism you’d expect, but this shit’s free and you’re getting what you paid for.

What I’ve found so far is this:

1. There are people online who have emotional attachments to the two central figures because they feel they related to the figures in question.

2. These people will create any scenario in their heads or believe whatever scenario someone else puts forth, regardless of whether it’s factual or logical.

3. Anyone who tries to introduce inconvenient facts and logic are immediately attacked by these people.

4. The attacks from the aforementioned people will be irrelevant to the trial, highly personal, highly emotional, and often full of vulgar language to avoid dealing with the facts.

On a side note, number 4 resembles my single life.

Meanwhile, back that the point that doesn’t require weekly therapy sessions, the pace at which these folks spin narratives is breathtaking. No matter if it’s a line of logic that goes nowhere or if it’s someone else asking a logical question that exposes the claims as more full of shit than a Porta-Potty outside of a Taco Bell in New Dehli, there’s always a response. Usually, a personal insult. And nothing short of God himself coming down and notarizing your statements will sway them, and even then it’s a crapshoot.

That’s because homicidal empathy isn’t about the truth. It’s about taking up for a cause without consideration to the factual underpinnings of the cause. We saw this earlier this year with the Southern Poverty Law Center when Leftists came out in droves to defend it in spite of the fact they were breaking several laws to funnel funds to the very racist groups they said they were fighting. No matter what excuses they came up with to justify the behavior, Leftists still couldn’t grasp the concept that breaking the law has consequences, no matter how noble the cause.

Then again, these are the same people who can’t figure out what a woman is, so I’ll cut them some slack in the intellectual prowess department.

In both the Anthony and Clancy cases, we have laws being broken and clear evidence the perpetrators committed murder. Where homicidal empathy comes into play is the supporters of each murderer seeks to downplay or justify the actions of the murderer by deflection, poisoning the well, and general dumbfuckery. After all, as we all know, murder is perfectly fine if other unrelated factors are evident!

For you Anthony and/or Clancy supporters out there, that was sarcasm.

But here’s something that isn’t sarcasm: you’re supporting a fucking murderer. And I’m not talking in a hyperbolic sense like “Donald Trump has killed 482 bazillion people because of shutting down USAID.” Both Anthony and Clancy are literal murderers who confessed to murdering people. There is no amount of “but Austin Metcalf was racist” or “the husband is a different Zodiac sign” that will change that fact. It’s yours. Own it.

The sad thing is they never will because the narrative will continue to put out new “facts” to support itself, not unlike one of my Irrefutable Facts of Life: The sole purpose of a bureaucracy is to grow itself to the point it becomes impossible to remove. With the Anthony and Clancy supporters, the sole purpose of the narrative is to mitigate the facts of the cases to the point murder is no longer the central concept. It becomes the “yeah, but” defense.

Then, it hit me the kind of tactics these folks use is similar to that of cults. Let’s look at the characteristics of a cult, shall we?

– Absolute authoritarianism without accountability
– Zero tolerance for criticism or questions
– Lack of meaningful financial disclosure regarding the budget
– Unreasonable fears about the outside world that often involve evil conspiracies and persecutions
– A belief that former followers are always wrong for leaving, and there is never a legitimate reason for anyone else to leave
– Abuse of members
– Records, books, articles, or programs documenting the abuses of the leader or group
– Followers feel that they are never able to be “good enough”
– A belief that the leader is right at all times
– A belief that the leader is the exclusive means of knowing “truth” or giving validation

Guess what groups hit the majority of these warning signs. If you said “the Anthony and Clancy supporters” you’d be right. The judges would have also accepted “Hasan Piker fans.”

If that isn’t your cup of Earl Grey, I can also point to the lyrics of Living Colour’s “Cult of Personality.”

I exploit you
Still you love me
I tell you one and one makes three

Guess what, homicidal empathy fans. You’re in a cult. And if you can’t trust a combination of psychologists and Living Colour, who can you trust?

The worst part of homicidal empathy (aside from the whole sticking up for murderers bit) is there is zero return on investment here, and I’m not talking about it in a monetary sense. Instead, consider the personal psychological costs involved with it. Men and women (mostly women I’ve found, unfortunately) are devoting their lives to people who don’t even know they exist, but they are more than willing to use their supporters to garner sympathy. Sure, the Anthony and Clancy supporters can hand wave away such observations by claiming they’re fighting for a higher cause (namely justice), but these cases aren’t the hills you should be dying on, kids.

If you’ll pardon the turn of a phrase, that is.

Even if you don’t, the point remains. Is there racism in the justice system? Absolutely. Do women experience post partum depression after giving birth? No question. Are Karmelo Anthony and Lindsay Clancy the best poster children for these issues? Abso-fucking-ly not. You can address these issues independent of bad people facing the consequences of their actions.

And something tells me a lot of the Anthony and Clancy supporters haven’t done shit but complain. You know, classic slacktivism.

Unfortunately, I don’t think we’ll ever be able to get through those willing to engage in homicidal empathy, but we can watch out for signs we might be going down a similar path. Nobody is worth diminishing yourself to elevate him/her, especially if that person is a piece of shit. Karmelo Anthony and Lindsay Clancy are not role models nor innocent victims. They did the shit they’re accused of doing, and no stretches of imagination that would rival Reed Richards practicing hot yoga will fix that.

Consider the wise words of my grandpa: “Hey you kids! Get off my lawn!”

Profound words indeed.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

To put it mildly, the US Supreme Court has been at the center of a lot of controversy over the past few decades. From the various rulings around Roe v Wade to however the fuck Ketanji Brown Jackson got a seat with the High Court while simultaneously being one-tenth of a halfwit, it’s a miracle there aren’t more protests.

After the recent rulings about birthright citizenship, though, there might be a few more coming down the pike. Immigration debates are already highly charged in the first place, and the Right hoped the 6-3 conservative majority would rule the practice would go the way of former President Brick Tamland’s sway over the Left.

Wellllll…it didn’t go that way. In Trump v Barbara, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to strike President Trump’s Executive Order banning birthright citizenship. The Left were happy in spite of convincing themselves the court would uphold it. The Right were unhappy because they thought the 6-3 majority would guarantee it.

As for me…well, I have a headache thinking about the concept, so in lieu of aspirin, I decided to look into it further.

You’re welcome…I guess.

birthright citizenship

What the Left thinks it means – a way for newborns from foreign parents to become American citizens that should be maintained

What the Right thinks it means – a way for newborns from illegal immigrant parents to become American citizens that should be eliminated

What it really means – a simple idea complicated by politics

So, we’re all on the same page before moving into the sexy part of this controversy, we have to define what birthright citizenship actually is. Basically, it’s the idea if you’re born on American soil, that makes you an American. That’s going to piss off more than a few Leftists, but that’s not important right now. The crux of the idea comes from the 14th Amendment, which states in part as follows:

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.

Seems pretty straightforward, right? And it was for a lot of years until someone got it in his/her (still 2 genders for those of you playing along at home) head that this would cover the children of illegal immigrants. And based on a plain reading of the 14th Amendment, I can’t find fault with that conclusion from a logical standpoint.

Until we add that little thing the kids today like to call context. The author of the section of the 14th Amendment quoted above was a man named John Bingham. His history prior to writing the 14th Amendment is interesting, so you might want to read about it using this link. For those who don’t, let me break it down.

Bingham saw racial injustice towards blacks and wanted to end it through targeted legislation. He failed at first, but eventually got it done.

Now, what does this have to do with the current state of birthright citizenship? Glad you asked because if not I would have had to come up with something witty to put here, and we know how well that works!

In his speech introducing the 14th Amendment, Bingham anticipated how future/current generations would try to adapt it to their needs, but focused primarily on how it would impact blacks, who had just experienced a painful history of being treated as less than human. Although this is a limited focus, it’s essential to understanding the context. Bingham didn’t want this to become a means for states to treat blacks as non-citizens under their laws, but a baseline for Congress to enact new laws to expand on the concepts within the Amendment. And they did.

And then they didn’t when it came to illegal immigration.

This is when President Trump took action, and when the Left lost their collectivist minds. One Supreme Court decision later, and here we are.

You may be asking “Thomas, what do you think of the decision?” You may also be asking “Thomas, why are you dressed like Ernest Borgnine in a tutu?” First off, don’t kink-shame me. Second of all, how did you get in my house?

But to answer the first question, as much as it will piss off the Right, the Supreme Court made the right decision, kinda. Here’s what I mean.

Section 5 of the 14th Amendment reads as follows:

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

As the big fan of the Constitution as I am, I can see the fundamental flaw with this section, namely being the Executive Branch is the enforcement arm of the government. Having said that, the 14th Amendment puts the onus on Congress to enforce it, so unfortunately any enforcement of the provisions falls on them.

Which means they’ll get around to it by the time we celebrate America’s 300th birthday.

The Executive Order President Trump made circumvented the process established with the 14th ratification. It asserted the power of the Executive Branch to do the job it’s been doing since 1787, but it also violated the Constitution, leading to the Supreme Court decision and the subsequent freakout.

The dissents on Trump v Barbara are worth reading if you have the time and a lot of coffee and truck stop speed because the history lesson and intent were laid out pretty thoroughly. You might want to read Justice Jackson’s dissent if only for the comedic concept that she calls out Justice Clarence Thomas by name to try to give him a dressing down. That’s like Dylan Mulvaney calling out Danny Trejo for not being as badass as he is.

So, what happens now? A lot of bitching and moaning without anything getting done. At the very least, Trump allies in Congress have a path forward to write legislation to address birthright citizenship. The problem is time is short, the problem continues to grow, and Leftists will call them racist. So, any Tuesday on Capitol Hill, pretty much.

To me, the concept of birthright citizenship has merit, but it also has a loophole that allows people to abuse it. Until that loophole gets fixed through the aforementioned legislative action, it’s going to continue to be a problem. It also raises a point about how far Constitutional provisions extend to illegal immigrants. Even as I write this, I see numerous touchpoints that intersect with birthright citizenship.

What’s the solution? I got nothing. We have allowed politicians to warp the Constitution so this matter can’t be undone without a lot of work, a united front willing to discuss it, and the courage to fix it once and for all so the loophole is closed tighter than a little black dress.

Well, I’m off to my cryogenic chamber to wait for the day this happens. Wake me when shit goes down.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Remember when Leftists got their hate boners for Donald Trump after 2021 which resulted in legal proceedings that would make even Matlock say “fuck it”? Well, now that Trump’s President again, Leftists aren’t so keen on their tactics coming back on them.

This week (check local listings for the week in your area), California Governor and 80s movie villain stand-in Gavin Newsom and his wife got the business end of a Department of Justice investigation into “tax-related conduct.” Of course, Leftists including Newsom himself have complained about the weaponization of government agencies against them. And the Right has complained about the same thing under President Brick Tamland’s inept leadership.

So, let’s talk about it!

weaponization

What the Left thinks it means – using the power of the government to punish and oppress people

What it really means – a course of action that won’t end well

Over the past 20-30 years, politics has become one big pissing contest between Democrats and Republicans. Whenever one party does something the other doesn’t like, the other party takes time to do something to the first party doesn’t like in retaliation.

Actually, let me take that back. It’s not a pissing contest; it’s an acrimonious divorce.

Regardless, the Left took it to a new level after the 2020 election. No longer content to just launch investigations into Donald Trump’s dealings and what he did during his first Administration. They made it a point to use the legal system against him. In the short run, they were successful in getting the former (and current) President convicted on 34 felony counts on a case flimsier than a cheap toilet paper nightie. Then, there was the Georgia election interference case where the prosecution was more like a soap opera than a serious legal team.

And then in 2024, all that lawfare went to shit because Trump got reelected.

Now, I’m not a psychologist (but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night), but I’d have to say being targeted by the legal system with the Left cheering each and every decision might give Trump a chip on his shoulder the size of the Rock of Gibraltar. And with him not exactly being the “forgive and forget” type, you would have to be a fucking moron to think he wouldn’t try to get one back on the Left.

And as it turns out, the Left are fucking morons.

Back when the Left started weaponizing the judical system against Trump and his followers, I told some Left-leaning friends of mine it was a bad idea because it would come back to haunt them. And, surprise surprise, they could star in a remake of “Poltergeist” because it did. Instead of saying “we fucked up” though, they’re stuck whining about weaponizing the federal government against them.

To be fair, they may have a point, and this time it’s not on their heads. It’s never a good idea for the federal government to go after political enemies under any circumstances. The fact Lois Lerner was allowed to do that and still walks free sticks in my craw like you wouldn’t believe. Or maybe you would. I don’t want to speak out of turn.

Where the Left’s point gets blunted is when the investigations are related to actual wrong-doing, not just having the word “patriot” on your non-profit application. In this case, Newsom and his wife may be guilty of breaking tax law in relation to non-profits they’ve supported.

Of course Newsom is telling people it’s because Trump is trying to scare him away from running for President. But if I may give you some advice, Gav (I’ll call you “Gav” because it’s the tamest thing I could call you), it’s probably the fucking taxes.

But that doesn’t play well in San Francisco, so Newsom and the Left will play it off as weaponization. After all, it will continue the “Trump is out to get us” narrative, which will allow them to play victim (even if they’re nowhere near the epicenter of the shit show). After all, if he can do it to Newsom, he can do it to anybody, right?

Yes, yes he can. And so can you.

That’s why I have the same amount of sympathy towards the Left on his matter than I have fucks to give: zero. You Leftists got a short term victory that wound up meaning less than the box office gross of “Medea Goes to the Gynecologist.” Trump won, mainly because your choices were a doddering old man who more forgetful than I am after a bender with Willie Nelson and a woman who was more one-dimensional and vapid as most Hollywood starlets.

Put another way, you fucked yourselves because you thought there was no way for Trump to get back into office. How’s that working out for you, assholes?

Now, having said all that, I do have to warn both major parties this kind of back and forth shit doesn’t end well for anyone, and it has to stop before this war of words turns into a war with weapons. Folks, things are getting chippy out there between people who want to start shit and people who are waiting for shit to go down so they can fuck up their enemies, real or otherwise. I’ve felt America has been on the verge of another civil war (since the last one worked out so well) for quite a few years now. And right now, it looks like it’s going to be the DIY guerrilla forces on the Left versus the folks with most of the guns on the Right.

Let’s just say I’m taking the under for the Left to win that one.

In the meantime, I think both sides need to take a step back and realize what they’ve done is undercut the very principles of America. The government is supposed to be of the people, by the people, for the people. Turning the might of the federal government against the people without just cause only makes it harder for the country to operate because you assholes will just keep investigating each other.

Come to think of it, that may not be such a bad idea after all. Carry on!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

The eyes of the world (or at least the part of the world that cared about this) were on the nation-state of Texas and the Karmelo Anthony trial. If you’ve been living under a rock (which may not be such a bad thing these days), Anthony was accused of murdering Austin Metcalf in April of last year. In a decision that took less time than a PBS pledge break, the jury convicted Anthony, with a sentence of 35 years in prison with the possibility of parole after 17.

Although this piece isn’t about the death penalty, let me make myself crystal clear: any time a murderer gets even a little amount of time at the Gray Bar Hotel, he or she beats the rap. Sure, prison isn’t exactly the Ritz Carlton, but every breath taken by the perp is an insult to the victim and his/her family.

One of the more interesting aspects to the trial was introducing the concept of self-defense as a legal argument. Typically Leftists treat self-defense like it’s a job application, but they occasionally toss it out there in the hopes they can convince a jury, legal or of public opinion, the alleged perp didn du nuthin. But, it’s still worth a gander.

Or a goose if you’d prefer.

self-defense

What the Left thinks it means – an unnecessary tool used by the right wing to justify killing people in cold blood

What it really means – one of the fundamental rights we have, and one the Left wants to remove

I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again: The Left is all about control over our lives. From their economic policies to their domestic policies, they want to have a say in whatever we do. We got a really good look at what that’s like during COVID by watching how Democrat Governors handled lockdowns.

Spoiler Alert: It fucking sucked.

But there was one positive that came out of it, namely we got to see what Leftists like Gavin “I Have the Hair of an 80s Movie Villain” Newsom, Gretchen “The Gretch Who Stole Christmas” Whitmer, and Andrew “I Didn’t Know Putting COVID Patients With Old People Would End So Badly” Cuomo let their masks (figurative and literal) slip to show what their endgame was. They were amongst the first to institute strict lockdown procedures and amongst the last to lessen those procedures when COVID started winding down.

Oh, and memo to Taylor Lorenz. You can take off the mask now. You look like an idiot, and this time not because of what you say or write.

The Left has the same fascination with control when it comes to self-defense. If they can’t force you to become victims, they will punish you through laws, regulations, and general dumbfuckery. Look at how they push for more gun laws when the existing ones aren’t stopping people from shooting others. It’s their standard MO, like “thoughts and prayers” but with more forms to fill out.

It should come as no surprise the blue states have the strictest gun laws in the country. Yet, these gun laws don’t result in lower gun-related death rates, with blue states recording some pretty high numbers. So, why would Leftists continue to push for more gun laws?

They’re dumbfucks.

Oh, and they want to control people’s lives.

But this goes beyond whether Jethro in Pigfuck, Arkansas or J’wan in New York City wants to pack heat. It can come down to whether Jethro or J’wan can protect himself/herself at a moment’s notice if the situation arises. And with the police being minutes away in most cases (if they even show up at all), that firearm may be the only thing saving Jethro and J’wan from getting robbed or worse.

To give a little grace, 911 can only respond so quickly, and they’re acting as a middle man to alert the police, but they don’t pass any savings onto you. Instead, it makes the possibility of the police showing up just in time to catch the robber smaller than the chances Hunter Biden starts a rehab clinic. Every second that goes by without law enforcement affects the likelihood of capturing the criminal. A lot of times the only thing working in the police’s favor is how fucking stupid the perps are. Not a sucker’s bet by any stretch of the imagination, but not something I’d be willing to risk a life on.

Aside from trying to pass more laws that criminals will ignore because they’re fucking criminals, what else do Leftists suggest? Let’s take a brief look.

– Shoot a shotgun through the door
– Call 911 and then hide or escape until the police show up. But they also say the police are racist and need to be defunded.
– If someone breaks into your house, offer to help them rebuild his/her life.
– Focus on prevention.
– Blame Republicans (naturally)

And these tactics work soooo well, Democrats are still victims of crime from carjackings to home invasions to murder, and many, many more. Being called soft on crime and having attorneys backed by our good friend Uncle George Soros decide not to prosecute actual criminals so they can, surprise surprise, commit more crimes doesn’t help them.

Nor does it help us.

Although the Left is eager to buy the concept of self-defense when it comes to Karmelo Anthony, they aren’t so quick to adopt it when it’s someone they don’t like using it. Just ask Kyle Rittenhouse, who had a legitimate self-defense claim. Even the much-maligned (and justifiably so) George Zimmerman had one. That doesn’t mean the Left has to accept it as legitimate, however. In fact, I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say they would reject most self-defense claims out of hand, except if they see political gain from it or…now this is the weird part, they’re the victims.

I know! I was as shocked as you are.

The point is the Left isn’t going to be a consistent defender of self-defense. Of course you could always self-identify as an oppressed group and watch their heads fucking explode, but there is another way.

Fuck ’em.

Not literally, of course. Never stick your dick in crazy, kids. That goes double for Dylan Mulvaney.

What I mean is you don’t need the Left’s sanction to protect yourself from those who would do you physical, mental, emotional, or fiscal harm. And given how relying on the government to move faster than molasses on a glacier is like relying on Hunter Biden to not do all the crack in a crack den, you’re better off doing it yourself. Take self-defense courses, arm yourself (legally, of course), install cameras, do what you need.

One additional thing I can suggest having lived on the mean streets of a moderately sized Midwestern city, be aware of your surroundings. Know where you are, who is around you, and have at least 2 different means of escaping a bad situation. That alone will help you as much as being strapped.

There is one caveat to any self-defense option you take. You cannot live your life in fear, and yes there is a difference between being afraid and being prepared. Fear is a great motivator, but it motivates you to do the wrong things. Being prepared means you can act calmly and decisively. Most people out there don’t give two fucks about you, or even enough fucks to want to fuck up your life. They’re dealing with the same societal shit you are and may be just as frustrated as you.

This is where you need to show a little humanity if only to spread some light in these dark times. This may seem counterintuitive when dealing with self-defense, but it’s a lot better way to go through life. Being prepared and humane makes you John Wick. Being prepared and anti-social makes you the Punisher. There’s a huge difference, namely in choice of work clothes and vehicles.

In the Karmelo Anthony case, it was a lack of humanity that caused Austin Metcalf’s death and, appropriately enough, negated his self-defense defense. See, the thing about self-defense is you can’t initiate conflict and use it. Call it the “Talk Shit, Get Hit” Principle. Self-defense is always reactionary, which is weird Leftists don’t like it because they’re usually in favor of reactionaries.

Regardless, you don’t have to play by the Left’s rules on this matter. They need you to be victims so they can swoop in and “protect” you via ineffective and illogical laws and enforcement. You don’t have to be one, though. You have the ability to defend yourselves and your loved ones and, even in the bluest of blue states, you’re better off taking a chance on getting arrested than getting killed.

Consider it the ultimate DIY project.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Since Donald Trump’s second inauguration, there’s been a lot of attention paid to illegal immigration, which is a continuation of Trump’s first inauguration where he paid a lot of attention to…illegal immigration. If I didn’t know any better, I’d say there’s a pattern here…

The latest battleground is at the Delaney Hall ICE facility in Newark, New Jersey. Allegations of poor conditions prompted Leftists to do what they seem to do on the regular these days: bitch and moan. Things got so bad, Mayor Ras Bakara instituted a curfew that was lifted a few days after it was initiated.

So, Summer of Love 2.0 anyone?

Actually, I think a closer look at Delaney Hall might be in order, if for no other reason than to give me something else to write about besides Graham Platner who has a literal Nazi tattoo. Oh, and is a total scumbag.

Delaney Hall

What the Left thinks it means – a horrible place indicative of Trump’s cruel treatment of undocumented aliens

What it really means – an ICE detainment facility that has turned into a focal point of stupidity

Delaney Hall is a relatively new building, but it already has a history which include, surprise surprise, protests. (Hey, if Uncle George Soros is willing to part with some of his cash, I’d be willing to protest full time, too!)

Where things got chippy was during a 2025 “oversight” inspection conducted by Rep. LaMonica McIver and two of her fellow New Jersey Representatives. And by oversight, I mean “making a fucking spectacle of herself,” where Rep. McIver tried to throw hands and wound up catching 3 felony charges for, you know, trying to throw hands at ICE officers.

The fact McIver isn’t trying out for a reboot of “Orange Is the New Black” is beyond me, but it set off a series of stunts where Congresscritters would bypass normal operating procedures and just show up whenever they wanted and expected, nay, demanded entry.

How’d that work out for ya, dipshits?

Not very well, but it created a framework by which Leftists could ratchet up their protests. After all, shouldn’t a Congresscritter be allowed to see the facility using Congressional oversight authority?

Yeaaaaaah. Not really.

Congressional oversight may be broad in nature, but it has to be related to the functions of Congress, not some capricious whim that Leftists thinks covers the powers of the legislature. ICE is a part of the Department of Homeland Security, which puts it in the Executive Branch, as is Customs and Border Protection. The role of Congressional oversight includes making sure laws are being carried out.

You know, like immigration law?

Anyway, the investigative part of Congressional oversight is typically done by having show trials…I mean PR stunts…I mean Congressional hearings. Although, to be fair, I would prefer more listening at these hearings, so calling them “hearings” is a bit misleading.

Much like what’s going on at Delaney Hall.

The Left has to try to make detention centers look and sound like concentration camps because it fits in with their existing “Trump is a Nazi” narrative. The problem? The narrative doesn’t fit the reality. The detainees get decent meals, which is vastly different from what was served at concentration camps. As far as the other allegations of subpar conditions, that’s subject to debate based on Tom Homan’s recent visit to Delaney Hall. Say what you will about the man (and believe me Leftists have said a shit-ton), Homan isn’t exactly the type to sugarcoat anything, especially if it’s bullshit. Just ask the Socialist Socialite.

This brings us to the “who benefits” portion of the program. On the one hand, we have Tom Homan, who admittedly has a vested interest in keeping Delaney Hall open due to his position as Border Czar. On the other hand, we have detainees, prison advocates, and politicians who have a vested interest in shutting down Delaney Hall. Both have reasons to lie or at least distort the truth to protect their positions.

That’s where we have to dig a little deeper and ask why someone on either side of this discussion would lie. Homan has been in law enforcement for decades prior to his current role and has a track record of dealing with illegal immigration. His “why” can be distilled down to wanting to protect his image and/or the Trump Administration. Not necessarily admirable if he lied, but understandable.

The same can’t be said for the detainees, advocates, and politicians, however. The Left has built a Kobayashi Maru (or at least they think they have) by boosting the claims of mistreatment, malnutrition, and medical malpractice. (And with that, I have earned my Unnecessary Alliteration Merit Badge from the Snark Scouts.) The problem? Their claims can’t be verified independently. Consider it Schrodinger’s Detention Facility. If you can’t see the detainees, you can’t tell if they’re being mistreated, but if you do and the detainees aren’t being mistreated, you either have to reject the narrative (rendering it all bullshit from the jump) or you have to perpetuate it (rendering it all bullshit after the jump).

And remember, kids, Leftists are smarter than us. Just ask them.

And, contrary to Leftist squawking points, dropping in unannounced but with a full camera crew and a throng of humanity backing you up isn’t the proper channels to visit Delaney Hall, or any detention facility anywhere. Before you can step foot in a prison, you have a cadre of investigation about facets of your existence that make the TSA look like rubber-stamping paper pushers. What these Congresscritters and their minions want to do is circumvent the rules because…reasons.

That means the detainees, advocates, and politicians all have a vastly different why than Homan. Their why comes down to protecting the power they have and playing hard and fast with established protocols for a political end.

When put that way, the “who benefits” clearly doesn’t bode well for the Left. Granted, Homan may have similar motivations, but he hasn’t tried to make every illegal immigrant into a sob story where he or she just wants a better life.

Kate Steinle was unavailable for comment.

Look, discussing immigration is like tap dancing in a minefield wearing clown shoes, but there are reasons why we have laws on the books. Instead of trying to prevent said laws from being enforced because your fee-fees get hurt, change the fucking laws. Sure, that would require you to win House and Senate elections while maintaining a favorability rating just south of leprosy, but that’s what you signed up for when you were elected.

As far as Delaney Hall’s alleged lack of oversight, let me put it this way. The Trump Administration is under the microscope so much they have glass slides permanently affixed to their asses. If they were truly as horrible as the Left claims, we would know about it because you Leftists wouldn’t shut the fuck up about it.

By the way, Chicken Little called. He wants his bit back.

Even with all that, I still think the Trump Administration should allow Congresscritters and critics to visit Delaney Hall with some conditions I put together.

1. They have to sign a contract binding them to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under threat of libel/slander.

2. Everyone who goes inside gets an accountabilibuddy to make sure they abide by the terms of the contract.

3. Everyone who goes inside spends a full day inside so they get an actual day in the life.

4. Both the interested party and the accountabilibuddy have to wear bodycams.

5. If the interested party leaves the facility and fails to tell the truth, he/she (still two genders, kids) must get a tattoo on his/her forehead reading “Liar.” The judges would have also accepted “I’m A Dumbass” for people with more forehead space than brains.

6. Public mockery.

Okay, so I threw in that last one because I want it to happen, but you get the picture. The only way to get a true sense of what Delaney Hall is like is to ensure there is as little wiggle room to lie as possible. My humble proposal will go a long way towards getting the transparency necessary to ensure conditions are habitable.

Plus, I want to throw some business to the tattoo artists out there!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

This week’s Lexicon takes us to the Golden State, California. Having solved all of its problems (you know, except for people fleeing the state, rampant homelessness, uncontrolled drug abuse, a lack of leadership from the Governor on down, and more freaks than backstage at a Rick James show), they’re focusing its attention on a serious issue, a scourge on all of decent society that must be kept in check or the world as we know it will end.

That blight on humanity? The Lord Voldemort of 2026?

Nick Shirley.

Yes, that Nick Shirley.

This week, California’s Assembly passed the Stop Nick Shirley Act, a proposed law to protect potential victims of investigative journalists by expanding their existing Safe At Home Program designed to protect victims of domestic abuse. Because being interviewed about alleged fraud is totes equal to domestic abuse.

For you Leftists out there reading this, that was sarcasm.

What isn’t sarcasm is the Stop Nick Shirley Act is the kind of Lexicon topic I can sink my teeth into and enjoy!

the Stop Nick Shirley Act

What the Left thinks it means – a bill that will stop people like Shirley from harassing people in the search for clicks

What it really means – a bill that makes the Left moist in their panties, but betrays their real feelings about a free press

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again (mainly because this piece would be a lot shorter if I didn’t): I have a healthy respect for the First Amendment, both for personal reasons and as a general principle. A part of that involves freedom of the press, which is essential to a healthy society and government.

Given the current state of journalism, though, we’re as healthy as Rosie O’Donnell and Michael Moore at an all you can eat buffet at Uncle Stinky’s Food Poisoning Emporium and Sewage Treatment Center. (Their slogan: It’s technically food.)

As the mainstream media have turned into DNC Lapdog Central, people started looking for alternatives. I mean, if you heard different TV stations saying the same thing almost to the syllable, you might want to see if someone else has something different to say. Good thing every mainstream media outlet is independent and has a commitment to the truth, amirite?

For any Leftists reading this, that was also sarcasm.

What started out as a little-known and hardly talked-about website called The Drudge Report spawned new interest in the journalism game, and more than a few people jumped at the chance to dig into stories for themselves. Most of them didn’t uncover too much scandal outside of how Mrs. Wickersham is a teetotaler in public, but smokes more pot than Willie Nelson, Cheech and Chong, and Seth Rogan on 4/20 when nobody’s looking.

Then, there is Nick Shirley. Instead of finding a ganj-smoking grandma, he found fraud. A lot of fraud. Although we don’t have a firm and verified total of how much fraud yet, let’s just say it’s more than enough to go to a learning center to learn how to spell “Learning Center.”

Now, most people think uncovering fraud is a good thing. Ah, but Leftists don’t think that way, mainly because they’re guilty of it themselves, enabling it, or a little from Column A and a little from Column B. Regardless, since Shirley made Minnesota Governor and former VP candidate Tim Walz look like, well, Tim Walz, the Left has had a metaphorical hard-on to get Shirley by any means necessary.

After Minnesota, Shirley turned his sights to California, where there’s more hands out than if you cloned Shiva multiple times. Given the Governor is a guy who could have played any dickheaded jock antagonist from any 80s movie (right down to the hairstyle), finding fraud wouldn’t be that hard because, well, the Governor is one. The only problem? The Governor is as big of a dick as the aforementioned 80s movie character.

That brings us to today (please check local listings for the day in your area) and the Stop Nick Shirley Act. See, Leftists like Newsom believe independent journalists looking into taxpayer-funded fraud is a bad thing. After all, it’s his money, right?

Yeah, not quite, but try telling him that.

Since Matt Drudge became a household name in spite of the mainstream media, the Left has been trying to discredit the work being done by people more invested in finding the truth than they are. They’ve suggested requiring licenses to practice journalism. They’ve dismissed independent journalists as bloggers sitting around in their underwear pretending to be real journalists. They’ve fact-checked (or what passes for fact-checking on the Left) more salacious pieces to find “errors” and used that to discredit the entire piece.

First off, I wear clothes most of the time I pretend to be a real journalist. Do with that what you will.

Second, all of these actions and plenty more show the Left can’t stand it when someone else has a say in the flow of information because it gets harder for them to lie their asses off without anyone throwing the brown bullshit flag. Just ask anyone who had their Twitter account struck or removed because of Leftist moderators.

And with that, it reveals the Left’s commitment to freedom of the press and freedom of speech. They are fully behind both…as long as they get to control both. Which kinda defeats the purpose of free speech and freedom of the press if you really think about it (and I do because I have to do something when the Internet is down). Oh, make no mistake the Left will jump out front to defend freedom of speech and freedom of the press (or at least their fucked up versions of both), but it’s always going to be bullshit because they love power more than those pesky ole rights we have.

The Stop Nick Shirley Act is the latest example of this. While Leftists will gush over one of their own for being one of their “First Amendment protectors,” they will do everything in their power to ensure someone who is far closer to one than they’ll ever be won’t be allowed to expose fraud and bring about change. Put another way, the Left love fraud more than freedom.

Not exactly a good look there, Leftists.

And for any Leftists reading this, that was not sarcasm.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Another week, another series of Ls for the Left, this time on the electoral side of things. The US Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana attempt to redistrict on the basis of race by a 6-3 margin. One of the key parts of this decision revolved around the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which in part prohibits racial discrimination in voting. What the case in question (Louisiana v. Callais for those of you playing along at home) did was bring to light the use of the Voting Rights Act to carve out racially-specific districts.

The Left, being the mature and thoughtful people they be, took to the airwaves to lay out a cogent and well-reasoned response.

Nah, I’m bullshitting you. They lost their ever-loving minds.

So, what’s all the hubbub, bub, over the ruling? I’m glad you asked, otherwise I would have had to pull something out of my ass to write about this week. You know, like I do every week.

Voting Rights Act

What the Left thinks it means – an important law that’s been gutted by the Trump Supreme Court

What it really means – a law that had noble beginnings, but got warped by the Left

To put it mildly, America has been pretty shitty towards blacks over the years. And by years, I mean centuries. Even during the more progressive 1960s, we still had to overcome societal biases and realize blacks were equal to whites and should be treated as such.

Enter Lyndon B. Johnson and the Voting Rights Act. With the President’s signature, many voting rules/laws that were around since the end of the Civil War, such as literacy tests and poll taxes, designed to prevent blacks from voting. And, unlike most laws getting passed today, it actually worked. Blacks started voting in droves, becoming an important voting bloc to this day.

Where this shitshow goes off the rails is in the application of the law, namely Section 2. You know how some states have gerrymandered districts that look like a meth head drew them on an Etch-A-Sketch? Thank the Left for that. In the 1990s, Democrats had the brilliant idea that only blacks should represent blacks in Congress. And by brilliant, I mean fucking stupid and racist. Then again, these are Democrats we’re talking about here, so being stupid and racist is kinda their brand. Just ask the SPLC.

Too soon?

Although the racial gerrymandering was permitted for decades, mainly because the Left made it so anything even resembling treating everyone equally racist (yeah, I don’t get it either), there was a tiny problem with it. Namely, the 14th Amendment.

I quote Section 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.

There’s a lot to take in, but the Reader’s Digest condensed version is everyone is subject to equal protection under the law, and you’d better have a damn good reason to limit those protections. Although Leftists will disagree, being white isn’t a good enough reason. Neither is any attempt to get more minority representation in the halls of Congress at the expense of equality under the law.

“But what about the institutional racism of the past, you bigot?” Leftists will probably say. And my response is simple: you don’t seem to think very highly of minorities, do you? I mean, it’s not like prominent Democrats have recently tried to make themselves relatable to blacks by suggesting they’re not smart…oh, fuck, they have. To hear assholes like Chuck Schumer, Gavin Newsom, and too many others to count talk, blacks are incapable of doing anything in their own best interests, so white Leftists just have to do things in their best interests.

When it comes to Ilhan Omar and Jasmine Crockett, they might have a point.

Overall, however, blacks aren’t as helpless as the Left believes. I firmly believe America isn’t as racist as the Left wants us to think and Republicans (the most evilest raciest racists that ever racisted evilly) have shown they will vote for candidates who don’t look like them. Just look at the 2025 Virginia Gubernatorial race. Winsome Earle-Sears ran as a Republican and managed to get over 42% of the vote in a losing effort. One doesn’t do that well without at least some whites voting for you.

And who did Democrats vote for? A white woman who makes Edgar Winter look like George Hamilton.

And if you want to go back a little bit further, didn’t we have a black President a couple of times a few years ago? And it’s not like he didn’t get white votes.

So, why do Leftists insist America is too racist to elect blacks without their help? I mean, aside from the fact they’re racist dumbasses. It boils down to the same philosophy the SPLC used: they need there to be racism to justify their efforts. As long as rich white Leftists can convince people the country is one big melting pot of white supremacy, they can keep the votes and money rolling in.

That’s why they freaked out at the Supreme Court decision. They had to confront the fact their racist anti-racism attempts were actually racist racist attempts. And instead of saying, “Maybe we should rethink this whole racism thing,” they let their masks slip and showed they don’t think very much of blacks after all.

Aside from the gross misapplication of the Voting Rights Act, I still think it serves as an important reminder of why we had to pass it in the first place and to never let up in pursuit of racial equality. The USSC ruling doesn’t gut the Voting Rights Act so much as it removes a way for Leftists to skirt the issue while telling people they’re totally fighting for equal rights.

And if we can’t trust the words of people who think Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is a brilliant legal mind, who can you trust?

Leftist Lexicon Word 0f the Week

To put it mildly, it must really suck to be a Leftist these days. Sure, they have some bright spots like the Virginia fuck-up…I mean gerrymandering vote, pending the results of a legal challenge, but for every W it seems they have more Ls than Chicago’s public transit system. Prominent Leftist firebrands like Eric Swalwell and Jasmine Crockett are on their ways out of a job (at least in Congress). Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is issuing rulings that even her fellow Leftists on the Supreme Court are disregarding as woefully unimpressive.

And now, one of the Left’s favorite organizations, the Southern Poverty Law Center, finds itself under FBI scrutiny and public ridicule for, and I wish I were making this up, alleged money laundering and paying off white supremacists to, well, be white supremacists. And all while raising funds to try to fight them.

Although there are some on the Right who come close, this is one of the dumbest fucking things the Left has done. Which, of course, means, I get to make fun of it in this week’s Lexicon!

Southern Poverty Law Center

What the Left thinks it means – a vital tool in the fight against white supremacy and race-based hatred

What it really means – an organization in search of a problem

The SPLC started in 1971 as an outgrowth of the civil rights movement of the 1960s. When not fighting for blacks to get equal footing in the world, they tracked white supremacist groups and helped raise awareness of their activities. Not a bad gig, really.

But somewhere along the way, the arguably noble origins of the SPLC gave way to Leftist hackery. Racial equality expanded to LGBTQIA+14X-25YX42 rights, migrant (i.e. illegal immigrant) rights, and propagan…I mean education. And with that expansion came the expansion of what constituted a hate group. And, surprise surprise, all of them seem to be right wing in nature!

Now, if you were a Leftist, you would say “that’s because the Right is so hateful.” And if you weren’t a fucking dumbass, you would dig a bit deeper to see just what constitutes a hate group to the SPLC.

And, contrary to popular belief, I am not a fucking dumbass.

After Moms for Liberty got added to the SPLC’s list of hate groups for being “anti-government,” I decided to look into it. Let’s just say you would have to suspend disbelief like the guy from the Crazy Glue commercials from the 1970s to believe the SPLC’s bullshit.

And I’ll be damned if the Left didn’t start looking for steel girders and a hard hat.

When you designate anything outside of your ideological bubble as hate, it’s a crap shoot. There will be some pretty hateful asshats out there, but they tend not to be the majority, just the loudest and most boorish. When I’ve had disagreements with Republicans, MAGA or otherwise, I’ve been treated with respect for the most part and we wind up having a decent conversation. Ditto with most conversations I’ve had with Democrats.

But the Far Left and the Far Right? If I can get past the foam that forms around the sides of their mouths and can foot the bill for the series of rabies shots afterwards, there’s a non-zero chance I can have a decent conversation. Pretty damn close to zero, but still non-zero.

This is the problem the SPLC faces right now. Well, that and the allegations of money laundering and payments made to the people they were allegedly trying to fight, I mean. But more to the point, they’ve let their ideological bent taint their perspective. Here’s a prime example: Turning Point USA is considered a hard right group connected to possible violence, but you know who isn’t?

Antifa.

You know, the ones who are okay with literal violence?

But I’m sure they’ll get right on it. I mean, it’s not like it took them until 2009 to label the Nation of Islam a hate group…oh, fuck, it did. And even then, the SPLC had to make sure they were connected to the “Far Right” because who knows what would happen if they actually did their job correctly, amirite?

By playing picky-choosy with what constitutes a hate group, the SPLC undermines its own credibility as a definitive and objective source. Not that it stops the Left from using their laughable reports as cudgels to “prove” hate is on the rise and only the SPLC can stop it.

Yeah, about that…

What the SPLC and the Left (but, I repeat myself) fail to understand is people do tend to get along pretty well without them. Yes, there are still hate groups out there targeting vulnerable individuals, but by and large we live in harmony. Maybe it’s the Gen Xer in me, but I don’t care what you identify as or what you look like or what you think. Just don’t be an asshole. Simple rule, and it’s kept me in good stead for decades.

But even that one simple rule is too hard for Leftists to follow, let alone comprehend. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again (mainly because I need to fill space): Leftists can never be happy. They’re always pissed off about something or depressed because they aren’t getting their way. I say this this is exactly how I was before I became a recovering Leftist.

This plays into the SPLC situation perfectly because at some point you will run out of things to get pissed off about, but instead of realizing being pissed off all the time isn’t a lucrative as you were lead to believe it was, they figured out a way to keep their doors open by quietly encouraging the activity they were publicly against. Hmmm…that reminds me of someone, an aspiring President who had a public opinion and a private opinion…I can’t put my finger on who that was, but I’m sure Bill Clinton did at one time.

Anyway, this starts a circuit. The group paid off people to “investigate” hate groups and report back. Then, the SPLC “exposes” the hate groups, thus keeping up appearances they’re still doing what they claim to be doing. This, in turn, makes gullible Leftists fork over donations to keep up the good work, which gets filtered back to the organization and used to pay off more people to “investigate” hate groups, and so on.

You know what stops that circuit? People getting along.

The thing about hate groups is they’re loud, but tiny compared to the rest of the population. There’s a reason the Westboro Baptist Church has fewer members than Lorena Bobbitt’s exes; it’s because nobody wants to associate with those assholes! That keeps them small, manageable, and easy to track. And the best part? You don’t have to steal donations to do it! Just let them play badass on their own property and crack ’em in the skulls if they get out of hand. Knowing a whole group of people is going to whup your ass if you decide to get froggy is a pretty good deterrent. At worst, you might have to spring for a few cases of beer afterwards, so it’s more cost-effective than the SPLC.

That’s not to say the SPLC is doomed. That’s for the courts to decide. But even some of the most vigorous and faithful servants have to be asking themselves “Are we the bad guys?” And the answer is yes, yes you are. Whatever good you’ve done in the past is going to be overshadowed by the bullshit you’ve perpetuated in the name of keeping the SPLC relevant and funded. Well, you might be neither after the legal process does its thing and exposes you as frauds.

But look on the bright side. You could be Eric Swalwell.

Stolen Land

The Myth of Stolen Land

I grow tired of seeing this Leftist non-sense cry about “stolen land.” There is no such thing as stolen land. Land, territory, property, whatever you want to call it cannot be stolen. Unless you are going out with a shovel every night to take some of your neighbor’s yard.

Stolen? No. Land can be gifted, bought, traded, or conquered. But never stolen. Those are the only ways land changes ownership. And is exactly what took place in the Americas.

The various Indian tribes waged war against one another for centuries before the first European settlers ever reached the shores. In those times “tribal land” changed hands a multitude of times. By right of conquest, with the spoils going to the victor.

The European settlers used the methods of buying, trading, and conquest to gain ownership of the lands on which they forged new nations. Where the Indian tribes cheated or swindled in these buying and trading deals? The answer to that is possibly but that doesn’t mean it was stolen. Know the terms and negotiate better.

In addition to buying and trading, conquest was used for vast majority of the land to change ownership by force of war. This isn’t stealing, this is conquest. A method of gaining land ownership since Biblical times.

Today these tribes have reservations. Land that was gifted to them. Some tribes, being savvy businessmen have purchased additional land making their reservations larger over the years. Did they cheat and swindle the sellers? The answer to that is again probably. It happens all the time. Again though, the land is not being stolen even if the buy is cheated or swindled.

There are cases where there are inter tribal disputes as to who owns what part of the reservation. These are settled in court under law. But sometimes still at gun point in a few cases. That’s conquest again if you aren’t paying attention.

So to say “none one is illegal on stolen land” or any other such non-sense about “stolen land” is just false. We do not live of on stolen land, no body does anywhere. The land has either been gifted, bought, traded, or conquered.

If you want land you must use one of those methods to get it.