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.
Category: Justice
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.
Quick Hits
I’m sorry there wasn’t a Leftist Lexicon entry this week. There were so many topics and not enough time to devote to delving into them. I don’t want to do a half-assed job of it, considering that’s what I do already. If I half-ass my usual half-ass job, you’re only getting a quarter-ass, and that’s not good enough. If I’m going to half-ass something, I’m going to half-ass it all the way, baby
To make up for the lack of a Lexicon entry, I’m bringing back one of my Quick Hits segments where I give my opinions on topics that are interesting (at least to me), but may not be able to be developed into a full blog post. Hope you enjoy!
GOP on Abortion – The Left has been talking about how Republicans can craft a winning message on abortion now that Roe v Wade has been relegated back to the states. And from what I’m hearing, some Republicans want the next President to do something on the federal level to protect babies in the womb.
Ummm…that’s what Roe v Wade was, kids. The Supreme Court just sent abortion rights back to the states and you asshats want to bring it back to the federal level? That’s proving what the pro-baby-death…I mean reproductive rights crowd said about you right. Don’t give them such an easy W.
The War in Ukraine – It’s still going on, and we’re still on the hook for billions of dollars until, well, we get tired of being Ukraine’s sugar daddy. People are starting to figure out there’s more to the Ukraine-Russia conflict than democracy. Namely, a lot of money for politicians who would love nothing more than to keep Ukraine in the fight if only to hide the covert business dealings.
During the second Gulf War, Leftists chanted “No blood for oil.” Now these same Leftists are practically chanting “All the blood for 10% for the Big Guy.”
UAW Strike – The big three automakers watched as members of the United Auto Workers union walked off the jobs due to the companies not meeting union demands. Among the union’s demands were a 40% pay raise over 4 years with an immediate raise of 20%. As someone who hasn’t seen more than a single-digit raise in, oh, ever, a 20% hike is impressive…in its stupidity.
Look, I know the Big Three made record profits, but that doesn’t make it automatically yours, regardless of what Puddin’ Head Joe tells you. Before you start holding out your hands expecting the Big Three to shower you with money, think about the expenditures side of the ledger. If I make $1 billion in profit and I spend $900 million of that to expand my business or make necessary adjustments to existing worksites, the profit side goes down a bunch. How are the Big Three spending these record profits? Until you can answer that question, don’t look for me on the picket lines.
Another union demand was a cost of living increase to match inflation. You know, the inflation created in large part by the idiots they helped elect in 2020?
And speaking of one of those idiots…
the Biden impeachment – Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy announced the initiation of an inquiry into whether Puddin’ Head Joe broke the law via influence peddling through Joe’s crackhead son, Hunter. (More on him later.) Well, the Left broke out the “sham impeachment” talk early and often, stating there was no evidence Puddin’ Head Joe broke the law. And they’re right…if you ignore all the evidence that literally exists.
But I will have to say the Left knows what a sham impeachment looks like, considering they did two of them to former President Donald Trump.
gun rights in New Mexico – After recent shootings in her state, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham issued an executive order banning the right to carry, citing a public health emergency. As you might imagine, this went over as well as the Botulism Special at Chipotle. Here’s how fucked up it got: Rep. Ted Lieu and poster boy for gun control David Hogg said Lujan Grisham was full of shit.
Since her initial fuck-up and subsequent doubling down, Lujan Grisham has amended her original order to restrict the right to carry only in public parks and playgrounds. And she vowed to keep looking for a way to make her fuck-up legal.
I’d wish you luck, Madam Governor, but I really don’t want to.
Elon Musk and Starlink – In their quest to make themselves look even more like their party mascot, the Left let their hate boner for Elon Musk get the better of them again as it relates to the Russia-Ukraine war. Seems there’s a groundswell of Leftists calling out Musk for…not letting Ukraine use his technology for their military gain. That bastard!
While the Left keeps trying to make the case Musk should be arrested for not being Ukraine’s bitch, they’re missing a pretty important concept: it’s his fucking toy! Last time I checked, we still had the right to refuse service in America, and since Starlink is specifically for residential internet use, Musk rightly said no when Ukraine asked to use it for military use. Whenever the government tries to force you to use a product or service, it winds up being a legal battle down the line, one the Left tends to lose.
Can you say “Obamacare” and “mask mandates”? I knew you could.
Muslims and the LBGTQIAABCDEFGHOWMANYMOREFUCKINGLETTERSAREWEGOINGTOADD+ community – The gay rights community has found itself a new opponent to add to the list of the opponents they already have: Muslims. News reports from across the country show more and more Muslims are standing up to the “Gay Mafia” and refusing to knuckle under to their demands. Now, I’m not ready to start praying to Allah, but I have to wonder if the Left ever saw this coming. I mean, it’s not like Muslims have strict religious doctrine surrounding homosexuahhhhhhh yes they do. And it’s not like it’s hidden, either. Even the most permissive Islamic sects aren’t keen on gay rights.
Apparently, those “Coexist” bumper stickers are as deep as the Left cares to go on this topic.
the Hunter Biden blues – Yep, First Fuck-Up Hunter Biden was finally brought up on federal gun charges after only getting a judicial slap on the wrist for what amounts to tax fraud. Of course, if someone from the IRS wants to show me where hookers and blow are tax deductible, I’d be willing to hear him/her out. Even the staunchest pro-gun control Leftists are saying the actual actions Hunter took aren’t usually prosecuted and, thus, are no big deal.
Let that dumbfuckery sink in for a moment. These fucknuckles are the ones who fought for these laws to be put on the books in the first place, but now that the President’s son is the one caught breaking the law, it’s become a race to see who can come up with the shittiest takes to minimize the damage it will do to Puddin’ Head Joe’s reelection campaign in 2024. And without going into too much detail, rest assured the Left sent their best to come up with the worst takes.
If this doesn’t prove the gun control side is motivated by everything but actual safety, nothing will.
a Tale of Four Titties – Politics and sex go hand in, well you know, and 2023 is no different. On the Left, we have Democrat candidate for the Virginia statehouse Susanna Gibson who offered users of a website called Chaturbate the opportunity to see her perform sexually explicit acts for money. On the Right, we have Rep. Lauren Boebert who was caught on surveillance camera getting frisky with her date at a performance of “Beetlejuice.”
Guess which one the Left and the media (but I repeat myself) have been talking about more. Spoiler Alert: it’s Boebert.
Regardless of where you come down on the political spectrum, we’re coming into an age where this type of sexual shit is going to become more prevalent, and being prudish (or faux prudish for political means) isn’t going to make people act better. The sooner we come to terms with the fact adults like to fuck other adults, the sooner we can move onto more important issues, like how to unfuck our economy. Grow up, people!
And last, but certainly least…
Meet the Press boycott – It was a new era on television, as Kristen Welker took over the failing political news/talk show “Meet the Press” this week. And who was one of her guests? Donald Trump.
Well, let’s just say the Left wasn’t happy Welker gave the former President a platform by which he could…talk about his ongoing 2024 Presidential campaign. See, Leftists (who are totes pro-freedom and not at all fascist) have been trying to find a way to disqualify Trump from running again, and they saw the sit-down interview as a slap to their collectivist faces. And now, these Leftists are going to boycott the show…even if all 14 faithful viewers won’t notice the difference.
And if the power goes off in the coma section of the hospital, that number is gonna drop hard.
Well, I hope you enjoyed this brief look at the wonderful wacky world of American politics, law, and culture. See you soon!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
I would never want to be a White House Press Secretary under any circumstances. First, you have to communicate with members of the press, which is like going to Chuck E Cheese during a big toddler birthday party on a good day (and working that same birthday on a bad day). Second, you might have to address a scandal that involves the President and his/her family.
And then, there’s the third reason: I’d have the same title as the current Press Secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, who makes Jen Psaki look good by comparison. Recently, Jean-Pierre responded to a question about the ongoing legal troubles of Hunter Biden, who I’m lead to believe is related in some way to President Puddin’ Head Joe but I’m waiting until the mainstream media confirms because I’m thorough like that. Apparently, I’m still having to wait since Karine Jean-Pierre referred to Hunter Biden as a “private citizen” and the press hasn’t asked a follow-up question about it.
While we wait on reporters to, you know, do their fucking jobs, let’s talk about private citizens for a bit. Maybe by the time this piece is done, we will be able to confirm the First Crackhead is related to Puddin’ Head Joe.
private citizen
What the Left thinks it means – people who should be kept out of the public spotlight to avoid unnecessary attention
What it really means – how Leftists describe one of their own when he/she/it royally fucks up
The concept of what constitutes a private citizen has been the subject of a lot of good natured debate within First Amendment scholarly circles. And, as is the case with such scholarly debates, nothing’s really come of it except more debate. Fortunately, the law gives us a bit more clarity:
The term “private person” means— (A) any individual who is a citizen or national of the United States; and (B) any corporation, partnership, association, or other legal entity organized or existing under the law of any State, whether for profit or not for profit.
And by “a bit” I mean none at all.
Generally, the rule of thumb is a person who is not well-known would be a private citizen. In short, anybody who still uses Mastodon as a Twitter alternative. Once that person gets a bit of fame or infamy, the protections afforded a private citizen get worn away. Still, even someone well-known in Monkey’s Ass, Wyoming, would not be as well-known in New York City, so venue matters.
Or it used to. Thanks 24/7 news and social media.
Then, there are celebrities. In exchange for fame, fortune, and the occasional appearance on talk shows, they give up expectations of privacy for as long as they’re in the public consciousness. Some, like Dustin “Screech” Diamond, never quite escape. Others, like Dustin “Screech” Diamond’s stunt double, reclaim their privacy by giving up their celebrity.
The thing about celebrity, though, is it can be extended to members of their families. The children of politicians fall into this category, especially if they fuck up in such a way it makes the news. Ask the Bush Twins about that after their underage drinking fiasco. That means, Hunter Biden, if he truly is the offspring of Puddin’ Head Joe, would not qualify as a private citizen.
Wait…nope. Still no mainstream media confirmation of that yet. But hope springs eternal.
So, why would Karine Jean-Pierre lie to us about Hunter Biden being a private citizen? I mean, aside from it’s her job to unconvincingly lie to the White House Press Lapdogs…I mean Corps. The short answer is because she can get away with it. The politically obvious reasons are, well, Hunter Biden is a crackhead embarrassment that makes his dad look even worse than he already does, thus handing Republicans an easier win than any woman against a Leftist man in an arm wrestling contest. The more people connect Hunter to Joe, the harder it is for Hunter to be considered a private citizen.
At its face, the idea is absurd. But these are Leftists we’re dealing with here, so it’s not surprising. The Left wants you to believe Hunter Biden, who has a well-documented history of being a shitty person, somehow isn’t famous enough to be covered as a news story, hence he’s a private citizen. Yet, his art that sells for $500,000 a flop…I mean pop gets people all over the world to buy it, so he logically can’t be a private citizen because he’s known worldwide.
This is why I don’t recommend trying to make sense of Leftist logic without hard liquor.
Now, it’s nice to know Leftists care about protecting private citizens from undue attention. If only they weren’t fucking hypocrites on the subject when it suits their needs. If you’re a Colorado baker who happens to be Christian and refused to bend over (figuratively and literally) to a same-sex couple, you get put on blast so everyone knows how much of an evil no-good right wing homophobe bigot Hitler wannabe you are. If you’re a member of ANTIFA who gets caught on video attacking someone with a bike chain, the Left will go out of their way to hide that information.
Hmmm…if only there were indicators of when the Left will flip-flop on what constitutes a private citizen…oh, wait, there is! They always flip-flop like John Kerry cooking at a beachfront IHOP working straight commission.
As unsurprising as the Left’s duplicity regarding private citizens is, the scary thing is it may be too late to protect private citizens, actual and hypothetical, due to the advent of social media. Any dick with a cell phone can film you doing something horrible (or at least make it look like you did something horrible), post it online, and make you famous before you can say “YouTube Shorts.” Then, you are known as Fat Guy Yells At Burger King Employee While His Shorts Fall Down forever and you have to delete your online presence and start blogging under the name of Thomas…
I’ve said too much.
Anyway, with privacy going the way of anyone not fawning over the Barbie movie, we need to get on the stick to address how this impacts private citizens. Unfortunately, we’re lightyears behind and no one else is thinking about this issue because there’s a Barbie movie, you guys! That, and the fact more people want to be seen on social media like TikTok, so they’re willing to trade their status as private citizens for fame, no matter how temporary it is.
Yep. We’re fucked.
Until such time as society decides to give up on being famous, it’s up to us to keep the idea of a private citizen alive. That means keeping your head down, being aware of your surroundings and the people in it, and not drawing attention to yourselves. Live your life as much off the grid as possible, or if that’s not possible, be smart with what you share. Yes, this will make you massively unhip to the rest of the world, but when you consider what is considered cool these days, it’s no big loss.
On a larger scale, we have to recognize what a private citizen is and why Hunter Biden isn’t one. No matter how the Left tries to spin it, this situation is like a Lindsey Lohan drug story, only with shittier art. And considering Lohan’s acting career, that’s saying a lot!
This just in! Still no mainstream media confirmation Hunter and Puddin’ Head Joe are related. Like the number of licks it takes to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop, the world may never know.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Before we begin, I feel obligated to warn you a lot of what I’ll be talking about this week isn’t pleasant and may stir strong emotions in people. If you feel you aren’t down for a serious (well, semi-serious because…me), this may not be the week to read the Lexicon, and I completely understand. I promise to return you to your regularly scheduled chucklefest next week.
This week, child sex trafficking came front and center from a couple of sectors, and the Left had an…interesting response to it. Not “gee that’s fascinating, tell me more” interesting. More of a “what in the Wide World of Fuck are you thinking” interesting.
It started with a new movie, “Sound of Freedom”, that came out on July 4th and has as of this writing a decent box office. The film is based on a true story about a man who went from government agent to warrior in the fight against child sex trafficking. Then, our good fiends…I mean friends in California had Democrat members of their Assembly Public Safety Committee block a proposal that would recriminalize child sex trafficking.
Oh, yeah. It’s about to get serious up in here.
child sex trafficking
What the Left thinks it means – a serious issue that must be dealt with
What it really means – an issue the Left won’t touch any time soon
To put it mildly, sex trafficking is a disturbing practice affecting millions of people worldwide, with a significant number being children. The fact it’s a global issue and yet one that doesn’t seem to get as much attention as climate change, starvation, or the latest Taylor Swift album makes the issue that much more painful to consider.
Yet, the Left are concerned about our children, right? I mean, they’re trying to create an inclusive environment where all races, gender identities, religions, etc. are respected, right? (Offer void with white straight Christian men.) They absolutely want the very best for future generations!
Not so much.
See, Leftists see children as tabula rasa in Garanimals, or if you’d prefer, toddlera rasa. For those of you playing along at home, a tabula rasa is a mental condition where no ideas have been formulated on a person’s mind based on his/her environment. Essentially, a brand new Etch A Sketch. Once this mind is exposed to incoming data from the senses, ideas and personalities form.
This is why Leftists have turned public education into indoctrination factories. As early as they can get them in the door, children’s minds and opinions form, even if they contradict what their parents believe. In other words, Leftists are attempting to create a child’s reality in their own twisted image.
“But Thomas, what does any of this have to do with child sex trafficking?” you might be asking. And if you are, I’m glad you are. If you aren’t, you might already know where I’m going with this, so don’t spoil the ending, okay?
At their cold black hearts, Leftists see children as a commodity, a purely transactional entity, an entry on a ledger. The value of a child is directly related to how closely he or she follows Leftist doctrine or can be used to advance it. Take Greta Thunberg (please). The Left gives zero fucks about her as a person, just as a figurehead they can use to advance their frequent (and even more frequently wrong) hysteria. Once Greta is no longer useful to the Left, she will get jettisoned out the closest air lock never to be catered to again.
By the way, Greta, check with Cindy Sheehan to get an idea of your future with the Left.
When you consider this angle, it makes the Left’s approach to child sex trafficking a little more understandable and a lot more creepy. And by approach, I mean either utter silence or claiming it’s a right wing fantasy.
And this brings us back to the Leftist Flow Chart of Dealing With An Issue.
1. Deny it’s happening.
2. Claim it’s made up by political opponents
3. Admit it’s happening, but it’s not as bad as it’s been made out to be
4. Admit it’s as bad as it’s been made out to be, but it’s not that bad
5. Admit it’s that bad, but it’s grossly misunderstood (i.e. anyone could make that mistake)
6. Paint those who were right all along as hateful bigots while painting the bad actors as victims
For a recent example to illustrate the point, the Hunter Biden cocaine story is heading into Stage 6. Right now, child sex trafficking is between Stage 1 or 2, depending on the outlet. Some outlets like CNN and Rolling Stone who are well into Stage 2, not taking issue with the subject matter “Sound of Freedom” so much as the people connected to it, namely Jim Caviezel. Now, if you haven’t been paying attention to his career, he’s one of those Hollywood actors who didn’t go woke and has been steadfastly conservative since making a name for himself.
Because a guy who played Jesus acting in a film trying to bring attention to child sex trafficking is clearly the bad guy.
Putting that biased and utterly stupid idea aside, we are left with an important question: why doesn’t the Left take child sex trafficking seriously? Granted, the “children as a commodity” perspective gives us a clue, but it’s not the whole answer. For being simple-minded, Leftists motivations to do or not do something tend to be more complex.
Enter our good friend Occam’s Razor. (I liked it so much, I bought the premise!) This idea boils down to simplifying an issue down to its simplest components to reach a conclusion. As faithful readers know, Leftists love money, power, and control, and if they take a position it’s because they think it’s going to work in their favor.
Now, I’m not saying Leftists have a child sex trafficking issue. I mean, it’s not like a big-name Hollywood producer or a famous financier had connections to high profile Leftists or anything, right?
By staying silent or attacking those trying to bring child sex trafficking to the forefront, Leftists keep the money flowing, which helps them maintain control and power. Even with former child stars like Corey Feldman, Elijah Wood, and others coming forward and exposing how Hollywood treats kids, you aren’t going to see too many Leftists coming forward to do anything about it.
Granted, many of the examples I’ve presented are tangentially-related to child sex trafficking, but I don’t think it’s too far of a leap to believe an industry that hides child sex allegations might also have an issue with how they get the children in the first place. Still, we must be fair and assume innocence until guilt can be established. Yet, we cannot rule it out as a possibility because, well, Hollywood is full of scumbags with enough power to make even the weirdest sexual deviancy go away.
Especially if they have friends in high places, like…oh I don’t know…Washington, DC?
Here’s the thing that confuses me, especially now. This issue is a slam dunk for Leftists if they really thought about it (Spoiler Alert: they didn’t). The electorate is hearing multiple news stories about children being groomed by Leftists, so they should be aware of the potential political bonanza they could see (as well as the ability to keep the “groomer” talk down for a while) by just coming out against it publicly. Plus, it would show the Left is willing to work with the Right on important issues regardless of political differences.
But they just can’t bring themselves to do it. After all, if they concede child sex trafficking is an issue, there’s a good chance it would open up further scrutiny and discussion about border security, sex trafficking in general, whether there is a culture of sex trafficking in Leftist strongholds and among Left-leaning groups, and a lot of other shitstorms the Left doesn’t need right now. After all, they’re too busy trying to cover up the daily shitstorms from the Biden Administration.
But, Leftists, staying silent, attacking a film about child sex trafficking, and blocking legislation that makes child sex trafficking illegal aren’t the way to win hearts and minds of the general population. The political losses you perceive pale in comparison to the sheer evil you’re allowing to young people who aren’t even old enough to vote for your shitty politics. You are politically shooting yourselves in the feet with a Gatling gun, all to protect people who might just be at the heart of the problem in the first place.
But look on the bright side. You got the sick pervert vote locked up!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
The US Supreme Court has been busy making Leftists cry lately. In addition to their recent decision regarding Affirmative Action (my coverage available here), they also ruled in a 6-3 decision in favor of a Colorado businesswoman who wanted to do wedding websites, but didn’t want to them for same-sex weddings. Seems it would violate her religious beliefs, so she challenged Colorado’s law and eventually won.
Which royally pissed off the Left!
While Leftists started in on their “expand the Supreme Court” and “extremist right wing Court” recycled rhetoric, others cheered the decision as a “victory for free speech.” So, why were Leftists (who proclaim themselves as free speech champions) upset?
I’m glad you…errr I asked.
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis
What the Left thinks it means – a Supreme Court decision that makes it legal to discriminate against people
What it really means – the mask slipping on the Left’s commitment to free speech
Our good friends at Twitchy give us a nice breakdown of the case and the stipulations the businesswoman was willing to make to comply with Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws. The Reader’s Digest Condensed Version is she was willing to work with anyone, but not to make websites that would go against her faith.
Wait. I seem to remember a similar situation with a baker in Colorado and the Left’s response being “Bake the cake, bigot.”
Both the baker and the businesswoman were subject to what might best be called coerced free speech. I take that back. The best term for this is bullshit, but you get the idea. The idea behind free speech is to allow everyone a chance to speak their minds up to the point it inspires violence (i.e. “fighting words“). Where the Left takes the, well, left turn off the freeway of free expression is when others say things they don’t like. Then, they will stop at nothing to prevent those evil mean nasty Nazi ideas from getting traction, including collaborating with Big Tech to silence them. Of course, they’ll use any excuse they can to justify it and if you disagree, you’re just dag nasty evil.
Or in the case of COVID-19 hysteria, most likely telling the truth.
This brings us back to the “bake the cake” mentality of the Left. There are segments of the Left (namely the LGBTQA+ABCDEFGOHWEOHWEOHGIRLIWANNAKNOWYOUKNOWYOU crowd) who will use the judicial system to force certain groups (namely Christians) to do what they want in some weird flex of their protected status. And until fairly recently, the courts have let them get away with it, stating a protected class’ “right” to services trumps the Christian’s right to religion.
When you’re coerced to speak under threat of judicial or regulatory reprisal, free speech is compromised to the point of being ineffectual. This is why the “bake the cake” argument is so fucked up in the first place. Although business do have the right to refuse service, it’s limited to situations where it’s not considered discriminatory. And thanks to the aforementioned Alphabet Soup Group, anything short of total subservience to their cause is discriminatory.
Not surprisingly, though, this runs smack-dab in the face of their attitudes about Twitter banning conservative users. Back then, it was okay to silence conservatives because “Twitter is a private business and can make decisions to deny someone a platform.”
Soooooo…I have a question. Why is it okay to silence conservatives because of Twitter’s status as a private business, but also okay to force private businesses to give Leftists a platform for their ideas? The short answer is it’s not because it’s hypocritical and counterintuitive to the idea of free speech. Regardless of how tasty the medium may be, you cannot force compliance one way without forcing it the other way and still be intellectually consistent.
And now, you can’t do it while being legally consistent.
Look, I get the idea behind Colorado’s anti-discrimination law. It’s how it’s being implemented that’s the issue. If you’re using it as a cudgel to attack people who don’t agree with you, it’s being used incorrectly. Laws like the anti-discrimination laws are meant to be more of a legal shield and a method to provide legal recourse should the laws be broken. Using it the way Colorado Leftists have, though, turns a law with good intentions into one with bad application, which puts it in proximity of “fighting words” in my semi-learned opinion.
Where the majority opinion in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis diverted expectations is that it was ruled on as a free speech rather than a freedom of religion issue. But the true brilliance comes when you consider the Left’s opinion of religion in general (save for Climate Change Cultists). In arguing against religion in the public square, the Left has taken one of two approaches: demanding an all-or-none approach (except when it comes to Muslims), or demanding freedom from religion. After all, you have to account for those who don’t want religion shoved down their throats, right?
Wellllll…let’s apply this to another idea, freedom of association. As this link shows, the Supreme Court has already ruled there is a freedom from association as well as a freedom of association. In other words, the High Court has already laid the groundwork for future challenges to Colorado’s law if some plucky attorney with time to kill and a client willing to test the law would put it in motion.
Not that I’m hinting someone should do that, mind you…
Nevertheless, the 6-3 ruling (with guess who making up the minority) is going to stand for now, and the Left can’t handle it. Not only can’t they force people to do their bidding because reasons, but the arguments put forth in opposition to the ruling are…how can I put this delicately…fucking stupid. But remember, Leftists are smarter than us. Just ask them.
In this case (and, to be fair, in most cases for that matter), the Left got this one wrong, and instead of figuring out how they went wrong, they blamed the “right wing Supreme Court.” You know, like mature adults do? Yet, something tells me they aren’t going to understand the implications of their insistence people have to be forced to platform their ideas. I mean, if their ideas were so popular, wouldn’t people want to give them platforms?
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis is a victory for actual free speech and a blow to the coerced speech the Left want to make the norm. No matter how the Left tries to spin it or muddy the waters with absurd claims, this is an L for them, which is a given.
After all, you can’t spell “Leftist” without an L.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
In a move that surprised, well, no one, California Representative Adam Schiff was censured by the US House of Representatives for his role in perpetuating Russiagate. You remember Russiagate, don’t you kids? That investigation into whether Russia helped Donald Trump win the 2016 Presidential election based on evidence flimsier than a balsa wood kitchen table?
Of course, Leftists were furious at the censure, but then coped by saying the censure would guarantee he would win a Senate seat, as well as it made him more powerful now than he was before.
And I wish I were making that last part up.
While Leftists were turning him into Obi Wan Kenobi, Schiff turned this censure into a fundraising effort because reasons. With all of the talk around the Representative, it seems fitting he should be the latest Lexicon entry.
Adam Schiff
What the Left thinks it means – an honest patriot standing up to Donald Trump and his minions
What it really means – a guy so full of shit he could fertilize Death Valley and the Sahara Desert several times over
During the Trump Administration, Adam Schiff went from a barely-there Congressional figure to a major player within Leftist circles, mainly because he had the balls to stand up to Donald Trump. And by balls, I mean eyeballs. And here I thought Mantenna was just an action figure from the She-Ra toy line, but here we are.
To say Schiff had a hate boner for Trump is an understatement of Rosie O’Donnell at an all you can eat buffet proportions. (I used Rosie here in celebration of Pride Month. You’re welcome, LBGTQIDUDIYRSVPUFOABCBBDCCRKISSELO+ community.) If anybody could make up…I mean uncover dirt on Donald Trump’s dealings with Russia, Schiff would be like a bloodhound. A bloodhound with Marty Feldman-like eyes, but a bloodhound nonetheless.
There was one tiny problem, though: the allegations of collusion between the Trump Campaign and Russia were bullshit. But Schiff couldn’t let a little thing like a lack of actual proof stop him! After all, if he couldn’t produce the goods, he would be a liar, wouldn’t he? So, he did what any self-respecting Leftist would do and lied some more!
This next part has become the millstone around Schiff’s pencil neck. He claimed there was “ample evidence” of the collusion that was “in plain sight.” Yet, when pressed to provide this evidence, Schiff acted like the dog ate his homework. Even as one of the dipshits running the first Trump impeachment based around stuff even law clerks could argue their way out of in a court of law, Schiff maintained he had the proof.
As of this writing, no such proof has ever been presented.
And this is the asshat the Left is calling an honest broker? Granted, it’s the same kind of defense they put up for Eric “I Slept With a Chinese Spy and All I Got Was Removed From House Committees” Swalwell.
Which brings us to an interesting problem for the Left: calling out liars. After years of demanding people call out Trump for lying (which is a 25/8 job because 24/7 just ain’t enough), the Left are suddenly okay with someone lying to Congress about the former President. Remember, kids, if Leftists didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have standards at all…not that you’d notice, mind you. As long as their team lies about the right people (i.e. anyone to the right of Ivan “I Have To Go” Trotsky), it’s for the right reasons. But lie about the wrong people (i.e. them) and Leftists will go at you like you abused their pet cat. They’ll throw the Library of Congress at you!
And most modern Republicans sit there and take it because they’re playing by a different set of rules, rules that neuter them politically to the point they’re so afraid of offending the electorate (who really aren’t paying that much attention to the details) that they will allow Leftists to lie about them constantly. How do you think Media Matters stays in business? I mean aside from generous donations from our buddy Uncle George.
It’s in this environment where Schiff is at his best. When he can lie with impunity because he’s on the winning side of Congressional elections, he goes full Super Sayan. But when he’s on the wrong end of the election cycle, he cries like a little boy who skinned his knee riding his bike. Seems he doesn’t like it when the shit he flings gets flung back at him.
It’s also in this environment where Leftists are the most vulnerable when it comes to Schiff. By going all in on his allegations, it becomes a “ride or die” situation. Either they keep pushing the narrative even after there are more holes in it than a Swiss cheese factory in the crossfire of a gang war, or they throw Schiff to the wolves (which are mostly toothless lapdogs in bed with the Left, but the point remains the same). Since Schiff has built up such a cult of personality around himself, Leftists fear the backlash from the latter, so they go all in on Schiffamania.
Here’s where the vulnerability lies. All it takes is for House Republicans to call Schiff’s bluff. (A pipe dream these days, but a man can dream.) Demand he produce the evidence he claims to have. If he’s telling the truth and didn’t disclose this information during the January 6th Commission, he knowingly withheld evidence from an active investigation. If he’s lying (a safer bet), then he lied to Congress and the nation. And not just on the floor of the House, mind you. He repeated the lie on social media, on TV shows, and in print. Even though a Representative can’t be arrested for lying while conducting official duties, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say being on CNN isn’t really a Congressional duty. If anything, it might be considered torture.
In either case, Schiff is fucked, and not in the good way.
Not that the Left cares, mind you. They want Donald Trump punished by any means necessary, even if it undermines the rule of law in the process. But it’s this single-mindedness that will eventually backfire. At some point, the Left will not be able to control the narrative nor the legislative might to enforce it, which opens them up to a universe of hurt. Adam Schiff’s censure sets the precedent for it, and can be used against other Leftists, like Swalwell, Ilhan Omar, the Socialist Socialite, and plenty of others.
And the best part? The Left made it all possible through their political circle jerk to take down Donald Trump. Good job, Leftists!
As for Adam Schiff, he’s basically a fourth string quarterback put in the game because the first three QBs are all injured, the cheerleaders don’t know how to run the offense, and the coach hates furries, so the mascot’s out of the running. But since he’s the guy, his team has to support him and cheer every inch gained as though it were a touchdown. Then, after he fumbles, throws interceptions, and gets sacked more often than Idaho potatoes, he becomes more of a liability than an asset. Democrats should distance themselves from Schiff sooner rather than later.
And Schiff? He’s 3/5 of an asset, and the -et don’t count.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
To hear the Left talk (and for God’s sake why would you), white supremacy is everywhere. From members of Congress (all Republican, by the way) to math, you can’t swing a cat without hitting something or someone not touched by white supremacy.
Including Moms for Liberty.
This past week, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC to the kids) called Moms for Liberty a right wing extremist group with ties to…drum roll please…white supremacy! And why? Because they didn’t want radical Leftist ideas intermingled with history, math, and other subjects. Those bitches!
While we’ve tackled white supremacy before, we haven’t delved into the Southern Poverty Law Center (save for the occasional semi-humorous jape at their expense). Are they the gold standard of finding and combating extremism, or are they pyrite?
Southern Poverty Law Center
What the Left thinks it means – the definitive source on hate and extremist groups in America
What it really means – a Leftist echo chamber regurgitating whatever bullshit the Left needs to push to make the Right look bad
The SPLC describes itself as:
a catalyst for racial justice in the South and beyond, working in partnership with communities to dismantle white supremacy, strengthen intersectional movements, and advance the human rights of all people.
On the surface, this makes the SPLC sound like pretty much every dumb Leftist group out there, complete with nonsensical buzzwords. Rest assured, dear reader, it’s much, much stupider.
It starts with their reason for existing, that being tracking extremist groups. According to their own figures, the SPLC tracked 1225 such groups active in 2022. This begs the question of what gets a group on the list. From what I gathered from the link I just posted, it’s a pretty short list of qualifications.
1. Be to the right of Josef Stalin
2. Want government out of our lives as much as possible
Now, there was a time when the SPLC tracked hate groups and anti-government groups separately, but that doesn’t raise as much attention (i.e. make Chicken Little look reasonable). So, surprise surprise, they decided to combine the two, starting in 2021! Their reason? Because hate groups and anti-government groups got together and became a mass of hate!
At this point, I have to admit there is some overlap between anti-government and pro-hate groups, mainly because of the nature of humanity. But it’s far from a single circle as the SPLC would have us believe.
Take me, for instance. I don’t hate anyone, including Leftists, because it’s no fun. Where the real fun lies is in pointing and laughing, which always makes me feel good. And I’m not anti-government so much as I am anti-stupid government. I don’t want to overthrow the government or participate in a violent coup for the same reason I don’t hate Leftists: it’s not fun. LARPing as a Founding Father just isn’t my thing, although I do have the gams to pull off the pantaloons…
And that would put me on the SPLC’s radar because they lack the ability to recognize nuance. Granted, this is a trait of any extremist, but it’s particularly damaging because the Left gives the SPLC a megaphone to spread the idea hatred and extremism are around every corner, under every rock, and in every medium known to Man.
And Leftist asshats think Joe McCarthy was a nutjob!
Even so, the SPLC has to resort to some tricky accounting that would make Arthur Andersen proud. I decided to see what kind of evil hateful meaniehead groups they found in my home state of Iowa. Among the groups that made the list were the Constitution Party of Iowa (anti-government group), Iowa Parents Involved in Education (anti-government group), and We the People for Constitutional Sheriffs (anti-government group). Sure, there are some notable names, like the John Birch Society and the National Alliance, but it seems like most of the groups on the list don’t belong there.
And certainly not multiple times like Moms for Liberty are.
Once or twice, maybe it’s an oversight. But five fucking times? That’s a decision. And it’s a decision that the SPLC made over and over again across all 50 states.
Now, consider a group like, oh I don’t know, Antifa. They’ve shown a significant amount of hatred and they’re pretty anti-government. Surely they’re on the SPLC’s radar as either or both, right?
Nope.
Color me…not all that surprised, really. After all, if the number of hate group goes down (which it has been according to the SPLC’s own numbers), the purpose of the group is weakened. Yes, only in the Leftist mind is successfully getting rid of hate groups a bad thing.
And that’s because the SPLC’s entire existence is built on fighting hate groups in America. As such, they have a vested interest in making it seem hate groups are more prevalent than bad pop music today. Or, in other words, pop music today. So, they have to keep playing fast and loose with what constitutes a hate group and an anti-government group while outwardly pretending it’s all hate groups.
The problem is when everything you don’t like becomes a hate group, you water down the concept so actual hate groups gain a bit of plausible deniability. After all, if a group that has to lie about the number of hate groups and what groups are considered hate groups, how can we trust them on the basic shit?
Of course, most hate groups are too stupid to realize this, but hey. If they weren’t stupid, they wouldn’t be hate groups, right?
Which brings us back to the designations. Moms for Liberty got on the list because members made they allegedly made violent threats. I say allegedly for multiple reasons, but primarily because of the source, i.e. the SPLC itself.
Plus, the standard they use doesn’t make any sense. The Constitution Party is listed as anti-government, even though its name and general principles come from a document used to guide our government (at least in theory). It’s like saying a car club is anti-truck in spite of it literally being a club about cars. And even then, the club members may not be anti-truck, per se. The devil, or in this case the SPLC’s overinflated numbers, are in the details.
With actual hate groups, it’s much more cut and dried, as there’s very few ways spouting hate can be seen as anything but, well, spouting hate. Even then, the SPLC will go out of its way to run interference for Leftist hate (see Antifa) while using the comment of a mother upset at Critical Race Theory being taught to her children in elementary school (and, yes, Leftists, this does happen) to paint a group as anti-government is all but guaranteed.
Then again, the SPLC handling Antifa with kid gloves might have something to do with Antifa members being on staff…
Regardless, it’s clear the Southern Poverty Law Center is as reliable as Puddin’ Head Joe staying on message. Which makes it that much more important to push back when they come out with bullshit like the Moms for Liberty being a hate group. The more they go unchallenged, the more they are seen as legitimate, and the more they’re used in conjunction with government agencies to find and categorize people and groups as dangerous.
But the tide might be turning, due in part to legal proceedings and whisteblowers. By exposing the SPLC’s long con, the organization’s flaws become evident, but I want to take it a step further. If the SPLC are focused on taking on hate groups, what are the results of their efforts?
Jack. Shit.
I’m sure they’ll have some sort of bullshit excuse, but the fact remains they’re failures being given credibility by the Left for ideological purposes. You know, like Kamala Harris. But not even a Leftist circle jerk can overcome pointing out how impotent the SPLC has been. You literally have one fucking job, and you can’t even do that right?
Keep that up and you could become President of the United States.