In the Meme Time

In the aftermath of the assassination attempt against President Trump we are seeing this meme popup a lot. Posted by those useful idiots on the Left.

Of course the only talk about President Trump’s ear, like that is the thing we are deeply caring about. No, that isn’t it. A person lost his life defending his wife and children. Taking a bullet that would have killed them instead. This deeply saddens us.

What the Left doesn’t understand is that we care deeply anytime there is a tragic loss of life. No matter who is the victim. It doesn’t matter if it is President Trump, a 3rd grade classroom, a crowd at any public function, or even a Democratic politician. We treat them 100% the same.

We give the victims and survivors our thoughts and prayers. God said that prayers can move mountains and we believe this with all our hearts. We mourn with those who have lost a loved one. We care deeply at the tragic and senseless loss of life.

What we don’t do is blame the gun. It was the gunman who pulled the trigger and paid the price for that heinous crime. We even grieve for his family as well. But we don’t call for stricter gun legislation and regulations. In fact we call for these to be lifted. That way more people can be armed and able to defend themselves against evil in the public square.

Assassination Failed

There is a lot of controversy around the assassination attempt on Saturday of President Trump. And a number of failing by the Secret Service.

The roof-top of a building less than 500 feet away from the stage should have been secured but it wasn’t. An armed individual was able to use a ladder and gain access.

One of the police snippers had eyes on the gunman for over 3 minutes before he opened fire. But the Secret Service did not allow the sniper to take a shot.

Multiple eye witnesses reported the gunman to the police and other security personal prior to the attack. But they did not act on that information.

These and many more questions arise from this assassination attempt. And the answers will undoubtedly produce more questions.

Even now there are parallels being drawn between this attempt and the assassination of JFK. There are those who do suggest that this assassination was carried out by the CIA.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

In the aftermath of President Brick Tamland’s horrible debate performance, Leftists and the media (is there an echo in here?) have been stuck between a rock and a hard place. At least Bill Clinton isn’t involved or else it would be between a rock and a hard-on. Anyway, media types find themselves on the horns of a dilemma: continue to carry water for the Left, or actually do some reporting to confirm what we’ve been seeing for, oh, the past several years.

The latest victim, if you can call him that, of this dilemma is George Stephanopoulos, former White House Communications Director under the aforementioned Commander in Briefs and current lapdog…I mean journalist for ABC News. His crime? Answering a question about whether President Tamland could serve another four years. This got Georgie Boy in some hot water with his bosses, who demanded he clarify what he said and apologize for…and I’m not making this up…jeopardizing his and the network’s objectivity.

I’ll let you stop laughing before I continue.

Anyway, the Left is now concerned with appearing objective after spending decades not giving one tenth of one shit about it. Say, might that be because they’re covering up the fact they’ve been slobbering over President Tamland’s every move until he screwed the pound, let alone the pooch? Naaaaaaaaah!

So, let’s take a deep dive into objectivity and why the Left sucks at it.

objectivity

What the Left thinks it means – balanced reporting of the facts without emotion, which means not feeding the narrative of the Right

What it really means – balanced reporting of the facts without consideration of ideology

Back when I was young and stupid, I wanted to get into the journalism field. Not for the money because, well, there isn’t any in journalism, but because I wanted to be someone who could uncover the hidden truth. And as I went along in my studies, I grew more and more enamored with the romanticized ideal of what a reporter should be.

Then, I got to graduate school and heard an editor from a local paper say it was impossible for reporters to be objective. To say it blew my mind at the time would be an understatement. After years of having objectivity pounded into my young brain, here was someone in the journalism field telling me it was all bullshit (a position this person held years after the initial proclamation).

It was also around this time that a certain popular Democrat President started to wow people in the press, which made it easier to get them to slob on Slick Willie’s knob.

And I hope to all that’s holy it was only figuratively.

Granted, the press wasn’t completely objective in the 1980s. They made subtle (and not-so-subtle) jabs at Ronald Reagan during his tenure. Ironic, given how the press is covering President Tamland, but that’s a blog post for another time. Once the media threw up its collective hands and said “objectivity is impossible,” the blending of political ideologies and hard news was complete.

And journalism went in the shitter.

Then, with the advent of “reporters” like Taylor Lorenz, the shitter is the highest modern journalism can aspire to be.

Fortunately for the media, people let them slide because they still retained at least some credibility from being seen as legitimate news sources. No matter how much they shit on Republicans, conservatives, or anyone who isn’t them, people tended to give the press the benefit of the doubt. Anyone who disagreed with the idea these DNC stenographers were calling balls and strikes was written off as a partisan crank. Even when the alleged crank was an insider.

And guess who came along to fuck it all up. Donald Fucking Trump.

Trump made it possible for people to rip on the lack of objectivity in the media, not to mention the out-and-out partisan lying. From that point on, the Left couldn’t swing a dead cat without hitting someone who was calling out their bullshit. Oh, and pissing off PETA.

The problem the media face right now can be traced back to when they decided objectivity was impossible. By choosing sides, they started eroding the veneer of honesty previous generations built, but at least they got to hang out at all the cool kids’ parties. Because that’s far more important than not being lapdogs to people you agree with politically.

By the way Leftists and media folks (there’s that echo again), that was a joke. Much like Taylor Lorenz’s reporting only intentionally funny.

What isn’t so funny is the implications of how media silence or out and out denial of President Tamland’s deteriorating mental condition. The larger scale implications are easy enough to pick out and bad enough as it is (a cardboard cutout of the President would be better suited mentally to be President), but from a journalistic standpoint, it’s pretty bad. If these journalists who are supposed to be reporting the news knew about this and stayed silent, their credibility should be fucked more than a porno star. This is a legitimate news story, but apparently our intellectual betters thought it might worry us too much to think our President has the mental capacity of a turnip, so they kept it to themselves.

At least, that’s the explanation that would make more sense than their sudden realization President Tamland is on the intellectual downside of a hill on the world’s tallest roller coaster and plummeting rapidly. Their feigned surprise only worsens the issue, an issue that would never have happened if they had been…objective.

The thing is objectivity isn’t as impossible as the Left and the media (I must be writing this from the bottom of the Grand Canyon) make it out to be. Yes, we all have biases and perspectives we bring into any situation, but objectivity doesn’t require you to not have them. It requires us to overcome them to provide as many sides of an event as possible. Of course, Leftists have made this impossible in recent years by taking the attitude no one outside of their intellectual gangbang has a valid point of view, so all they hear is what everyone else in their bubble hears: Leftist squawking points. That’s all well and good if you’re at a political rally, but it’s shitty when you’re in the news business.

The sad part is I’m not sure the media are ready to have a conversation about the place objectivity has in modern journalism because newsrooms have become mini political rallies of a sort. There are still a handful of reporters out there calling balls and strikes, but they’re few and far between compared to the multitude of dimwitted half-baked bloggers or social media “influencers” who call themselves reporters. The fact ABC News made George Stephanopoulos retract his statement (made while he was off the clock, by the way) shows how far down this rabbit hole we’ve gone. What ABC News did under the guise of maintaining objectivity is bullshit incarnate. If they were really concerned about objectivity, they would have been out front with the President Tamland story before everyone else, given it a fair treatment, and let the chips fall where they may. You know, like journalists used to do?

But something tells me ABC News was more concerned about getting invited to dinner parties and keeping access to the President than in telling the truth.

The Party of Despotism

The Left is always saying that Republicans want to take away the “rights” of others. That electing a Republican president will open the door to a dictatorship.

But every dictator in history has come from the Left and we would be fools to believe otherwise.

Even in the United States this is true. And the public record supports it.

Check the public record for yourself and see which political party has dictator tendencies. The closest thing we have to the dictator ability to “rule by decree” is the use of Executive Orders. As this have the power of law.

Since our founding there have been 15,883 Executive Orders written over the last 248 years. That averages to 64 every year.

There have only been 5 political parties, plus George Washington, to have made it to the Presidency. Some presidents didn’t issue any Executive Orders while others issued a great many of them.

The Federalist Party had only 1 President. And he issued only 1 Executive Order.

George Washington, our first President and unaffiliated with any political party, issued a total of 8 Executive Orders.

The Democratic-Republican Party had 4 Presidents and in total they issued only 9 Executive Orders.

The short lived Whigs Party also held the Presidency 4 times, but they issued 34 Executive Orders.

We have had 19 Republican Presidents. Together they have issued 7,342 Executive Orders. It seems high but the previously mentioned parties have all been short lived while the Republican Party has been around for 170 years. Averaged out, that is 386 Executive Orders for each of the 19 Republican Presidents.

But the Democratic Party with only 17 Presidents has issued over a 1,000 more Executive Orders. Topping the list so far at 8,489 penned by a Democratic President. That’s 499 averaged out for each of the 17. Far more than the Executive Orders issued by Republican Presidents. Even Franklin D. Roosevelt, a Leftist like no other, issued 3,728 Executive Orders during his long Presidency.

The numbers don’t lie. Numbers can be fact-checked, double checked, and triple-checked. The numbers are clear. The Democratic Party rules by decree as a dictator every chance they get. And far more often than any other political party in American history.

So in November, remember to preserve Liberty and the Republic. Don’t vote for the dictators in blue.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

After a particularly disastrous performance in any venture, there are usually two groups of people: ones who reflect, retool, and try again, and ones who point fingers trying to find a scapegoat. This past week, CNN got a load of people from the Left doing the latter after their debate between President Brick Tamland and Donald Trump.

Well, unless you want to go with the idea Donald Trump zapped the President with an energy weapon that made him look like, well, himself.

And this Leftist dumbfuck wasn’t the only one. Leftists all over the Social Media Network Formerly Known as Twitter came up with any number of excuses, but the general consensus was CNN fucked President Tamland.

And now we’re going to see why that is quite possibly the shittiest take ever.

CNN

What the Left thinks it means – a cable news network who is in the back pocket of Donald Trump

What it really means – a once and hopefully no longer DNC stenographer

I know I’ve gone over some of this stuff before, so I’ll keep it brief. When CNN first went on the air, it was a media marvel. A 24 hour news channel that you could tune in to any time of the day or night and get caught up on the day’s events. It was novel and changes the face of news forever.

Over time, though, the novelty wore off and they had to start generating buzz (and revenue) somehow. And, let’s face it, Bernard Shaw Is My Daddy t-shirts weren’t exactly flying off the shelves. Then, the first Gulf War came about and CNN got a whole new set of eyes on it. And with those eyes came a feeling of invincibility. No one else could do what they did as well as they could do it. They were Kings and Queens of the Mountain.

Which made them cocky and sloppy. Over time, their on-air talent and their talent behind the scenes started letting their political biases creep into the product. And eventually, the network started being called the Clinton News Network after its mostly favorable coverage of President Bill “I Don’t Know Where My Pants Are, Why Do You Ask?” Clinton.

And if you thought CNN wanted to slob Slick Willie’s knob, watching them cover Barack “I Don’t Know Where My Balls Are, Ask Michelle” Obama would make even the most tenured sex worker look positively virginal.

Put simply, CNN is in the tank for the Left. So, it boggles the mind how the Left could even consider CNN to be on Trump’s side. Even the two moderators of the Trump-Tamland debate were on record as being critical of the former President. And in Jake Tapper’s case, that criticism was rather pointed. So, when they handled the debacle…I mean debate with a fairly even tone, I was honestly surprised.

And apparently so were the Leftists. They wanted Tapper and Dana Bash to fact check Trump on the spot instead of letting him say what he wanted. (No word yet from these same Leftists if they wanted the two to fact check Biden in the same manner, by the way.) But there’s one tiny problem with that approach: they were moderators, not fact checkers. And after the Candy Crowley debacle in 2012, I would think Leftists wouldn’t want moderators to let their masks slip that much.

This change from being a reliable Leftist media outlet to something closer to centrist is by design. Recent leadership changes within CNN signaled a move back towards the straight news reporting they were once known for while allowing for a narrower focus on prominent news stories. While still not quite as centrist as some would say CNN is, they’re at least acknowledging there’s room for improvement.

Which, of course, makes Leftists lose their collectivist shit.

The thing is it’s frightfully easy to be a Leftist media outlet. All you need to do is find a way to keep money rolling in since you’re preaching to the same choir night after night. CNN used to be able to do this, but with the advent of MSNBC on the further Left and Fox News on the Right, it found itself trying to appeal to both sides and making nobody happy.

Why, it’s almost as if alienating potential audience members is a bad fucking idea!

So, from a business standpoint, CNN moving closer to the middle is fiscally responsible. Whether people still see it as a viable news source is yet to be seen. And judging from Leftist reactions to even the slightest move to the right of Trotsky, it didn’t go over well.

This is for a couple of reasons. First, Leftists suck at basic economics. Second, they tend to look at things through an emotional lens (which helps explain the first point). And third, Leftists hate anything that removes even an iota of power from their grasp or exposes their ideology to ridicule.

Enter President Tamland’s debate performance, which is less of a disaster than a Hindenburg movie by Michael Bay written by Tommy Wiseau. Although I would pay good money for Wiseau to make a cameo just to say “Oh hi-drogen!”

You can stop booing now.

Since Leftists are less capable of admitting a mistake than The Fonz, immediately CNN became the primary reason President Tamland looks like, well, himself. Of course, the real reason Leftists attacked CNN for Tamland’s disaster is not that they went out of their way to make him look bad, but that…they noticed he looked bad and didn’t come to his defense. They tried to do some damage control after the debate by fact-checking Trump and Tamland, but the damage was done. Tamland looked frail, confused, and without mental clarity. But at least we beat Medicare, amirite?

And after weeks and weeks of denying it, CNN among others had to admit President Tamland was not firing on all cylinders. Or maybe on any cylinders, for that matter. No more “cheap fakes.” No more deep fakes. No more right wing talking points. The Emperor had no clothes, but maybe had on adult diapers.

I have my issues (or subscriptions as the case may be) with CNN, but I have to defend them here. They didn’t cause President Tamland to look bad, and that’s even with all the preparations he did prior to the debate (including going to the debate stage). He’s just that bad of a candidate this time around, and no about of finger-pointing is going to change that.

So, to any Leftists reading this, lay off CNN. It’s not their fault your side decided to run a Strom Thurmond body double in 2024. You had your chance to pick someone else, even with the knowledge he was getting as sharp as a Nerf ball on the regular. It’s your fuck-up, so enjoy the ride.

And as for CNN, welcome to what conservatives and other non-Leftists have experienced for decades! Don’t worry. We have drinks, snacks, and more open-minded people than the Left. And what’s more, we validate parking!





Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

It wasn’t a good week for Leftists, especially one Rep. Jamaal Bowman of New York. In spite of an…well, unintentionally hilarious rally with the Socialist Socialite prior to Bowman’s primary, he lost by 17 points to his opponent, George Latimer. Who knew being actively anti-Semitic in a city with a sizable Jewish population would work against him?

I mean aside from anyone with a functioning brain.

That brings us to Rep. Cori Bush of Missouri, who is trailing her primary opponent by a slim margin. In an attempt to hold her role in the Squad and explain why her fellow Squad member went down harder than a fishing lure throat lozenge, she went all Cynthia McKinney and blamed the Jews, and more specifically the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC as the hip kids call it. Surely, such a group must secretly be working with the GOP to unseat the Squad because Rep. Bush said so!

Well, Rep. Bush, the truth is a lot more complicated than you think, but as a favor to you, I’ll try to dumb it down so you can keep up.

AIPAC

What the Left thinks it means – a corrupt Far Right lobbying group that has turned Democrats and Republicans into Jewish sympathizers

What it really means – a bipartisan group that may want to reconsider its donations going forward

To hear the Squad and many of their fellow dumbasses talk, AIPAC is pure dag nasty evil. After all, AIPAC supports that pure dag nasty evil apartheid state, Israel! How can anyone with a shred of decency support such a country, especially within the boundaries of the US of A?

Yeah, that’s where things get complicated. AIPAC isn’t some right wing dark money group that targets anti-Israeli politicians. Their support list is quite bipartisan, including former Speaker of the House and current drunk around the House Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and Ted Lieu. In fact, AIPAC has given more money to Democrat candidates and causes since 2018.

Oops.

Of course, we’re dealing with Rep. Bush here, who claimed to have healed people by touch alone through faith without any evidence. But Party of Science, kids!

Meanwhile back in the real world, it’s not hard to understand why the Squad has a hate-boner for AIPAC. Contrary to what they say (which is usually so dumb it makes Joe Biden’s last debate performance look positively fucking brilliant), they hate Israel and Jews at their cores. While previous politicians have done a good job at balancing their public beliefs and their private beliefs, the Squad are honey badgers: they just don’t care. When the Good Lord gave out fucks about Israel, the Squad asked for and got none.

Turns out they also passed on brains, but that’s another story.

The truly scary part of this movement against AIPAC is how rapidly it’s being picked up by fellow Leftists who share the same opinions as the Squad. As support for Palestine grew on college campuses, so did the hatred towards anything and anyone Jewish. That manifested itself in many ways, not the least of which being rhetoric that would make The Protocols of Zion look tame and rational.

And remember, folks, these are the assholes who will be running the country at some point.

This puts Democrats in a bit of a bind that no amount of kosher food and yarmulkes can fix. The embedded leadership is pro-Israel or at least smart enough not to let their true feelings slip in public. The up-and-coming politicians may or may not share those sentiments, but as long as they keep getting elected and reelected, at some point the balance will shift and AIPAC will become yet another part of the Vast Right Wing Dark Money Koch Brothers Fox News Donald Trump Conglomerate.

Of course, this further justifies AIPAC’s existence because they like to keep the relationship between America and Israel as good as it can be. So, when the Squad says and does the shit they do, AIPAC has a vested interest in defeating the Squad at the ballot box. With Bowman’s crushing defeat, that’s one down, too many more to go.

On the surface, this might give Rep. Bush’s comments about AIPAC some credibility. Yes, they did spend money to unseat Bowman, but did it have an impact? Not so much. Before AIPAC spent one cent on the Bowman race, internal polling data showed he was already down by 10 points. That grew to 17 points by April of this year. Although AIPAC could have had a hand in it, the more likely reason is…Bowman was (and still is) an unlikable asshole.

You would think the Left would have learned its lesson after their previous unlikable asshole Hillary Clinton lost to Donald Trump. I mean, they are smarter than us. Just ask them!

To their credit, The Nation summed up the shitstorm Bowman created and why AIPAC isn’t to blame. And although I’m sure they wouldn’t like to be associated with me, I can’t find fault in some of their conclusions. In true Leftist style, they couched their factual observations with more predictable anti-AIPAC/anti-Israel squawking points that could have come straight from the Squad themselves.

Given this, AIPAC might need to reconsider who gets donations from them going forward. I mean, it’s bad enough to have Adam Schiff and Ted Lieu in Congress, let alone getting your campaign donation checks. But as bad as they are, they are going to be far better than who may replace them when the time comes. Aside from a few hard right cranks, most on the Right agree with the notion Israel has a right to exist and, thus, appreciate what AIPAC is trying to do. And considering the Right are the ones with easy access to weaponry, AIPAC could do a lot worse in the support department.

But the best part of the Squad’s anti-AIPAC rhetoric? It proves the political version of the Horseshoe Theory since the Socialist Socialite got some fan mail in the form of a message on the Social Media Platform Formerly Known as Twitter from…noted but not that noteworthy right wing nutjob Nick Fuentes. Of course, the Socialist Socialite rejected his message, but if AIPAC can bring together two opposites like this, we should celebrate it! Hell, let’s make it a national holiday!

Call it When Stupid People Hate the Same Things Day!

The “Fix” Is In

To call President Brick Tamland’s performance during his first debate with Donald Trump a disaster would be an understatement of Godzilla-like proportions. And not the good Godzilla, either. I’m talking the shitty 90s version of Godzilla with Matthew Broderick that sucked ass.

Anyway, the Left is in panic mode and throwing out ideas on what to do from here, and one of those involves throwing out President Tamland off the ticket for 2024. As much fun and chaos that would ensue from this, I have to put on my conspiratorial hat for a bit to wonder if this wasn’t a plot to get the President off the ticket and find a replacement that would fare better against Trump.

At this point, I will warn you this is pure speculation on my part. I have no inside sources speaking on terms of protecting their identities and I’m not clever enough to invent such sources myself, so take what I’m about to say with as big a grain of salt as you want. Just make sure you take your blood pressure meds before you do.

Anyone with functioning eyes, ears, and brain can see President Tamland isn’t quite as lucid as he seemed to be in 2020. Part of this can be attributed to him being Methuselah with hair extensions. As we age, our mental faculties may take a bit of a dip. This isn’t always the case, but with the President, I think the dip is much more pronounced than it was a few years ago. And let’s not kid ourselves. Being the President adds years to your life, even after only a little bit of time in the position. If you take up the mantle, you had best be ready for the toll it will have on you.

Granted, I’ve never seen President Tamland as particularly bright before now. He’s always come off to me as a used car salesman with a broad smile, a welcoming demeanor, and the ability to schmooze his way into a deal that will leave you heaving off the lot in a rusted out Yugo with a transmission being held together by bubble gum, some chicken wire, and a blessing from the Pope. He’s definitely a people person, which will take you far in politics.

But this year, being Not Trump isn’t going to cut it.

Under the guidance of President Tamland, we’ve had severe inflation, an economy that can’t seem to make up its mind whether to be shitty or super shitty, and the bungling of issues here and abroad. His track record as President has been arguably one of the worst in modern history on many levels, so much so that we’re willing to give a convicted felon another shot at the White House because he doesn’t seem that bad compared to the dumpster fire we’re currently experience.

In political terms, President Tamland has served his purpose, which was to defeat Trump. If he did a couple of good things here and there, it was gravy. But now, he’s becoming more of a liability than Hunter Biden, and that’s saying something!

Here’s where the numbskullery…I mean skullduggery comes into play. President Tamland wants to be President again, not because he’s particularly good at it, but because he really can’t do anything else. The dude has been in public office for almost all of my life, and I am not a young man at this point. If he were to leave the White House voluntarily or otherwise, what could he realistically do? Teach a class on how to be a fuck-up and get paid big money for it?

By the way, I think that course is already being offered next semester at Harvard.

As a result, President Tamland has dug in his heels and refused to accept any advice to pack it in, retire to Connecticut, and regale his grandkids with stories about how Corn Pop was a bad dude. Early on in this election cycle, the Left were okay with it for the most part, aside from the usual rabble rousing from the Squad and other like-hiveminded Leftists. Even the media got involved and tried to downplay what we were seeing as nothing major. The President is as sharp as he ever was (see my previous comments about him and why that’s not a compliment). Anybody who says otherwise is ageist, a right wing smear monger, or out and out lying to you.

After the debate, these same folks were singing a completely different tune.

And that’s all part of the plan. Remember, President Tamland’s team set the ground rules for the first debate, so there’s a part of me thinking it was a set up from the jump. Even the people closest to the President have to have seen his decline, even if they don’t want to admit it. In order to keep their jobs in what they hope would be a Tamland-in-name-only Administration, they needed an out. The debate was that out.

And the best thing about it for them is it was a no-lose situation. If Tamland performed the way he did, they could make the argument he shouldn’t be the nominee anymore. If he did better than expected, they could run to the media and say “We told you so!” without missing a beat or raising even the slightest doubt as to his capabilities.

Now, thanks to President Tamland making Kamala Harris look brilliant, the door is wide open for new faces to throw their hats into the ring. And with the right amount of prodding, President Tamland might even step down of his own volition. A perfect solution to an imperfect problem right?

Yeah, not so much.

The current Democrat Party is a loose-knit coalition of special interest groups who are willing to set aside personal differences to achieve an ideological goal, at least in theory. In current practice, however, the party has more cracks than Hunter can smoke in a weekend. With morons like the Squad squabbling with the party leadership over candidates who don’t meet their progressive litmus tests, getting a new candidate to replace President Tamland is going to be daunting. And the rank and file are starting to agree more with the Socialist Socialite than Nancy Pelosi, which means the possibility of there being a political turf war that results in the nomination of a candidate nobody likes, but has to run to preserve democracy or some shit.

That means Kamala still has a chance to be the Presidential nominee!

This also opens up a lot of questions about the quality of candidates willing to step up and most likely lose. The only thing bigger than a politician’s closet full of skeletons is his or her ego. Any Democrat who decides to try to win the nomination is going to have to be able to deal with President Tamland’s fuck-ups in a way that doesn’t affect future potential runs. And with the bozos on deck, from California Governor Gavin Newsom to Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, I’m not sure they have a viable Plan B. Their best course of victory might be to forfeit.

Or they could just run Hillary Clinton again.

Even after all of that, even if they find a candidate willing to be the whipping boy (or girl) to Trump, there may be convention headaches not related to partying with Nancy Pelosi. The way Democrats run their conventions makes as much sense as Calvinball. The states have delegates, but the party also has superdelegates who can override the will of the delegates. After all, we can’t have people actually affect who gets to be the nominee, amirite?

If there is a fight between a candidate chosen by the delegates and a candidate preferred by the superdelegates, there is going to be chaos on the level of a Michael Bay movie, possibly with fewer unnecessary explosions. Hopefully, the party leadership is smart enough to find a way out of this…I can’t even type the rest of that sentence with a straight face. If they were smart enough in the first place, they would have convinced President Tamland to serve only one term.

Now, we get a little further into the weeds, so I’ll try to be brief here. When there is a convention where candidates are voted in, there is a process that has to be followed. If there needs to be a deviation of that process, the majority body has to agree to it. Before any speeches are given or video montages rolled, there needs to be a vote. Otherwise, it’ll just be night after night of “Trump Bad!” So, you know, pretty much the entire Tamland campaign strategy to date. Without agreement, there can be no nomination. No nomination means no candidate. But it doesn’t mean we won’t get night after night of boring speeches that will only appeal to the faithful. I don’t foresee this part being a big problem under the circumstances, but it could still happen.

And perhaps the biggest headache facing Democrats if they go through with replacing President Tamland: state election laws. Each state sets up its own laws regarding how elections are run, how one qualifies to be on the ballot, and the like. And, yes, there are time limits to these things. If a candidate isn’t officially a nominee by the time these deadlines come and go (as what almost happened to President Tamland in Ohio), the states may have to revisit whether he or she qualifies to be on the ballot.

And guess which party controls the majority of the gubernatorial seats in this country. Can you say “Republicans,” boys and girls? I knew you could. Add into the fact many of these Republican Governors also have Republican majorities in their legislatures, there might not be a lot of leeway given to the potential Democrat nominee if it’s not President Tamland.

But simply, this is a problem that would make Rube Goldberg and M.C. Escher scratch their heads in confusion and disbelief. All because a man in serious mental decline wouldn’t take no for an answer.

Sucks to be you!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

In case you’ve been living under a rock or on the campus of UC Berkeley, you’ve heard President Brick Tamland is old. How old? I wish I could say this is a set up to a Johnny Carson-esque joke, but I can’t. He really is old, and it shows.

Or, it would show if Leftists were honest about it. Instead of admitting President Tamland is so old he makes Strom Thurmond look like a newborn (and, to be honest, I’m not sure the President wasn’t at his baptism), they’re going with a different approach: pretending everything we’re seeing isn’t real. In fact, the Tamland Administration has come up with a new term to describe it, that being “cheap fakes.”

Given the inflation caused by the Administration, I’m surprised anything is cheap. But it’s a good jumping on point for this week’s Lexicon.

cheap fakes

What the Left thinks it means – the results of right wing media distorting videos to give the impression the President is feeble and not capable of being President

What it really means – Leftists trying to gaslight us more than Victorian times

The Left knows the President has issues, and by issues I mean subscriptions. He mumbles incoherently like he’s taking diction lessons from Ozzy Osbourne. He loses track of where he is in speeches, even reading directly off the teleprompter when it was more instructional. He freezes in the middle of sentences and stares blankly into space. He wanders off and has to have others help him get to where he’s supposed to go. He’s even fallen up stairs. Not down, up!

But Orange Man Bad, amirite?

No matter what video evidence there is (and how many videos show the same deteriorating conditions), the Left has an answer. They provide statements from numerous sources, including Republicans, saying President Tamland is as mentally sharp as ever. They compare the President’s mental ability to Donald Trump’s. And now, they’re saying it’s all fake.

It’s at this point I’m throwing the brown bullshit flag. It’s one thing to have it happened once in a while. We all get old and occasionally forgetful. It’s another thing altogether to dismiss multiple televised and live instances to consider it to be a total right wing conspiracy with altered footage, distorted camera angles, and selective still shots to make President Tamland look bad. He’s doing that well enough all on his own, so he doesn’t need the Right’s help.

But the Left’s response to people noticing President Tamland is shakier than Rosie O’Donnell eating Jello on the San Andreas Fault during a 7.8 earthquake is a tell. As you’ve seen in previous Lexicon entries, the Left has no problem doing what they’re accusing the Right of doing. Fuck, Media Matters has made a tidy career of doing just that. Then, there’s documentarian/all-you-can-eat-buffet enthusiast Michael Moore, a reliable Leftist liar.

And don’t get me started on the Left’s “very fine people on both sides” lie.

The Left has no problem lying when it suits them, so when they call actual video footage of President Tamland acting like a broken down animatronic robot from the Hall of Presidents a cheap fake, it’s pure drive in movie level projection, baby!

That’s not to say the right-leaning news organizations aren’t prone to distortion when it suits a narrative, mind you. Fox News has seen legal repercussions from lying, as has Alex Jones. And, for what it’s worth, I don’t trust either of them (although the video of an Alex Jones rant turned into a folk song is pretty funny). But it’s Hank Johnson opinions on Guam levels of stupid to say the Right is on par with the Left when it comes to distorting the truth. Dishonesty against political opponents is the coin of their realm.

Oh, and being absolute fucking idiots.

And they’re being absolute fucking idiots here. Instead of saying “Yeah, President Tamland is a PR disaster that shits himself on the regular, but he’s the best candidate we have,” the Left will continue to blame right wing disinformation and expect us to either cower in fear or question what we clearly see time after time after time.

What they don’t expect is for people across the ideological spectrum to see President Tamland’s decline and express concern he may be too old and incapable of being President. It’s getting harder and harder for the Tamland Administration and its lapdog media sources to tell us what we clearly see isn’t what we’re seeing and there’s a perfectly rational explanation for everything. They haven’t come up with this rational explanation, mind you, but they insist there is one.

Of course, this wouldn’t be a Leftist Lexicon entry without exposing at least some Leftist hypocrisy. Back in the mid-to-late 80s there was another President who was accused of being in cognitive decline while in office. That man was Ronald Reagan. Media outlets at the time questioned his mental acuity and there is some debate as to whether Reagan had Alzheimer’s Disease while in the White House. At that time, more than a few of the Leftists now saying President Tamland isn’t experiencing any decline in his faculties were suggesting Reagan was incompetent. They’ll deny it, of course, but it happened. I was fucking there. And they continue to do it.

But when it’s one of theirs (or two if you count Dianne Feinstein), such concerns are brushed aside. All for political gain.

Fuck that shit! We are seeing a man who shouldn’t be running a lemonade stand let alone have access to the nuclear codes getting worse and worse at a job that has physical and mental strains attached to it. And the worst part is I can’t even be mad at President Tamland for it. He’s being used by others as a figurehead while the real shitty work is being done behind the scenes when it’s not being done in his pants. This is elder abuse, but with global implications.

And the people using President Tamland as a meat-shield don’t care. They care about us noticing his mental decline repeatedly and deciding he should be home, not in the White House. And that’s utterly fucked up when you think about it.

So, save me the “cheap fakes” bullshit. Not only is a stupid turn of a phrase, but it reveals how little you really think of the President as a human being. The more you run interference for the guy, the worse it gets for you.

But look at the bright side. After this Administration gets tossed out on its asses and all the bullshit gets exposed, they will always have a seat on any panel on MSNBC.


Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

It’s been a busy couple of weeks as political figures and politically adjacent figures have had their days in court and come out with convictions (the legal kind, not the moral kind). First, we had former President Donald Trump get convicted on 34 felony counts in a trial even Stevie Wonder could see was legally shaky. Because he’s a legal scholar, you guys. Surely, there’s not another way you can interpret…ohhhhhhh! Moving on before I get in more trouble.

Then, President Brick Tamland’s son, Hunter Biden, caught three felony convictions for lying on federal gun forms to illegally obtain a firearm while being a drug abuser. Wait a minute…I thought stricter gun laws were supposed to prevent this kind of thing! But that’s a blog post for another time.

In both cases, the Left cheered the rule of law. After all, both had their days in court and they met their fates. So, there’s nothing more to say, right?

Wrong, because if there wasn’t anything more to say, this would be a really short Leftist Lexicon entry.

rule of law

What the Left thinks it means – a fundamental principle where everyone is treated the same in the eyes of the law

What it really means – a fundamental principle where everyone should be treated the same in the eyes of the law, but isn’t

For all of their faults, the Founding Fathers understood the potential for dishonest people to put their thumbs on the scales of justice. That’s why they included specific limitations in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights to mitigate those instances whenever possible. Granted, I’m not sure they could have foreseen the sheer scumbaggery of some legal “professionals” (I’m looking at you, Michael Avenatti), but they did the best they could with the scumbags of their era.

What they didn’t foresee was the power of politics and wealth on judicial proceedings. In some cases, the guilty are set free because they could afford better lawyers. In others, the innocent get railroaded because of factors beyond the facts of the case.

And then we have the Donald Trump and Hunter Biden cases. Since I’m not a lawyer, I won’t pretend to know all the ins and outs of the proceedings, but I can speak to what I know.

You can stop giggling now.

With the Trump trial, there was a clear bias against him starting with Alvin “Not One of the Chipmunks” Bragg. Bragg is one of those District Attorneys that has to be elected rather than appointed, and he ran on a platform of holding Trump accountable, as did the other candidates he ran against. New York Attorney General Letitia “I’m Not Rick” James, who was also elected on a platform of getting Trump, didn’t help alleviate questions of impartiality.

Of course, there was Bragg’s move to elevate Trump’s crimes, which were misdemeanors under the law, to felonies because…reasons, I guess? Actually, I’m not even sure he knows why other than it’s what he promised to do when he ran for District Attorney. All I know for sure is there were shortcuts taken to achieve the end goal. And gain the fawning adoration of Leftists and media folks (sorry, for repeating myself). Of course, those shortcuts may lead to not only an appeal, but the entire verdict being overturned, but hey. Bragg and James made good on their campaign promises, so all’s good, right?

I quote the great philosopher Lana Kane from “Archer”: Noooooooooope!

The thing about the rule of law that sticks with me is it isn’t about the final verdict so much as it is about how that verdict is reached. There is a process that has to be followed to ensure there is as level a playing field as possible for all parties. When political and media parties get involved, that playing field gets less even than highway lines painted during a 5.8 earthquake.

But it isn’t a one-way street. While rushing to prosecute a former President because he happened to beat an unlikable candidate in 2016 certainly shows the effects of political biases on legal proceedings, the same can be seen when political biases are used to slow down proceedings. That brings us to Hunter Biden’s recent convictions.

The Constitution guarantees the accused the right to a speedy trial, but when your daddy is the President, that speedy trial gets slower than Al Gore’s speech on Ambien. And it’s even worse if you’re the one taking the Ambien.

Although Hunter’s gun case is the one we’ve just experienced, he’s also on the hook for possible tax crimes. And thanks to his daddy and his lackeys in the IRS and Department of Justice, there were delays in prosecuting the Huntster. Oh, but that didn’t stop that same DOJ from dragging its feet of clay in prosecuting Hunter’s federal gun charges as well.

Does that sound like the rule of law being respected to you? If so, seek help.

Although the delays are humorous in a way because President Brick Tamland is bragging about pushing for stronger gun laws, it doesn’t speak well of his efforts or the rule of law when people under his…well, I wouldn’t call it leadership so much as being lead-ership are throwing a Sahara Desert’s worth of sand in the legal machinery to avoid embarrassment. Of course, if these folks really cared about not causing President Tamland to be embarrassed, they wouldn’t have allowed him to run for a first term, let alone a second term. Oh, and here’s another tip for the President: if you want to avoid embarrassment from your family, don’t let your son be a fucking crackhead!

What the Left’s approach to the rule of law is if you make the laws you make the rules, which is admittedly the way things have gone in recent years. From a political perspective, it’s ruthless, cutthroat, and devoid of a moral framework, which means it’s perfect for today’s government. But when the political makes a move into the judicial, it doesn’t work so well because invariably you are going to run into people who try to stay true to the words and the meanings of the law. That’s why Leftists hate originalist Supreme Court Justices. If you believe the law is written in stone, there isn’t any wiggle room. If you believe the law is written in erasable marker, you can create your own wiggle room and get rid of it when it’s no longer necessary.

The Left does have respect for the rule of law when it comes to precedent, namely any precedent they agree with. For decades, the Left relied on precedent to force through whatever it wants from abortion to gay rights to Affirmative Action. After all, if you get a court to agree with your interpretation of the way things should be, it’s all the Left needs to turn it into 50 more things tangentally related to the original decision because precedent.

The problem with precedent, though, is it can be overturned by later rulings. Take Plessey v Ferguson, for example. The court wrongly decided state discrimination laws did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment as long as things were “separate but equal.” Of course, they never were, but still. Just because Plessey was precedent doesn’t mean it was good precedent. Then, Brown v Board of Education pimp-slapped “separate but equal,” thus relegating it to law texts, history books, and the occasional blog post by some asshole trying to make a point about the rule of law.

The Left’s situational love of the rule of law is telling, and it’s not telling us anything good. When an ideology bases its appreciation for it on whether it gives them a desired result, the rule of law becomes more of a club than a scale, which cheapens it. The good news is the highest court of the land is in the hands of people more inclined to respect it than use it like a cheap hooker. And the greatest part of it all? Leftists paved the way to make it happen!

Thanks, Harry Reid!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

With the Presidential election a little under 5 months away (I’m surprised I didn’t hear more about this), all eyes are on the election process as much as the two major party candidates running (or in President Brick Tamland’s case, stumbling). While the Left has been repeating “Trump is a convicted felon” until their face turns blue…r, they’ve also been raising concerns about election interference. After all, our elections are sacrosanct and it’s clear Trump and the GOP is trying to weaken our faith in the election process by questioning the results.

You know, like these same Leftists did in 2000, 2004, 2016…

This raises the question of what constitutes election interference. A good question, but one with some really bad answers.

election interference

What the Left thinks it means – steps taken to question or derail our elections

What it really means – a nebulous term that covers a lot of ground without providing consistent and concrete examples

Elections used to be easy to handle. You show up, show ID, go into a booth with a curtain like a small shower, and pull your levers or mark your ballots. Or in some cases, mark your ballots while pulling your lever. And even when we disagreed with the outcomes, we lived with them without discord.

Then, the political parties realized they could cheat. Whether it was Chicago Mayor Richard Daley delivering votes for John F. Kennedy or the whole hanging chad controversy from the 2000 Presidential election, it became more commonplace to think our elections could be rigged through underhanded means. But surely two major political parties with decades of shadowy meetings and more vices than Sodom and Gomorrah with an all you can eat buffet would never sink to fucking with the election process, right?

Nevermind.

When you think about it (and I have because our Internet was down for a couple of hours), election interference as a concept has a pretty wide scope. Even with the various state election laws and federal election laws, there are a lot of gray areas. Just like my hair these days.

But the existence of laws themselves doesn’t make partisans any less tempted to break them. And when you consider election law violations are investigated as infrequently as the media covering anything involving Hunter Biden, there’s a good chance any election crimes are going to go unpunished. If anything, I’m surprised more people haven’t started questioning whether our elections aren’t as staged as pro wrestling.

Actually, that’s not a fair comparison. Pro wrestling is much more on the level.

Now, that’s going to get me branded as an election denier by the Left, which is fine. I’ve been insulted worse by better people. But if you’re going to tell me my questioning of election results that make less sense than a Kamala Harris sentence is threatening the integrity of elections, you’d better come with evidence beyond “we’re uncomfortable with you telling the truth about our election crimes.”

In fact, Leftists consider what they consider to be “misinformation” to be election interference. Considering these Leftists can’t figure out what a woman is, I’m not going to take them that seriously.

And it’s this same attitude I’m taking towards the Left’s sudden concern with election integrity and preventing interference. From where I sit (in my living room in my comfy chair as I write this), this concern is based not on acknowledging the screamingly obvious, but hiding the election interference that has already occurred and may be gearing up again to help President Tamland limp across the finish line in November.

One safeguard the Right has asked to be put in place to reduce election interference is voter ID laws. Actually showing identification and having a poll worker confirm you are who you say you are is a good way to better ensure election integrity.

Which is why the Left opposes it. Not only do they consider them to be burdensome, but racist! After all, it might make minorities actually have to do something outrageous, like…getting a driver’s license!

Yet, voter ID laws could easily fit under the Left’s umbrella for election interference because it doesn’t fit in with the overall plan: electing more Leftists. And with the election of more Leftists come the appointment of more Leftists into positions that you’d need an act of God, an edict from the Vatican, and a signed note from your mother to get them out of.

To go along with this, Leftists could consider laws against electioneering to fall under that designation. Fortunately, we’ve never had a major party offer food and water to people in line to vote, like, ever, right? Also, consider laws restricting mail in ballots. Certainly, the Left would consider that election interference. In fact, as it currently sits, election interference could mean just about anything.

Except for the shit they do. Like…oh I don’t know…getting their favorite rich relative Uncle George Soros to push for Leftists to be responsible for counting the votes in various states? And if these people are aligned with one side or the other, what safeguards are there to prevent them from miscounting votes or tossing out valid ballots while excusing invalid ones? And if there appear to be boxes and boxes of ballots that mysteriously show up at the 13th hour, it’s up to these folks to determine if they’re valid, even if there are discrepancies.

Call me a cynic, but I’ve seen too much election-related fuckery because of dishonest bullshit from partisan players. And with how vague and contradictory the Left’s definition of election interference is, I have zero faith in their professed desire to tackle it.

However, there is a method to their madness, that being holding the Right accountable to the rules. Thank you, Saul Alinsky. The only difference is the rules are being set by the Left and the Right is going along with them because, well, they’re the rules. The Left has no intention of following the rules they make, but they’ll be sticklers whenever the Right deviates from them.

That is, until the Right decides to force the issue. Voter ID laws, restrictions on mail-in ballots, and other options on the table are not only reasonable, but doable. And they put the Left in a difficult position: support laws that will go a long way to ensuring election integrity (and cut down on the amount of bitching from everyone except the Left), or admit they’re full of shit.

Guess which one I’m betting on.