Remember the War on Drugs started in the 1980s? I do. My brain still looks like a sunny-side up egg, but that’s not important right now. What is important is America has fought a halfhearted war against drugs and we’ve been worse for wear because of it.
That is until Donald Trump got reelected. Now, we’re putting firepower behind the War on Drugs with the Department of War taking the lead on turning alleged drug trafficking boats into the world’s most addictive flotsam. And, right on cue, the Left has a problem with it. But this week, their efforts went up a notch with several Leftists calling what the President and Secretary of War Pete “Let’s Tap That Keg” Hegseth authorized war crimes.
The accusation is pretty heavy, so let me try to make fun of it!
war crimes
What the Left thinks it means – serious and inexcusable crimes committed by the current Administration
What it really means – the next phase of the Left’s attempt to undermine the military under Trump
The concept of war crimes is rooted in the Geneva Convention (not nearly as fun as a Shriner’s convention, but I digress), and it outlines how enemy soldiers and prisoners of war are to be treated. Keep in mind this is in the aftermath of World War II, where POWs were treated worse than a British substitute teacher in Belfast, so the spirit of the document has a foundation in humane treatment.And should someone or some country decide not to play by these rules, they can get charged with war crimes by the International Criminal Court.
This is a great thing when we’re dealing with warring nations, but what about different types of wars where there aren’t warring countries? Welllll…that’s where things get a little murky, at least for me. When you consider the bulk of the military actions America has undertaken since the Geneva Convention have not been officially declared wars, it brings up the question of whether the concept of war crimes even applies here. That’s where the concept is subject to interpretation, or misinterpretation as the case may be.
Enter our good fiends…I mean friends on the Left. As I’ve noted before, the Left loves it when things are unclear because they can then inject their perceptions into the discussion, even if they’re batshit crazy. Then, by operating in the uncertainty, they can control the narrative, which is always their endgame.
This begs the question of whether blowing up suspected drug runner boats constitutes violations of the Geneva Convention. The simple answer as I see it is not really, and it’s predicated on the fact Congress hasn’t declared war yet. That gives me a chance to talk about Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution again because it’s there that we find who can declare war, and surprise surprise, it’s Congress!
If the Founding Fathers saw the absolute nozzleheads running Congress these days, they might have changed their minds, but that’s a post for another time.
Anyway, the point remains Congress didn’t declare war, as is often the case with Presidents who want to appear like a military leader against foes far weaker than we are. For everything else, there’s hookers and blow…or diplomacy. You know, whichever works.
Further complicating matters (because of-fucking-course) is the War Powers Resolution of 1973. This law requires the President to report to Congress whenever there’s the potential for hostilities to break out, but also allows the President to deploy troops for 60 days without a Congressional vote. So, I’m going to go out on a limb and say the President told Congress (and the rest of the country for that matter) that the Department of War was going to play Battleship: The Narco-Terrorist Edition well before any attacks began, so that requirement was met a looooooong time ago. And I’m gonna say blowing up shit constitutes hostilities.
And now for the best part? The President doesn’t have to have Congress do shit for 60 days, which oddly enough is roughly twice as many days as they’re in session. Granted, I’m guessing things might take a little longer than 60 days because we’re dealing with drug cartels here, but with the current makeup of Congress, a vote would most likely be a mere formality.
So, that’s why the Left went all in on the war crimes idea. If they can convince enough people what the President is doing violates the Geneva Convention, they can sway public opinion to…make drug dealers look like poor victims, I guess? (Hey, nobody said Leftists were smart.)
However, to fully understand the strategy, we need to look back at a recent video from six members of Congress who were either in the military or in the intelligence community. In that video (and in subsequent appeals in the media to take the heat off), they made sure to say the military didn’t have to obey illegal orders. Since then, not a one of the fucknuggets in the video or the Leftists who support the current thing could point to an illegal order the President issued, so that should be the end of it, right?
Yeahhhh, not so much.
The point of the video wasn’t to back up their claims so much as it was to instill doubt in the leadership from the President on down. Now, add in the war crimes element.
For those of you who need help connecting the dots, by suggesting Trump and Hegseth are guilty of war crimes, it reinforces the idea they’re issuing illegal orders, potentially eroding the confidence in the military and political leadership. And that leads to trouble up and down the ranks. If our military has to second-guess every order given, it prevents them from fulfilling their primary objectives: kill the enemy, break their shit, or a combination of the two.
Yeah. Pretty fucking dirty.
I’m sure there are going to be more legal arguments and laws bandied about on both sides of the war crimes question, but ultimately the heart of the matter is the Left is going to have a hard time explaining why blowing up drug boats and killing drug smugglers is a bad thing. And that’s not even getting into whether the actions constitute a war crime.
Not that it will stop Leftists from saying it or further suggesting the military should disobey the President. Even if the war crimes thing gains any traction, Leftists are still going to have to deal with being on the same side of an issue as drug cartels because…Orange Man Bad.
Again, no one ever said Leftists were smart.
Category: Politics
Political posts about the right or left and everyone inbetween
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
I take a week off and the shit hits the fan. Guess that means I’d better keep churning these babies out weekly from here on out!
The news of the week centered around one man, Jeffrey Epstein. More to the point, it was centered around who he knew and what these people knew about the deceased piece of dog shit. (No offense to canine excrement.) President Donald Trump promised to release the Epstein Files, then took it back, then put it back on the table, and has now signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act ordering the Attorney General and Department of Justice to make as much of the documentation available to the public without jeopardizing the victims or any ongoing investigations.
After all the Left’s grandstanding about it, you would think they’d be happy about it. And you’d be wrong.
As much as I hate to delve into this toxic landfill of shitty people (and Jeffrey Epstein), I have to dip my toe into it. And I promise to make it not hurt that much.
Jeffrey Epstein
What the Left thinks it means – a notorious pedophile with ties to Republicans
What the Right thinks it means – a notorious pedophile with ties to Democrats
What it really means – a notorious pedophile being used as a political football to hide a much larger issue
If it wasn’t clear from my opening, I think Jeffrey Epstein was not even a passable human being, let alone good. What he was convicted of doing and suspected of doing to young girls and women is reprehensible, and anyone who even exchanged emails or text messages with him gets my side-eye.
So, why are so many Democrats and Republicans connected to him? Because he had leverage.
Politics and wealth go hand in hand more than anti-Tesla protesters making a human chain stuck together with Super Glue and industrial strength duct tape. The well-heeled and the well-dressed have walked the halls of power for as long as I’ve been alive, but it wasn’t always so blatant. Back in the old days, if you wanted to buy a politicians you had the common decency to do it under the table. Well, since that option isn’t available because of all the prostitutes doing their business under said table, it’s more overt.
That’s where Jeffrey Epstein comes into play. By being wealthy, he caught the eye of a lot of politicians on both sides of the aisle. As time went on, he amassed a lot of friends…and information that he could use as a bargaining chip to sway opinions in his favor. Money is a universal language, and Epstein was a master linguist.
But remember he played with both sides, if you’ll pardon the expression, which made him useful to both sides, if only to satisfy mutual carnal sins. This is why the Left and the Right are desperately trying to push him onto the other side. With that much infamy, Epstein becomes the proverbial millstone around the necks of the party faithful in Washington, DC.
Even with that Bizarro World tug-o-war going on, we’re starting to get a glimpse into just how deep the corruption goes in the world of the rich and powerful.
And Robin Leach didn’t prepare us for any of this shit!
It’s one thing to buy off politicians, which is done with the frequency of Jasmine Crockett saying something stupid. It’s another thing to ply them with the kind of sick shit Epstein did. And then to have people so connected in politics, tech, business, and media be involved? It’s enough to break the system, nuke it from orbit (it’s the only way to be sure), burn the remains, and shoot it into the heart of the Sun.
And you know what? I’m good with that.
It was Epstein’s death that started a domino effect where the curtain got thrown open and we got to see just what the powerful do when nobody outside of their sick clique is watching. And the fact many of these cretins get to act like they’re above the rest of us while they engage in shit Caligula would say, “Whoa! Throttle back on the perversion, kids!” You know, if he weren’t dead and all.
As sickening as what we know happened is, we’re still not sure of the extent of it, and I’m not sure anybody in government wants us to find out. After all, there are a lot of DC denizens who made their way to Epstein Island for fantasies Mr. Roarke and Tattoo could never provide. At least not without rezoning the entire island.
Of course, the lack of hard facts with regards to the Epstein files is exactly what those in power want if only to hide their sins a little longer until they can no longer hide. Then, we’ll see a whole lotta mea culpas feigning ignorance as well as contrition. They won’t be sorry for what they did; they’ll be sorry they got caught, and that’s not gonna work for me, kids. What these men and women did under the veil of secrecy should be exposed and all legal avenues to sue them into oblivion should be implemented.
That means the party’s over, scumbags.
And speaking of scumbags, let’s talk about the politicians for a minute. Those who committed crimes against young girls and women should be expelled from office, don’t care which party they represent. Kick them out, make them lawyer up, and watch them get taken to the cleaners.
Now, for the rest of Congress. You’re playing political games with the lives of people who were truly innocent victims here. It’s a little late to start caring about them now, especially after you’ve done everything you can to discredit or diminish what steps are being taken. Democrats, you can claim Trump is going to order the Epstein Files be redacted so much stock in black Sharpie pens is going to skyrocket, but we don’t know that yet. What we do know is you gave zero fucks about this situation until you could pin it on Trump. Your “Party of Women” card has been declined. Take all the fucking seats.
And as for Republicans, you gave zero fucks about this until it could be pinned on Bill Clinton. Granted, Bill being a horndog at any given time is a sure thing, but you don’t get a pass for not fighting for the Epstein Files to be released on Day 1 of Trump’s first Presidency. You didn’t help, either, so take all the fucking seats, too. And try not to sit next to the Democrats. They’re a little touchy about being on a known pedophile’s speed dial.
And having him at fundraisers.
And having ties to one of the most popular Democrat Presidents ever.
And, you know, just generally being bitchy most of the time.
Regardless, I will not speak ill of the dead any more than I have here. Jeffrey Epstein is gone and the world is better for it. Now, comes the healing and what I hope will be a course correction on the moral side.
His victims deserve it.
New Sedition
Sometimes I look at what Democrats do and say “I can see where that makes sense.” Most of the time I shake my heads and say “What in the wide world of fuck are you doing?” Today is one of those times.
It started with a video put out by former military and intelligence folks currently serving in Congress. Their message was clear: enlisted military have no obligation to obey unlawful orders. Seems harmless enough, right?
Wellllll…this is where things get messy.
As a personal aside, I will admit my knowledge of military justice is as limited as the range on Nerf gun. Therefore, I am going off my understanding of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and welcome any corrections, words of encouragement, and rotten produce you are willing to send my way.
The aforementioned UCMJ is designed to deal with legal matters within the military so that they can be dealt with in a way that doesn’t disrupt their duties. Which is killing the enemy and/or breaking their shit while at the same time making sure the same doesn’t happen to us.
Anyway, there are provisions within the UCMJ dealing with unlawful orders, namely military personnel don’t have to follow them. And that’s what the Democrats in the video are expressing, so there’s no real harm, right?
That’s where the wonderful world of sedition comes into play. Our good friends at Merriam-Webster define sedition thus:
incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority
Our laws go into greater detail, but you get the drift. Sedition is a big no-no, which I would hope former military and intelligence personnel now serving in Congress understand. Then, President Trump entered the chat and accused the Democrats in the video of seditious acts. He even went so far as to say the punishment for sedition is death.
Unfortunately for him, he got it wrong. The actual punishment is possible fines and imprisonment, so there’s that. But is he wrong about the video being seditious?
Wellllll…he kinda is. The Democrats’ defense on this is they were just reminding our military they can refuse to obey unlawful orders, which tracks. But then I started wondering why now. This message is the kind of shit military personnel get drilled into their skulls during basic training. From a military/tactical standpoint, there’s nothing objectionable in reinforcing basic knowledge. Legally, the Democrats in the video are in the clear, too.
From a political standpoint, though, that’s where there may be a case for sedition. The President has taken actions many on the Left find objectionable, from sending in the National Guard to police city streets or making drug running boats into the world’s most expensive and addictive flotsam. This latter example is the one the Left seems fixated on at the moment, with some on the Left calling it murder.
As you might expect, the UCMJ kinda frowns on murder, so to float the idea that what the military is doing to drug runners is murder might weigh heavily on the heads and hearts of those brave men and women. (Still two genders, kids!) With what they endure on a daily basis, it’s only a matter of time before someone cracks and decides to defy the chain of command by refusing a direct order he or she believes to be illegal.
That little seed of doubt is all it takes for our military to weaken just enough to break. Unlike in the world outside the military, order is what keeps things moving. It is the first, last, and only line of defense against a fully dysfunctional family feud with heavy artillery.
And these Democrats who served our country know that, or at least should know that.
That’s where I think the sedition charge sticks, if it even sticks at all. Politicians are known for being slicker than a non-stick pan covered in baby oil, and since this is more of a political line of attack, there’s a good chance they are relatively safe legally.
That’s not to say I condone what these six Congresscritters did in the name of politics. When pressed to give examples of illegal acts, these motherfuckers sputter more than Speed Buggy. Instead, they mention they’ve talked to military personnel who just so happen to say what the Left’s narrative is at the moment. Pretty convenient, I’d say.
You know, if I was a complete dipshit.
The video wraps deception in an American flag and tries to pretend it’s just a friendly reminder when it has the potential to be a bunker buster to the heart of the world’s most powerful military. I’d say they should be ashamed of themselves, but I’m not sure there’s an ounce of shame among them.
And if I may be so bold, I want to give the President some advice here. First, stay off social media before you fact check what you’re going to say. No filter works great, but not when it comes to proclaiming a punishment that is more severe than it legally is.
Second, let’s try some alternative thinking here. Don’t charge these assholes with sedition. Instead, charge them with something else and make the punishment having them pull KP duty until the Rapture.
A Shutdown Shakedown
Finally, our long national nightmare is over! With 8 Senate Democrats bravely crossing the aisle, the Senate approved the Continuing Resolution to end the longest government shutdown in history! Now, things can get back to normal.
Yeah…about that…
Although President Trump has been at the helm of the two longest government shutdowns in our history, this one feels a little different because of how people reacted to it and undercut the idea Leftists have been spinning for years about SNAP and the Affordable Care Act.
Let’s start with a shallow deep-dive into governance philosophy. Many people, including your humble correspondent, believe government is there to do the things we can’t do ourselves. You know, like having a standing army to fight off threats to the country or build/maintain roads. (Although, on that last one, I’m starting to think the people couldn’t do any worse of a job. My street has a pothole so big you would travel to the Land of the Lost if you fell in. #oldmanreference) The Left’s approach to governance is the government can and should do whatever you can handle yourself because you’re not as hip and enlightened as they are.
This coming from the people who said President Brick Tamland was fine and Queen Kamala the Appointed ran a flawless campaign, I might add.
To the Left, anything that prevents the wheels of bureaucracy from running is dangerous. And it is…to them. Leftists are so self-centered in the halls of power that they feel nothing can get done without them, and their drones who stagger through said walls like Hunter Biden looking for crack follow along. Even the non-essential workers feel a sense of entitlement.
You know what they call non-essential employees in the corporate world? Dead weight.
So, when Senate Republicans refused to budge, Leftists started creating horror stories about children and old people starving, people dying without healthcare, planes falling out of the sky, and just about anything else their PR department could come up with to scare us into submission.
But then something happened, something so ironically out of left field that Leftists couldn’t have seen it coming. Entities other than the federal government stepped up and helped with food donations. Restaurants, grocery stores, churches, local charities, and regular people saw a need and fulfilled it. Sure, to the more cynical among us, it makes for good press and temporary feel-good moments, but it tells me there is still a section of our population who are willing to help their neighbors when the opportunity arises.
And that was something the compassionate Left didn’t think about, mainly because of their approach to governance. They can’t conceive of anything good coming from a source outside of Big Brother…I mean government, let alone having those good deeds actually working. Even when states started offering SNAP funds (which is only one step down from Leftist governance), it made the federal government being shut down less of a major issue to most of the country. No rioting, no looting (save for the dumbasses who told the world their “secret life hack” of stealing from WalMart via TikTok), not a lot of civil unrest. Just people going about their days and helping out where they could.
If that isn’t a sign we may need to rethink SNAP, I don’t know what is.
As far as the ACA is concerned, I’ve already delved into it in greater detail, so I’ll give you the Readers Digest condensed version. The ACA didn’t make health care affordable in the least for most Americans, and lead to more money going to insurance companies than to actually helping Americans. To be fair, the ACA did help Americans, just the really wealthy ones who already had great healthcare. Anybody with an even cursory understanding of economics could tell you getting the government involved in anything will cause prices to skyrocket because the government will always be able to print more money to fund whatever it is they want.
Naturally, that’s why Leftists were shocked by the actual numbers.
Instead of putting up their hands and saying “we were wrong about the ACA,” they continued to throw money at it and laid a trap for Republicans by voting in a deadline to keep the ACA subsidies flowing. That is, of course, assuming they thought Republicans would take back the House and Senate at some point, but that’s a hard sell for me because Leftists suck at long-term strategy. Even a party picnic for Leftists requires at least 6 months of negotiations, planning, and cultural sensitivity training just to have 3 people show up just to say they’re vegan and they only eat free range cage free vegetables.
At this point, I honestly think Congressional Democrats planned on being in power when the ACA subsidies ran out, so they could force them into any budget they wanted. Yeah, how’d that work out for ya?
As far as all of the other disasters Leftists predicted would happen with a government shutdown, few if any of them came to pass. Planes didn’t fall out of the sky, TSA agents were still doing their jobs, the military was still at the ready, national park personnel weren’t as necessary as advertised, and generally not much changed. That’s the lesson we should all take here: the federal government isn’t as necessary as the Left makes it out to be. When you let yourself become a ward of the state by ideological means, you owe everything to the state, which means whenever the state wants to take something away from you for one reason or another, they can do it, and you won’t have a say in the matter.
In other words, when you get “free stuff,” you lose some of your freedom.
Just the way the Left likes it.
But not everyone who gets “free stuff” is as enamored with the idea of being a government drone. SNAP, for example, is used to help low income families, including members of our military and the elderly. It’s hard to be so completely cold-hearted to think they deserve to be without food or at the very least assistance.
Then, there are those who use SNAP so they don’t have to spend their own money to get food. I know that’s technically the idea behind it, but it’s not the way it’s being practiced by many people in this country. The way I know this is by watching people post TikTok videos complaining about having to spend their own money on food or complaining about the food they’re getting from non-governmental sources. I have a pretty good troll detector built in from being on the Internet almost since it became a thing, so I don’t think they’re making shit up; they’re legit upset at what they’re getting or not getting as the case may be.
The Left would have you believe the latter group is just as entitled to SNAP as the former. They’re not on the same level, in my opinion. Those who need SNAP the most are the ones who are making an effort to contribute to society in some way. I have no problem with them. It’s when you choose to get SNAP and you can work, but choose not to, that it crosses the line for me. SNAP isn’t meant to be a side hustle. It’s there to help you buy food so you can live, and given how well some of you SNAP scammers live, you can afford to shell out a little for your own sustenance.
That may be the best part of the government shutdown. People exposing how much they scam the government (i.e. us) so they can live better than us. You know, just like Congress. But unlike Congress, we might be able to do something about SNAP fraud, and we have you TikTokers to thank for it.
So, with the government starting back up again in the near future, they can finally get past partisan squabbling and get back to doing their real jobs: ignoring the will of the people and passing shitty legislation.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Well, the pre-midterm election results didn’t turn out so well for the Republicans, with Democrats making strides in several contests. One area of note is in the Big Apple, where voters overwhelmingly elected Zohran Mamdani to be the next Mayor. He ran as a democratic socialist, which is just a fancy term for a regular socialist who wants Democrat donations.
Anyway, this has sparked a discussion about socialism in general. The Left is crowing about how Mamdani represents a new way forward while simultaneously telling us we don’t know enough about socialism to appreciate it.
Challenge accepted.
socialism
What the Left thinks it means – a viable socioeconomic/political model that works time and time again
What it really means – an non-viable socioeconomic/political model that doesn’t work more often than it works
The most important place to start in this discussion is what socialism actually means. You know, aside from the definition I posed above. Our good friends at Dictionary.com define socialism thus:
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
More on this third definition later.
What Leftists say is a key feature of socialism is fairness. Everything is fair, everyone contributes to the overall good, and everything is rainbows, unicorns, and unlimited trips to the salad bar with any meal purchase. Socialism’s PR has gotten so good these days, around two-thirds of Democrats see it in a positive light.
And I can understand the appeal, especially with younger voters. The current capitalist system doesn’t seem to work for anyone but the wealthy, leaving many people out in the cold. People having to take on multiple jobs just to keep their heads above water. Everything’s getting more expensive. Surely there has to be a better way forward.
There is, but socialism ain’t it, kids.
Let’s take a trip in the Wayback Machine to 1620 when the Pilgrims were making their way to what would be called America. Because there were squabbles among the Pilgrims, leaders created a little thing the kids like to call the Mayflower Compact. Although it sounded good on paper and advocated for such things as self-governance and no religious oppression, it was by and large a socialist approach.
And, surprise surprise, it didn’t work! Who could have seen this coming? (I mean aside from anyone who stayed awake in junior high American history from back in my day.)
If you think that was the only time we dabbled in socialism, there’s also Social Security. What started out with good intentions became a socialist nightmare that is running out of money, partially because of demographics, and partially because Congress has been taking money out of it for decades and not returning it.
Then, there’s public education, care through the VA, SNAP, public defenders, and other not-so-goods and service that fall under the socialist umbrella. Even when you have moderately successful concepts like public roads and fire departments, they still aren’t quite socialist because they serve a common good, while socialism just claims to serve. You can count on the remaining hand of the world’s worst shop teacher the number of socialist programs and ideas that have worked to everyone’s satisfaction.
That may be one of the underlying reasons younger voters are okay with socialism: they haven’t been taught shit about the failures of socialism, even on our shores. Sure, they learned all about how the Pilgrims were evil white colonizers who slaughtered Native Americans, but they just didn’t get to the part where they tried their hand at an early version of socialism and got their asses handed to them. But in the defense of public education, they just don’t have time to cover how fucked up socialism is because they have to make room for a deep dive into how Taylor Swift is such a cultural icon.
And I only wish I were half-kidding.
Educational standards going down like a starlet trying to get a movie deal from Harvey Weinstein aside, I don’t think capitalism has made a good enough argument to the past couple of generations, mainly because capitalists know it’s the best thing going today. Even so, it might not hurt to advertise a bit more. I mean, it’s easy to be a socialist when you have the latest iPhone, drink Starbucks on the regular, and make money posting TikTok videos. When the rubber meets the road, though, it’s a lot harder to live in a socialist society.
That’s because one of the dirty little secrets of socialism is it only works as long as they have OPM: Other People’s Money. It’s a pretty simple concept, really. If you’re spending your own money, you tend to be more frugal. If you’re spending someone else’s money, the sky’s the limit, baby!
Socialism works on the same principle. As long as they can take money from the wealthy, things can work. But then it runs into a brick wall called human nature. Even if you’re the most progressive guy or gal (gender count: still 2) out there, at some point you’re going to be confronted with the real possibility you’re putting in more than you’re getting back. Then, you have to make a value judgment: stay within the current system, or high-tail it out of there.
Then, socialism runs into the potential for income erosion. As the wealthier members of a socialist society die off or move on, that not only eliminates their protection money…I mean contributions, it puts more pressure on the next lowest wealth base. Then, if/when they’re off the books, it goes down to the next lowest wealth base.
Blather. Rinse. Repeat.
What most people who subscribe to socialism don’t understand is as long as their is wealth erosion, there will come a time when they’re the wealthiest because everyone else will be poorer than they are. Funny how that works out, isn’t it?
Even if you attempt to dress up socialism by giving it a cool name like Logan or democratic socialism, you’re still going to run into the same problems. And the reason is the same: socialism fucking sucks, man! Although if it were named Logan, it would be cool while it sucked.
Now, remember earlier when I mentioned the third definition of socialism? If not, read up a bit and you’ll see it.
Anyway, it’s interesting to note Marxists used socialism as a lead-in to communism. The way I describe it is this: socialism is communism on pot, and communism is socialism on PCP. By nature, I’ve found socialists by and large aren’t that into violence. You’ll get the occasional socialist with a bike lock and a bad attitude and tries to start something, but most of them are pretty calm. Their hearts are in the right place, as are their facial features because they’re not getting knocked the fuck out.
Communists, on the other hand…well, they’re not exactly the “live and let live” type. Violence is a part of their political brand. I can’t say for certain how many socialists would be okay with communism, but I have to think the number is higher than 1, especially when you consider the Left’s hunger for control. That’s pretty much right out of the communist playbook (or manifesto if you will). It’s almost as if communists knew socialism would fail and further steps would need to be taken.
You know, like cracking skulls and oppression?
I know I’ve shit on socialism worse than if I’d had a Triple Bean Burrito with a side order of salmonella from Taco Bell that’s been sitting in a van in the Mojave Desert since the last time Bon Jovi made a good album (which is never), but I don’t shit on socialists themselves very much. To me, they’re misguided, but have hearts of gold. Or at least would have hearts of gold until their socialist buddies found out and accused them of hoarding wealth.
Having said that, I can’t bring myself to join their ideology because I know too much. I’ve seen the fall of the Soviet Union, the crumbling of the Warsaw Pact countries, and the rise of a more egocentric approach to life in general, none of which bode well for socialism working in this country. Yet, I still wish Zohran Mamdani the best of luck in his attempt to create a socialistic utopia in a city weirder than I am. If he succeeds, I’ll admit freely. If he fails, I’ll mock him endlessly.
Let’s just say I’m betting the under on his success rate.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Remember the movie “Groundhog Day”? If not, it’s a great comedy worth a watch. The general idea is a TV weatherman repeats the same day over and over again until he figures out how to get things right.
Well, Bill Murray may have to take a back seat to…the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. In the midst of the government shutdown (which I am blissfully enjoying for the most part for the sheer comedy of Leftists trying to blame Republicans for not funding ACA subsidies for millions of Americans. Leftists tell us unless these subsidies are funded as part of the Continuing Resolution in the Senate, prices will skyrocket, making healthcare unaffordable.
We’ll get back to that in a bit.
Anyway, with the ACA/Obamacare coming back into the news, I figured we’d be good to reminisce about the days when men were men and women were men and everybody was really confused.
Affordable Care Act/Obamacare
What the Left thinks it means – a vital piece of legislation that made healthcare affordable for millions
What it really means – an unsustainable piece of legislation that Leftists sabotaged from the jump
The year was 2010 and President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law. Although it was greeted by fanfare and the efforts of Democrats (since zero Republicans voted for it). In fact, Leftists were quick to point out how former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney had a similar, if not exact duplicate, of the ACA in his state. Given what we know now about Romneycare and the mush of a man behind it, that’s not exactly something to brag about.
Regardless, Leftists were aglow with pride at getting it passed. Finally, the federal government, the purveyor of all that is good and right in the world, would be able to ensure people got health insurance by…let me read my notes…taking away options they didn’t like. That’s right, kids, Big Brother was watching you make health insurance decisions and removed your ability to choose what you wanted in favor of policies they demanded…I mean recommended through their new portal.
On a side note, why didn’t the Mafia sue the Obama Administration for copyright infringement over the Obamacare shakedown? Not that I would impugn the good name of the members of our waste management communities across this great land of ours, mind you.
Meanwhile as I attempt to avoid having my legs broken, the results of Obamacare weren’t exactly that great. In fact, it lead to spikes in costs, worse deductibles, and overall worse care. They couldn’t even get the Obamacare website to work right at launch! They made the demands to get people to use the website to sign up for their mandatory health insurance plans, but the website couldn’t meet the demand.
If that’s not the perfect metaphor for how fucked up Obamacare is, I don’t know what would be…except for the current situation where Leftists are demanding the Affordable Care Act’s subsidies be funded…so the policies through the Affordable Care Act could be…affordable?
The thing about the Affordable Care Act is that it was never meant to be affordable, per se, but rather it was an attempt to fuck things up to the point people would start demanding single-payer healthcare. And as we’ve seen with VA hospitals, it tends to wind up with worse care. Oh, and the misappropriation of funds! Oh, and the sexual harassment and sexual assault allegations! Oh, and the absurd wait times on their suicide hotline.
You know, I seem to remember a lot of Democrats getting their collectivist panties in a bunch over this…but I’m sure these little issues won’t dissuade anyone from jumping on the single-payer bandwagon!
And, really, that was the point of the Affordable Care Act. Well, that, and forcing the federal government into a business it knew less about than the Car Czar did with automobiles. Not that insurance companies minded, mind you. Thanks to the ACA, they made out like bandits. Or would have if they raised their ethical standards by a factor of, oh, five gazillion.
And as we’ve seen with military spending, whenever the federal government subsidize anything, costs are no object because the government can just print more money. Or pretend to for the purposes of tricking people into thinking we’re operating under a budget. But that’s a blog post for another time…
Meanwhile back at the main point, we’ve dumped money into Obamacare for the better part of 15 years, and I’ll be the first to admit it’s helped some people. The larger issue is it didn’t help enough people to make it worthwhile. The very fact they had to keep funding it through the American Rescue Plan and the Inflation Reduction Act should make even Stevie Wonder see it wasn’t economically feasible to keep the printing presses rolling.
Guess who controlled both houses of Congress after these two pieces of dog shit legislation got to the Auto Pen of President Brick Tamland? The Democrats.
And they were the ones who put the impending deadline into play.
Yeah, but it’s the Republicans who are the assholes.
Much more concerning to your humble correspondent than the ever-expanding fiscal sinkhole that is Obamacare is the fact it was coerced capitalism. As a free market and libertarian kinda guy, I don’t want to be forced to buy a product or service from anyone. Car and house insurance I get, but it’s not like the federal government is going to penalize me for not having either. That comes with the next bill after Logan or Kayleigh runs into the back of a school bus at 20 miles per hour because they just had to post something on TikTok, or after they cause hundreds of thousands of dollars in property damage because they wanted to see if they could turn their last Taco Bell meal into an ass flamethrower.
The Affordable Care Act, on the other hand, forced you to have health insurance. On the surface, it’s not that bad an idea, until you realize you would get penalized for not carrying any health insurance. And that’s even on top of the fact you may not even be able to afford the policies the federal government offered you. For many Americans, the choice came down to either paying the fine or paying for insurance.
Yeah, that’s not gonna work for me, brother.
The beauty of the free market system is you get to choose your path. If you decide to insure your car with Uncle Swifty’s Fly-By-Night Insurance Company and Used Tire Lot, it was your choice. A fucking stupid choice, but a choice nonetheless. Through the Affordable Care Act, your choices were limited by what they allowed you to have and what they believed you should pay for the coverage offered. Sure, you might have to go without luxuries like food and shelter, but at least you have health insurance, right?
Yeah, about that. As much shit as insurance companies get for denying claims, there’s one entity that is the absolute worst at it. I’m talking definite double digit denials here, kids. That entity, the lowest of the low, the scummiest of the scummy, the heartlessest of the heartless?
The federal government.
The same group of assholes who brought you Obamacare.
But don’t worry! The insurance companies who worked with the ACA had a plan! The Obama Administration had these things called Risk Corridors built into the Affordable Care Act to cover losses incurred due to the Affordable Care Act. Thank God they were spared, right?
Perhaps the most lasting legacy of the ACA is how the Left managed to conflate healthcare with health insurance, like they’re doing right now. The two aren’t the same and shouldn’t be considered to be so under any rational conditions.
Let me explain the difference this way. You cut your finger making dinner. Healthcare involves putting a bandage on the cut. Health insurance involves who is paying for the bandage and the care. You can get the former without involving the latter, as last time I checked, doctors like money. In fact, if you can pay for your treatment directly, many doctors appreciate that because it saves them the headache of dealing with insurance providers and determining what is covered and what isn’t.
That’s not to say Obamacare isn’t complete dog shit. Mostly, yes, but not completely. I’m referring to the concept of preexisting conditions. Prior to the ACA, insurance providers could deny coverage for any reason if they could link it back to something you already head. Obamacare put the kibosh on that practice, but it’s still being done. If I could make one suggestion to anyone trying to build the better health insurance mousetrap, it would be to keep a tighter lid on preexisting conditions, or at least make it eligible for appeal from a non-governmental and non-insurance company entity.
Failing that, go on social media and tell your stories about how your health insurance provider fucked you over over preexisting condition bullshit unrelated to the malady in question. Their CEOs will pay attention to that shit because it affects their bottom lines. And by bottom lines, I mean their salaries. Enough bad press and they might not be able to afford to spend the holidays in Aruba.
As far as the subsidies are concerned, the very fact they exist to make the Affordable Care Act affordable is a sign of its utter failure. If I had my druthers (and people knew what druthers were in the first place), I would reset the board to the way things were prior to the ACA being signed into law. It may be too late for some health insurance providers who were able to provide low cost policies to people, but at the very least we could try to revitalize that market and make health insurance affordable again.
Say, that could be a slogan of some kind…nahhhhh. No one would ever take up the Make Anything Great Again idea with any degree of success.
I’m Not Wild About Harry
To my Leftist readers out there, we need to have a talk about one of your current figureheads in the media, Harry Sisson. Let me start with a question.
Why in the wide world of fuck are you letting him be a spokesperson?
I treated him like a joke up until this point, but after watching his bizarre performance on a recent episode of “Piers Morgan Uncensored,” I have some questions. But make no mistake, I will still treat him like a joke because, dammit, I care!
The most obvious question is who exactly is he influencing. It’s no secret the Left has more issues with men than a stripper convention, and after the 2024 election, they figured out saying “men suck” isn’t exactly the best way to attract potential male voters.
And Harry Sisson is the best you folks could come up with?
What’s more intriguing is Harry isn’t the only influencer in the Leftist hivemind. Let’s list off a few.
JoJoFromJerz – a woman whose claim to fame is using Instagram filters to make her look semi-attractive and swearing more than Andrew Dice Clay with Tourettes
Meidas Touch – a reliable Leftist outpost whose track record for telling the truth makes the Weekly World News look like a more accurate Nostradamus
BrooklynDadDefiant – a guy who looks like he could might be able to kick your ass, but would be more likely to play you an original folk rock song on his acoustic guitar
Hassan Piker – Cenk’s Nephew. ‘Nuff said.
Destiny – a guy whose takes are entertaining because of how manic and wrong they are
Occupy Democrats – Meidas Touch with a bigger budget
Olivia Julianna – a woman charged with attracting young men back to the Left, but may not be able to attract flies to shit
And many, many more.
So, back to the original question, who is Harry Sisson influencing? Judging from the 2024 election results, not too many. More realistically, though, he’s not influencing anyone; he’s preaching to the same choir everyone else in the Leftist influencer-sphere is. And it’s already pretty saturated as it is.
Let’s go over what Harry has going for him. He’s a young man, not all that unattractive, and looks like a little boy. That automatically makes him attractive to older women and some gay men, who would want to take him in and take care of him. Oh, and possibly fuck him.
His boyish looks would make him attractive to younger women and younger gay men, so they would fantasize about fucking him.
But if he’s the face of the movement to get men back to voting for Leftists, he sucks at his job. He’s the type of guy who dudebros would automatically know he doesn’t lift, bro. Working class men would ignore him because he comes from a wealthy family and looks like he would have trouble lifting a nail, let alone a hammer. He’s terminally online, but whines whenever anyone calls him out on anything or mocks him in any way. (By the way, hi, Harry!)
In short, he’s not helping, and he hasn’t helped since he came onto the scene during the Brick Tamland Administration where he ran interference for the President, saying he was prepared to be President for another four years. You know, right before they dumped the President for Queen Kamala the Appointed.
But he was totally fine, guys. We can trust Harry over what we saw.
A total lack of awareness notwithstanding, Harry is proving to be more of a liability than a help. His insane mugging for the camera after being proven wrong about high profile elected Democrats calling Donald Trump a Nazi showed he was either woefully ignorant of what the party he represents constantly does, tweaking out on some primo shit and not sharing, or both. At this point, it’s hard to tell. In fact, he might be a secret Trump/Vance plant designed to make the Left look stupider than it already does just to see how many fellow Leftists follow suit. And if the plant is the right answer, Trump/Vance is getting an amazing return on investment out of Harry.
For the people/party paying him? Not so much.
Personally, I would scrap whomever decided social media influencers could replace actually talking to people outside of their hivemind because it’s a damn stupid idea. That’s how you get out of touch with the people you claim to be looking out for, and that’s where the Left find themselves today due in large part to people like Harry Sisson.
Unless you’re into man-babies who look like they’re taking mushrooms for the very first time online, that is.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
For as much time as I spend mocking the Left for their rampant stupidity, there is one thing I give them credit for, and that is mass distribution of their squawking points. Back in the heady days of, well, last year, Leftists were all squawking in lockstep saying “Joe Biden is mentally capable of being President.” This year, they’re singing a similar tune, but for a different President.
Yes, fellow campers, the Left is now saying President Donald Trump has, as they call it, “diminished capability.”
Wait. Too easy of a joke to make. (At least for now…)
With that being said, let’s take a closer look at what the Left is talking about, Willis.
diminished capacity
What the Left thinks it means – clear cognitive decline which negatively affects the President
What it really means – Leftists trying to avoid responsibility for propping up President Brick Tamland for so long while accusing President Trump of the same shit
The term “diminished capacity” is pretty nebulous when you think about it (and I do because I canceled Netflix before it was cool). It can refer to any number of maladies, ranging from possible dementia to not being able to go out in public without diapers. But enough about President Brick Tamland. There was bountiful evidence that the former President was doing a bobsled run down the cognitive course for a looooooong time. My proof?
All the Leftists who said he was fine.
And surprise, surprise, it’s the same Leftists who are all over Trump’s alleged cognitive decline like an social justice warrior on anything that hurts their fee-fees. And if you don’t know what a social justice warrior is, be glad you’re ignorant of the term and walk on by. It is not a safe space for anyone.
And with how nebulous the term is, it gives the Left plenty of ways to hold Trump to a standard they refused to hold the last President to, even though there were clearer examples of there being an issue with the latter. Not that that’s going to stop the fearless defenders of democracy, mind you! They have a country to destroy…I mean save!
This is where Trump gives them easy wins at times. Semi-coherent rants about inconsequential matters, stopping in the middle of a valid question to talk about something else, spending a significant chunk of his time on social media.
Yes, my friends. Our President is a teenage boy. Only his Call of Duty lobby involves actual military.
But that in and of itself isn’t evidence of diminished capacity. Erratic behavior? Yeah. Cognitive decline? Not so much.
Not that the Left is going to let a little thing like reality get in the way of trying to make President Trump look like Forrest Gump…or would that be Forrest Trump? Anyway, the point is the Left is grasping at straws here mainly because they can’t admit one simple truth: Trump was right all along about President Tamland. In the last year or so of his Presidency, President Tamland was definitely not firing on all trapezoids, let alone cylinders. (Geometry joke FTW!)
But this wasn’t the first time the Left wanted to point out a President’s mental decline. Waaaaaay back in the late 80s, reports came out that President Ronald Reagan was losing his memory and was suffering from dementia. Back then, though, the Left wasn’t so gung-ho to make a President serving his second term into an afterthought. They mentioned it, yes, but they weren’t mean about it for the most part.
Yeah, that ain’t happening now.
The Left needs more people to agree with them that Trump is incompetent, mostly because they were incompetent enough to lose to the guy under the banner of Queen Kamala the Appointed. What was her campaign slogan again? Oh, yeah, insane cackling.
The Left hated it when Trump beat Hillary Clinton because they thought she was the most qualified candidate in history, or at least the history of the time. Of course, when former President Barack Obama says that about it, that’s saying something because it’s a reaaaaaallly low bar to beat his qualifications. My dog is more qualified, and she doesn’t even eat Obamas!
For you Leftists out there, that was a joke.
And speaking of jokes, that brings us to Queen Kamala the Appointed’s campaign. Yes, she’s saying people tell her she was the most qualified candidate to ever run for President, but they’re either a) lying, b) lying to keep themselves in her good graces if/when she runs again, and c) have never met my dog. But the result was the same. The Left couldn’t handle losing to Trump, so they went back to the “Trump is unwell” well.
Here’s the problem. Trump hustles a lot more than most people think. His stamina and work hours make nymphomaniac hookers look lazy. The man works all hours and sleeps only 4. Doesn’t drink alcohol (which, given the state of things in Washington, DC, on a normal day is a Herculean feat). Doesn’t have any drug habits that we know of. In fact, the strongest substance he takes into his body seems to be…Diet Fucking Coke.
Yeah, tell me again he has diminished capacity.
The only case the Left can make is Trump has more than a few gaffes, misstatements, and genuine “What In the Wide World of Fuck Is He Saying?” moments. I know about these because the Left can’t stop talking about them or turning them into bigger stories than they might otherwise be.
Oh, and did I forget to mention these same assholes were oblivious to President Brick Tamland’s clear downward slide?
Let’s lay our cards on the table. This sudden concern with Trump’s mental acuity from the Left is politically driven. I know. I was as shocked as you are when I found out.
Seriously, though, what we’re seeing is IMAX level projection, and it tells me a lot about what the Left knew about President Tamland and when they knew it. If the former President hadn’t been seen at his cognitive worst, the Left wouldn’t be going in as hard as they are on Trump’s alleged decline. Sure, they’d still have the Nazi/fascist/homophobic/transphobic/racist/sexist/insult of the week shit to fall back on, but not the “Trump is in steep mental decline” shit.
Then again, these are the same people who turned Dr. Anthony Fauci into a religious icon, so maybe it wouldn’t stop them.
Regardless, we definitely should take the Left’s claims of the President’s “diminished capacity” with a Great Salt Lake sized grain of salt. Besides, the Left have their own issues with diminished capacity within their own ranks, namely the Socialist Socialite and Jasmine “I Say Stupid Shit and I Get Paid For It” Crockett. The two of them collectively wouldn’t even make a half-wit.
Let me close with a word of advice from Jesus: “Physician, heal thyself.”
It was much classier a closing than my “Get that weak shit out of here!”
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
When you really think about it (and I do because there’s nothing good on Netflix these days), humans have a lot of awards they give out to each other. Everything from perfect attendance at school to making significant contributions to the arts or science is subject to getting a trophy, plaque, oversized check, or some other form of recognition.
Of course, there are problems with this, namely trying to cash an oversized check requires oversized identification. But more to the point not everyone who accomplishes something gets an award and others who get them aren’t worthy of them. Either way, feefees will be hurt worse than a submissive bottom at a BDSM club.
Not that I know anything about that, mind you…
Over the past couple of months, people on both sides have been arguing about one prize in particular, that being the Nobel Peace Prize. The MAGA Right think Donald Trump should get it because of the peace deals he’s been brokering as of late between Russia and Ukraine and more recently between Israel and Hamas. The Left, of course, says Trump doesn’t deserve it because he’s an evil fascist Nazi doodoo head.
So, let’s break of a peace of the action (see what I did there?) and talk about this award.
Nobel Peace Prize
What the Left thinks it means – a coveted international award to celebrate those who promote peace around the world
What it really means – an international award given out to people for more ideological than practical reasons
The history of the Nobel Prizes in general is kinda cool. The guy who came up with them in the first place, Albert Nobel, invented dynamite, which makes him an honorary American because we love explosions. If he had invented a way to deliver meat through explosives, he would be possibly the greatest American ever, next to Chuck Norris.
Alas, he reconsidered his role in finding out a way to blow shit up, so he decided to take a more reasoned approach by recognizing people who contributed to the global society in the arts, sciences, and humanitarian efforts. Hence, the Nobel Prizes came to be.
With some prizes, like the prizes for Literature and the sciences, you can point to an actual body of work. We can debate whether the work improves humanity, but it’s there to look at.
With the Peace Prize…well, that’s another story. Since can be more of a squishy term, it’s harder to quantify what constitutes a worthy recipient, so it could literally be any criteria the Nobel Committee wants to apply.
And that’s where politics comes into play.
When you have no hard and fast rules, there are no expectations, just the word of the Committee members saying “this person is worthy of recognition.” Let’s take a look at some of the recent winners.
Yasser Arafat (1994) – Awarded as part of an effort to broker a peace treaty in the Middle East. Also, the leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, a known supporter of global terrorism.
International Campaign to Ban Landmines (1997) – A group that wanted to, well, ban landmines. A noble pursuit (see what I did there), but among its members was noted Leftist organization Human Rights Watch because landmines hurt human rights or something.
Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontière (1999) – A group of medical professionals helping people globally and alerting people about humanitarian crises. Medical help is always appreciated, but I’m not clear on how the whole “raising awareness” part brings us closer to peace. I mean, doesn’t somebody have to actually do shit still?
Kofi Anan and the United Nations (2001) – I got nothing.
Jimmy Carter (2002) – I can make a case for him winning the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to broker peace between Israel and Egypt in the last 1970s, but this time? He was awarded for setting up the Carter Center, which focused on human rights. Unless those rights involved Jews, of course.
Shirin Edbadi (2003) – She was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts to bring democracy to Iran and defend women’s, children’s, and refugee rights. Again, a good cause, but I’m not sure how it would help global peace. It would make Iran a little less hostile in the grand scheme of things, but that’s like Idi Amin telling Jeffrey Dahmer to cut back on the cannibalism.
Wangari Maathai (2004) – She won the Nobel Peace Prize for, as the Committee put it, “for her contribution to sustainable development, democracy, ecology, and peace.” It was almost like the Nobel Committee had to tack on “peace” at the end to justify giving her the award.
Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank (2006) – Collectively they…did something. Not sure what, but it was something about economic and social development…which is peaceful, I guess?
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore (2007) – It was at this point the Nobel Peace Prize became a joke. Not even Dane Cook level, either. They got the Peace Prize for the same reason: being wrong about the environment. And I think Al got it for losing to George W. Bush and being wrong about the environment.
And then we get to the coup disgrace (and, no, that’s not a typo)…
Barack Obama (2009) – He won it before he did anything. You know, like drone striking innocent people?
There are more, but you get the picture. When you look at the full list of Peace Prize winners, you see a definite shift from those who actually contributed to peace and those who are getting a wider berth than Rosie O’Donnell and Michael Moore at an all-you-can-devour buffet in order to shoehorn them into the award.
And the same dickheads who swooned over Obama and Gore winning it are the ones saying Donald Trump isn’t qualified to win it in spite of the fact he’s actually trying to broker peace.
Of course, I’m half-and-half on whether Trump should be in the running. Half of me thinks it would be funny to watch Leftist heads explode at him showing up in Oslo to accept the award before the world. The other half of me thinks he’s trying too hard to get an award that doesn’t have the gravitas it once did. It’s like getting an honorary Daytime Emmy; yes it’s an award, but it’s a shitty one.
And when you consider the political leanings of those who are getting the award over the past 20-30 years, you’re more of a loser for winning it.
I’m sure the Nobel Committee reads my weekly missives judging from the Scandinavian hate mail I’ve gotten over the years, so let me give you a piece of advice. Just because you agree with your politics doesn’t mean they’re advancing peace. By expanding what the original purpose of the award means, you’ve watered it down to the point of irrelevance. I mean, you gave a Peace Prize to a fucking terrorist! Why not give Antifa one?
Wait, scratch that. You’ll take me seriously.
Regardless, you have to be a lot more selective in your selection process. Pay attention to those who are actually trying to bring about peace in our time and not just have the “oh, and peace” at the end. And sometimes you might have to hold your nose and pick someone you hate who is actually bringing about a more peaceful world by, you know, actually promoting peace.
As for the MAGA Republicans who think Trump should get it, I wouldn’t push it. If he can figure out how to get Russia and Ukraine and Israel and Hamas to get to the table and get results, then we can talk about him getting one. Until then, hold your applause until the Nobel Committee gets their heads out of their asses.
So, in 2548.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
It’s fall again! Time for white women to gather at Starbucks for Pumpkin Spice lattes, men to take over the biggest TV in their homes to watch football every weekend, and for Congress to fuck up one of the only jobs it has: keeping the doors open.
Yes, I know I’ve talked about this recently and in the past, but it seems every year or so, we have to go through this bizarre Kabuki theater where one party claims the other one is shutting down government because they’re big meany-heads, and the other is claiming the first party is wasting money on stupid shit and is holding their collective breaths to get what they want.
And every time it happens, it’s Republicans’ fault.
So, how exactly are we keeping the government running, or more precisely, limping along like a dry snail? Through Continuing Resolutions, of course! And what are they exactly?
Nothing good.
Continuing Resolutions
What the Left thinks it means – a way to keep the government running because Republicans don’t want to negotiate
What the Right thinks it means – a way to keep the government running because Democrats don’t want to negotiate
What it really means – a way for both major parties to keep spending without having to w0rry about passing an actual budget
Back in the good old days when men were men and women were men and everybody was really confused, Congress would get together to hammer out what they wanted to spend on what. After they agreed, they sent the final proposal to the President, who lent his John Hancock to the bill and it became law. Of course, John Hancock was never President because I’m guessing his peers were afraid his signature would take up most of the page.
That changed in the late 20th and early 21st Century when Congress realized it didn’t need to pass a budget to spend money; they could just do it. Then, the spend-a-palooza began. Although it kept the government from shutting down (which is like saying your least favorite gynecologist isn’t retiring anytime soon, only much more invasive), it started a trend where Congress could forego budget battles in favor of…well, Continuing Resolution battles.
And what it turned into since then was giving a coke fiend a credit card to buy cocaine, then use the card to cut the cocaine into lines and snort them. Not that I know anything about that, mind you…
Anyway, the point is Congress got to do two of its favorite things to do: spend money, and bitch about how the other party is being unreasonable, but we’re the ones stuck with the tab at the end of the coke binge…I mean night.
The insidious part of all this is it’s perfectly within the duties of Congress as laid out in the Constitution. Article I Section 8 gives Congress the power to spend money. It doesn’t say how that money has to be spent, nor does it require a budget of any kind. As smart as they were, the Founding Fathers never envisioned a time when politicians would be as ruthlessly devious as they are today. Back then, they had these things called honors, morals, and accountability to those who put them in power. Much to their credit, they knew the fallibility of human nature and tried to safeguard us from excess where they could.
Then, we had to go and elect assholes to fuck up that shit.
The best way I can describe the difference between a budget and a Continuing Resolution is this. When somebody sits down and creates a budget, it’s meant to be a guideline to follow and find areas where expenses can be cut or revenue opportunities arise. A Continuing Resolution is more like a payday loan place. They don’t care how you spend the money as long as you pay it back with interest higher than the GDP of every first world country combined.
And that’s if the payday loan place likes you!
Meanwhile back in Washington, Continuing Resolutions has made it possible for Congress to keep kicking the can down the road without ever having to deal with the consequences. Namely, having to keep to a budget. This leads to overspending on stupid shit, like…oh I don’t know…funding health care for illegal immigrants. But I’m sure there are no Congresscritters so fucking dumb as to do that…oh, wait…
And that’s one of the biggest problems with the Continuing Resolution practice: the entire process can get derailed by partisan bullshit. I know! I’m shocked that politics is involved in what should be a non-political action, too!
As much as I like to see government get slashed like it went through an abattoir, I also understand there are human beings affected by the political posturing. No matter what gets funded while the two major parties squander what little money we actually have, someone will always get fucked in the end. And not in the fun way with lube, dim lights, and romantic music. Not that I know anything about that, mind you…
And the worst, yet unfortunately predictable, part? None of these motherfuckers care. No matter who gets hurt, the Left and the Right will continue to battle over trifles that don’t benefit most Americans, but will line their pockets with cash from donors.
The only way to break the cycle is to admit we have a problem. Well, more than one problem, but you get the idea. Continuing Resolutions should be the exception and not the rule. They should be used only in emergencies, not because one of the parties wants to spend money on a particular matter like saving PBS or funding more ICE agents. We need to do a better job at tightening our federal belts instead of going to the tailor to get the waistline taken out a little. And by a little I mean a lot.
One idea that I’m quite fond of is a balanced budget amendment. Not only would it require Congress to pass a budget, but it would have to be one that actually balances.
Yes, Congresscritters, that means you are going to have to give up some of your toys so we can serve the greater good.
The only drawback I see to this is the same kind of dishonest accounting that got Arthur Andersen in trouble, but continues to drive the Continuing Resolution train. When dishonest people have the power to spend money, they will always find a way to fudge the numbers so much you’d think the accounting firm is out of Hershey, Pennsylvania.
That’s where a new and improved DOGE comes into play. To ensure the budget is actually balanced, there have to be actual cuts, not just reductions to proposed increases. Where there’s waste, cut it. Where there’s redundancy, consolidate it with a department or agency where it makes sense. We don’t need 14 different divisions under 50 different agencies doing the same damn thing.
And here’s the key. The cuts must be enacted and approved by the beginning of the new fiscal year. If Congresscritters have time to do stupid selfies or host podcasts, they sure as shit have the time to do their jobs.
Along with this, I have a similar proposal, that being making the bills as small as possible. No more riders that have nothing to do with the bill itself. No more 1200 page bills released at the 11th hour and filled with so much pork Jewish and Muslim politicians have to avoid them. If you have a spending bill, make it easy for people to see what’s in it and voice their opinions.
Of course, none of this will get done because there’s too much riding on the Left and the Right maintaining the status quo. (Status quo is Latin for “same shit, different day.”) Why would Congress give up the absolute power to spend whatever it wants without having to worry about where the money comes from? We’re more likely to get a good Michael Bay movie before we get any significant change on the Continuing Resolution front.
At least the government gets shut down for a while, so there’s that. Yay, I guess?