Social Issues – Something About Everything

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

In case you hadn’t heard (and, really, why would you care at this point), the Grammys were recently held and a lot of anti-ICE sentiments, including from pop star Billie Eilish who said “No one is illegal on stolen land.” I’m pretty sure she would feel differently if there were squatters on her property claiming ownership.

And if you don’t think that would actually happen, look up squatters rights in New York City. Just don’t try their salsa.

Now, someone is holding Ms. Eilish to her word because…her house is on stolen land! Oops.

Anyway, Ms. Eilish’s current squatterhood isn’t the subject of this week’s Lexicon, as humorous as it is. Instead, I’m going to focus on a related subject the Left seems to have problems understanding, property rights. (Granted, I could put in just about anything after the comma and it would still be correct, but work with me here.) I will warn you this stuff is gonna be dryer than Ben Shapiro listening to Cardi B, but I will try to make it entertaining.

property rights

What the Left thinks it means – an outdated concept that reinforces power structures, including racism and sexism

What it really means – a bedrock Constitutional right around which many others revolve

Say what you will about the Founding Fathers (and believe me Leftists have), but two of the things they were passionate about were protecting one’s person and property. In fact, Thomas “You Need It When?” Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration of Independence referenced “life, liberty, and property” which was kinda awkward when you consider he owned slaves at the time. Fortunately, cooler wigs prevailed and he changed it to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” which he most certainly did with Sally Hemmings, if you know what I mean.

Anyway, the point is the Founding Fathers understood the importance of property rights as an extension of human rights. The Bill of Rights itself posed a number of restrictions on government fucking around with our property. Here are a few:

Second Amendment – government can’t take our guns (not that it stopped them before…)

Third Amendment – government can’t use our property to house soldiers without our permission

Fourth Amendment – we have the right for our person and property to be safe from government conducting unreasonable searches and seizures (not that it stopped them before…)

Fifth Amendment – government can’t take our shit without paying us for it (not that it stopped…hey, is there an echo?)

Eight Amendment – government can’t jack up fines, depriving us of money

You could even make an argument for the First Amendment being a limit on intellectual property, but even if you don’t, that’s half of the Bill of Rights dealing at least in part with personal property. Later Amendments also dipped their toes into the property rights waters with a little less fervor and frequency than the Founding Fathers.

Wow. I haven’t seen that many Fs since my last report card.

Anyway, the concept of property rights is woven into our country’s DNA, so it’s not something that we should take lightly. Which means, of course, the Left wants to change that. Yes, I know it’s shocking to think people who believe socialism can work see property ownership and the rights that come with it are a bad thing.

It stems from an economic concept I’ve discussed previously, so of course I’m going to repeat it, called a zero-sum game. Basically, it’s the idea that when someone else wins, you lose. It’s always explained in terms of a pie (mmmmm…piiiiiie), so if someone takes a bigger piece, it deprives others of a piece or an equivalent size of a piece, which the Left tells us is bad.

Here’s where shit gets really weird, kids. Imagine if you will an infinite pie, one where it’s impossible to run out because it’s so massive. Not only will you be able to get your initial slice, but you can go back and get more without negatively affecting others. Or, to put it another way, the economy keeps making pies at a rate that surpasses the desire for it, so there is never a loss for pie.

You know, I’m starting to get hungry for some reason…

Meanwhile, back at the non-pie related subject, the Left views property rights the same way, although with fewer bakery references. If someone owns land or a house, they think it somehow deprives someone else of owning said land or house. Of course, the problems with this line of thought are a) it doesn’t prevent the second person from owning land/housing somewhere else, b) it presumes the first person did something to harm the second person, and c) it’s fucking stupid.

Then again, so are the Leftists getting their collectivist panties in a bunch over a person with land and a house.

You know, like…oh, I don’t know…Billie Eilish?

But apparently that’s okay because she’s saying the right thing about stolen land and illegal immigration. That’s the best thing about being a Leftist: as long as you have the “right” position, all of your sins get forgiven. The caveat is you have to keep the “right” position at all times or else you get excommunicated. Just ask Nikki Minaj.

But while you wait for her to get some time in her schedule, keep in mind the Left have a low opinion of property owners in general, whether it be a landlord or a business owner, mainly because they don’t understand how property ownership is a thing. (I refer you back to the number of Leftists who think socialism can work as evidence.) They especially dislike anyone who owns property and attempts to make money from it, citing it’s greed.

To which I say, “No fucking duh!”

Like it or not, people find ways to make money. Some people try counterfeiting, but most use their tools or talents to satisfy a need. That includes providing housing to people who want to rent a place to live, or who…now get this…need a place to house their goods and services. That in and of itself isn’t evil or even morally gray. It just is.

Which makes it all the more humorous to me when the Left tries to guilt/shame people into feeling bad about making money. There is no shame in using what you have to make a buck. Well, except if you’re a social media influencer, that is. The point is the Left wants you to feel bad because of something you have that they don’t. That’s why they lean into the rhetoric they do. Whether it’s “property ownership is racist” or “companies can go through insurance to pay for damage done” to “no one should be a billionaire” the song remains the same, and it’s no better with autotune.

Expecting a Leftist to be consistent with property rights is like expecting Hunter Biden not to do drugs; it’s theoretically possible, but highly unlikely. That’s why I’ve come up with a handy-dandy little tool to defend yourself against Leftist emotional manipulation.

Okay, I didn’t invent it, but merely adopted it from my schoolyard days. It’s called, “So What?” Whenever a Leftist tries to make you feel guilty about your property rights, ask them “So what?” You can also use the, “And?” approach if you’d prefer. What that will do is confuse them to the point you can make your escape if you so choose. Of course, if you do that, you’ll miss out on their heads exploding, but it saves on dry cleaning bills.

The secret of its effectiveness is in the fact it challenges the Leftist mindset that you must feel bad about property rights. Not only do they not expect it because they’re usually around like-minded individuals who don’t question the bullshit they’re saying, but it forces them to confront the reality that it may not be as morally egregious as they think. They’ll never admit that, though, and will try to double down.

Then, hit ’em with it again.

Blather. Rinse. Repeat.

At some point, the Leftist will either have an emotional meltdown that would make most toddlers look stoic or give up and move on with their days of…wait, what is it Leftists actually do? Oh, yeah, bilk taxpayer money through NGOs or get generous donations from Uncle George Soros to sit on their activist asses and pretend to be doing something meaningful.

You know, like making money off property ownership?

While we wait for Ms. Eilish to give up her stolen land (safety tip: don’t hold your breath waiting), understand the Left will not give up the fight against property rights for you, and in favor of property rights for them. The best way to fight back is to not even acknowledge their version of reality and insert your own, which I guarantee is a lot closer to actual reality.

What else do you expect from people taking their ideological cues from a pop star?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

This is a topic I’ve wanted to cover for a while, but with the shitstorm of everything going on in the world, I had to put this one on the back burner.

There’s a new epidemic loose in the world, one that is worse than COVID, SARS, and Dylan Mulvaney getting a Broadway gig combined. It’s…whiteness. And it’s not some weird Bluesky bullshit either; it’s coming from the University of Minnesota. (Great. As if having Governor TIMMAH! wasn’t enough of an embarrassment.)

Little did I know my skin color was such as contagion! But if I had to learn about it as part of my research for this week’s Lexicon, you have to! (Don’t blame me. I don’t make the rules.)

whiteness epidemic

What the Left thinks it means – the widespread proliferation of white culture and its negative implications

What it really means – another attempt to make white people feel guilty for something out of their control

Much like Hunter Biden at a crack dealer’s convention, there are some things in life you cannot control, and skin color is one of them. Of course, that doesn’t stop Leftists from trying to make whites feel guilty about it. This is because white Leftists already feel guilty about it and they love to share their misery and expect everyone else to carry the cross they’ve put on our collective backs.

The thing is they’re not completely wrong. Whites have been utter pricks throughout world history. For every Issac Newton or Jonas Salk, there’s been an Adolph Hitler or agent who told Johnny Knoxville he could act. And to be fair there’s been more of the latter than there is of the former.

Now, having said that, unless we are the pricks in the aforementioned paragraph, we don’t have to share in the guilt by default. Last I checked, we haven’t invented a time machine that allows us to go back and prevent bad things from happening…or maybe somebody did and it fucked up the space-time continuum…

That would explain everything post-2020.

Or have I said too much?

Never mind.

The point is we aren’t responsible for the bad shit our ancestors did anymore than they’re responsible for the bad shit we do. Great Grandpa Zeke didn’t invent dub step, after all. That’s on us, and more specifically, the person who invented dub step.

The Left doesn’t see it that way. (White guilt, not necessarily the dub step thing.) To them, anything our ancestors did has to be atoned for right now, regardless of our family history. For example, I have two ancestors who fought for the Union in the Civil War, so that should exclude me from having to feel white guilt, right?

Nope!

Because as the University of Minnesota puts it:

Race matters in the United States because racism still exists and young children perceive much more than we usually realize. When parents and other adults are silent around race, it communicates apathy or approval of racism even if this is the opposite of what adults intend. On the other hand, parents can push back against racism through their words and actions, sending a powerful message to their children.

So, it’s not enough not to be racist anymore. You have to be anti-racist, as the Left puts it. But even that’s not enough unless you do everything the Left tells you to do, and even then that can be undone with an insensitive comment (that only the Left can determine because they’re aware of all the racism out there).

I know I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating. If Leftists are the ones hearing all the racist “dog whistles” that the rest of us can’t, wouldn’t that make them the racists?

I saw something similar to this during my college years at the University of Bedrock (Go Brontosauruses!) with Political Correctness. The Left attempted to change the culture through changing the words people used. On the surface, it was okay because it was sold as being done to raise awareness and be more respectful to others.

Then, everything went banana-shaped.

Once people bought into the idea of Political Correctness, the Left started holding us accountable for the rules they made up, which gave them a lot of unearned power. Then, the rules would change and those who weren’t using the “right” terminology anymore were shunned like a hooker in Amish country.

So much for inclusion and respect for others, amirite?

Although Political Correctness has gone the way of Crystal Pepsi (and thank God for both being out of my life), there are still remnants of it today. Remember how the Left insisted Latinos and Latinas be called Latinx to be more inclusive? Same principle, and same outcome in that it was resoundingly rejected by anyone with a lick of sense.

Eventually, the whiteness epidemic is going to wind up the same way, but it’s going to take some time. And in the meantime, there are some things to consider for our Leftist friends out there.

1. The whiteness epidemic is designed to address racism, yet by definition racism involves either the denigration or elevation of one race over another. So, how does it address racism when it’s racist by its very nature?

2. This is going to be a “whataboutism” but fuck it. Take everything you attribute to the whiteness epidemic and insert any other race or creed. Now, imagine you saying that to a member of that race or creed. More than likely, you’re going to get looked at funny at the very least. You know why? Because it’s fucking bigoted.

3. If whiteness is an epidemic, what is the cure? On the website, you say you want “to better understand the culture of Whiteness and support parents to challenge it, which motivated the Whiteness Pandemic Project, a research study in Minnesota.” If the cure is anti-racism, how will we know we’ve achieved the end of the epidemic?

4. Along those same lines, the way most epidemics are dealt with is through quarantine. How will you separate the parts of white culture you find objectionable from the other parts of white culture that help society? Is it going to be an all-or-nothing approach? And how will you separate white culture from human culture as a whole?

5. And while we’re here, what exactly is “white culture”? It wasn’t that long ago that the Left was calling George Zimmerman a “white Hispanic.” So, would that include him, even though his life choices would repulse a number of whites, including Leftists? What about people of different races who don’t think whiteness is an epidemic or who think white culture is okay? What role do they play in the “whiteness epidemic” and how will you deal with them?

6. Just how far up your ass does your head need to be to think like you do?

Okay, that last one is just for me.

The point is this idea hasn’t been fully fleshed out enough for it to accomplish anything. That may be by design in order to keep money flowing, but from a practical standpoint it’s a not-even-half-baked solution looking for a problem that may not even be a problem for most people. If you want someone like me on board, I’m going to need some more data.

You know. Follow the science?

Or pseudo-science as the case may be.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Although the Lexicon primarily features issues originating in the US of A (as opposed to Canada, which is the US of Eh), sometimes the subject matter crosses international boundaries. In this case, the origin of this week’s Lexicon starts in Jolly Old England (as opposed to Canada, which is Jolly Old Eh-gland.)

It starts with an online game called Pathways (think a cheerier version of “Depression Quest”) where the user navigates through a series of events in an attempt to dissuade him or her from falling for online extremist propaganda. Welllll…let’s just say it backfired. Instead of educating users (primarily teenagers) about the dangers of propaganda, it is propaganda in and of itself by painting anyone to the right of Josef Stalin as an extremist.

I could talk all day about propaganda (as my lovely wife will tell you), but the focus of this week’s Lexicon is on the concept of online extremism. I’ll be the first one to tell you the Interwebs is a hotbed of people nuttier than elephant shit, but does that make them extremists?

Depends on who you ask.

online extremism

What the Left thinks it means – Internet propaganda designed to persuade gullible people to adopt right wing beliefs and ideas

What it really means – Internet propaganda designed to persuade gullible people to adopt any wing’s beliefs and ideas

So, where do I begin? Well, let me just start by saying online extremism is not just a right wing issue. There is and always has been a section of online culture dominated by left wing thinking, but they’ve been mostly relegated to backwater channels with an echo chamber bigger than the Grand Canyon. Or, as it’s called today, Bluesky.

That in and of itself isn’t that big a deal to me. I’m a big fan of letting people say what’s on their minds, even if I disagree with it. For one, it fosters more and better communication than banning it out of turn. For another, it’s always a good way to see where the assholes are so you can avoid them. Unless you want to point and laugh, which is easier when they make themselves known. So, there are plenty of good reasons not to silence people.

Having said all that, there are people out there who have completely lost the fucking plot and say/advocate for the weirdest shit out there. And that’s just the diaper fur community. (Safety Tip from your buddy Tom: If you don’t know, don’t look for it. Only furry evil in diapers greets you there.) Up until recently, people have been able to ignore the fringe players because they’ve been woefully unequipped to do anything about it. I knew a Pat Buchanan supporter who talked a big game, but was so short he made Nick Fuentes look like Andre the Giant. Needless to say, he wasn’t considered much of a threat.

Nowadays, it’s that kind of freak that has the power of an echo chamber telling him/her what they’re doing is completely cool and not at all too extreme. And it’s shit like this that got Renee Good shot and killed. Somewhere in her mind, she thought “running over an ICE agent is totes normal, dude” and used that thought to spur action.

Now, who could have put that idea in her head? I mean, it’s not like the Left has painted ICE in a negative light by calling them Nazis or comparing them to secret police or the Gestapo, right?

Except for Governor TIMMAH!

And Governor Gavin Newsom.

And Governor JB Pritzker.

And Senator Jeff Merkley.

And Senator Mark Warner.

And Representative Eric Swalwell.

And Representative Rashida Tlaib.

Wow. Come to think of it, there are a lot of Democrats and Leftists pulling the “ICE is the secret police/Gestapo/fascist/Nazi” card.

So, maybe the Left has a hand in the escalation of rhetoric against ICE, which is inspiring Leftist extremists to act. But remember, kids, it’s the MAGA crowd that are the violent ones because January 6th.

All that IMAX-level projection aside, online extremism is a legitimate problem, one being stoked by people we shouldn’t want to hang out with at all, man. And they all have the same problem: a messiah complex that rivals Oprah’s. With that messiah complex comes a lot of gatekeeping so only the true believers can stick around.

Naturally, that means more sensible people saying “Yanno, you might not want to drive a truck into a bunch of protesters/ICE agents” will be excommunicated and turned into the enemy, even if their opinions align with everything else the self-professed leader believes. The odd thing about these leaders of cults of personality is they often don’t have one of their own, so they borrow from someone else. Even self-styled “free thinkers” may fall victim to the kind of extremism that meets them where their biases are.

Not that this happens to too many people, right? (I’m looking at you, Bill Maher.)

Those assholes can be dangerous, what what of the followers themselves? That’s a bit of a mixed bag. The more gung ho a follower is, the more extreme he or she (still 2 genders) is likely to be. As you get further and further away from the epicenter of extremism, the less likely it is you’re dealing with an extremist. Sure, there are some who will drink the Flavor-Ade because everybody else is doing it (gotta love that peer pressure), but you’re going to find some who see the folly of it all and aren’t as willing to go along to get along.

The problem is neither side wants to separate the reasonable from the batshit insane. That would take too much effort, after all, and we don’t want people to think we’re not down for the cause because we happen to think not engaging in stupid shit is the correct path forward.

This is the time when we have to determine whether the loudest voices are the leaders or just so loud they drown out the actual leaders. I’ve seen this with the gay rights movement, the trans rights movement, the pro choice and pro life movements, the Religious Right, and so many others. And when you’re faced with the loudest voices, it gets really easy to slide into groupthink and become one of the masses, minus the “m.”

But that’s where being able to determine the difference comes in handy. If someone is loud, it doesn’t make him or her right; it just makes them harder to ignore. But is also makes them easier to mock for being loud and annoying, so there’s that.

How this applies to extremism is we have to separate the ring leaders from the ring followers because they are not always the same people. A militant trans rights activist may talk a big game, but wuss out at the first signs of it being go time. These are the ones who probably won’t decide to shoot up a Christian school, but they still have the ability to give those who do have a propensity towards violence to think the only way to fix things is to pull a “Death Wish.” They’re extremists of a sort, but more extremist-adjacent.

Think Charlie Manson versus the Manson Family members who murdered Sharon Tate, among others. The members committed the crimes, but they wouldn’t have happened without ole Charlie.

“But, Thomas,” you might be saying, “are you literally comparing trans activists to Charles Manson?” No. What I’m saying is there are some people who can inspire others to take action they might not otherwise take by instilling them with destructive thoughts. And we’re not just talking about Leftists here, folks. There are plenty of hair-triggers on the Right who would love nothing more than to start shit so they can pretend to be badasses, all from the safety of their double-wides, while others are doing the actual shit.

And all from the behind protection of a computer or phone screen.

There is a term from the Interwebs that describe these people perfectly: keyboard warriors. Now, there are some willing to put the emphasis on the latter rather than the former, which makes for a really awkward time all the way around when the fit hits the shan. (Hat tip to Larry Elder for that one.)

What Pathways gets wrong is it tries to water down the definition of extremism to an absurd degree. Even someone saying “we should be proud of being British” gets looped in with anyone who wants to put every immigrant into a chipper shredder, when that’s simply not the case. There may be some overlap between the two, but not enough to lump the former in with the latter.

Unless, of course, you’re being intellectually dishonest, which Pathways is being. The “right” course of action according to the game isn’t always the most logical. In one part of the game, you are given a choice to ignore what they deem inflammatory rhetoric, look for more information, or go from 0 to extremist by joining in the inflammatory fun. In the game, the only viable option is to ignore the rhetoric. Anything else gets you branded an extremist.

Put another way, the game punishes you for trying to be well-informed.

Which makes you more susceptible to extremist positions.

Which defeats the purpose of the game.

Unless, of course, the purpose of the game is to enable certain extremist positions…

Saaaaaaaaay! I think I’ve stumbled upon the real reason this game exists! And considering it’s targeting teenagers (who cling to popularity and clout like Hunter Biden hangs onto his crack dealer’s number), the goal is to get them to accept a set of ideas so they’ll be popular, cool, and have social clout, all without having to do anything but listen and believe.

Hmmmm…that’s a catchy little saying. I hope nobody unscrupulous ever latches onto it.

Meanwhile, what we can do to avoid being sucked in by online extremism, or extremism in general, is apply a little common sense. If you wouldn’t allow someone else to do it to you, don’t do it to other people. And if someone you know is rushing headlong towards extremism, try to pull them back. If they don’t want to come back from the edge, let them go. It may hurt, but it hurts a lot less than being buggered night after night in federal pound you in the ass prison.

Not that I know anything about that, mind you…

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

With the recent shooting of Renee Good in Minnesota, a lot of attention has gathered around a single issue. Is it illegal immigration? Nope. Is it federal tax dollars being stolen by foreign scammers? Not at all. Is it, dare I speak it, the proliferation of buttons at the Golden Globes? Yes, but also no.

The focus from both sides of the political shitshow is on domestic terrorism. The Left is pointing at ICE and saying, “See? We told you they were domestic terrorists!” The Right is pointing at anti-ICE protesters and saying, “See? We told you they were domestic terrorists!” And meanwhile back at the Hall of Justice, we have people like me scratching our heads. Mostly because of dandruff in my case, but also because I’m having a hard time understanding how both sides can come to the same conclusion from two different points of view, and yet be completely wrong about it.

Consider this my therapy session. You’re welcome?

domestic terrorism

What the Left thinks it means – right-leaning individuals in the government who are attacking average people without cause

What the Right thinks it means – left-leaning individuals against the government who are attacking ICE to try to prevent them from doing their jobs

What it really means – a term that’s waaaaaaay overused these days

American politics has never been a weak person’s game, although you wouldn’t know it by looking at current Congresscritters like Eric Swalwell or previous Congresscritters like Adam Kinzinger. I mean, we’ve had people duel over political differences, as Alexander Hamilton’s family can attest.

Having said that, today’s version of American politics is a different breed of cat altogether. To say people are on edge is like saying water is wet, fire is hot, and Al Gore is boring. People are willing to die (or in some cases let others die) for an ideological movement so they have a rallying cry. And, without even a hint of irony, they call anyone opposed to them domestic terrorists because, well, that’s how the game is played anymore.

Being a word guy, I take a different approach to word usage than most people. The impact of some words can throw a flaming tanker truck onto the world’s biggest pile of hay drier than the drinks at a Mormon strip club. And let me tell you calling someone a domestic terrorist kinda fits that bill.

Granted, each side has their own idea of what constitutes a domestic terrorist. The Left thinks it’s anyone whiter than Edgar Winter at an outdoor picnic at Ice Station Zero and more to the right than Pat Buchanan. The Right thinks it’s anyone whose hair colors don’t match anything remotely close to natural and have opinions so far to the Left they would make Karl Marx look like Ronald Reagan. Whether you’re MAGA or Antifa, you’re a dangerous extremist to someone.

And therein lies the problem.

With a political landscape so toxic, it gets frightfully easy to demonize your opponents, which ramps up the heated rhetoric. It’s not enough that your opponent disagrees with you; they are your blood enemies. And it even works within the ideological sides, as any Leftist kicked off Bluesky and any Rightist who isn’t 129,000,000% MAGA will tell you, as can your humble correspondent. I’ve been kicked out of so many ideological groups I have boot marks on my ass. Or was that from the time I spent in a sex dungeon in Amsterdam?

Never mind.

The point is when everybody can be seen as a domestic terrorist by one person or another, it dilutes the meaning of the term and makes it harder for us to recognize actual domestic terrorists. Yes, the Left and the Right have their extremists nuttier than squirrel shit, but for the most part they wouldn’t fall into the category of terrorism until they commit acts of actual terrorism.

Which brings us to the “what does that mean” section of the Lexicon entry. And, yes, I realize you ask that question all the time while reading my rants, but this is different. The good folks at Dictionary.com define terrorism thus:

1. the unlawful use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government, with the goal of furthering political, social, or ideological objectives.

2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism.

3. a terrorist method of governing or of resisting a government.

4. intimidation or coercion by instilling fear

So…that’s neat.

What this means in the context of our current political shitshow is there are a lot of people on both sides (albeit on the extremes) that subscribe to the notion their terrorism is freedom and other people’s terrorism is terrorism. But if you’re using the same tactics, it doesn’t matter if you’re red or blue; you’re a fucking terrorist.

This is why it’s important we don’t lump all of the Left and all of the Right under the same domestic terrorism umbrella. Not everyone is going to pick up arms and start shooting up a Congresscritter’s house. That’s reserved for people hired by Governor TIMMAH Walz.

Seriously, though, we’ve seen how absurd this approach is just by looking at some of the people caught up in the January 6th situation. Yes, there were some assholes in the crowd (I’m looking at you, Nick Fuentes), but not all the assholes got caught, and some of the people who were caught weren’t of the terrorist variety. Of course, that didn’t stop the Left from painting them all as domestic terrorists. Because as we all know grandmas are the real domestic terrorists, amirite?

Actually, I’m not right, in the head or otherwise.

The reason both sides throw the domestic terrorism label around like a football at a barbecue at Tom Brady’s place is because it allows the “otherization” of their perceived opponents. And, yes, Leftists, I see you doing this all the time with your “MAGAt” talk. Not that the “Libtard” calls coming from the Right are any better. Even so, there is a large difference between “MAGAt” and “Libtard” and actual domestic terrorism, but neither side wants to make that distinction because, well, it’s easy, fun, and doesn’t hurt anybody.

At least, not until the guns start firing.

And where we are right now, it’s only a matter of time. All it takes is one asshole to take it upon himself or herself (still two genders, by the way) to take matters into his/her own hands and strike a blow for his/her side. Then, we all become domestic terrorists unless we decide to take a different path.

The first step? Not calling the other side domestic terrorists unless they are domestic terrorists.

The second step is a little harder to accomplish, but it’s no less important. Call out the motherfuckers who are causing all the chaos and tell them to shut the fuck up. I don’t care if you’re Democrat or Republican, socialist or capitalist, a New England Patriots fan or wrong, we have to be brave enough to take on the more vocal provocateurs on our own side. For all of their bluster, there are more of us than there are of them, and judging solely by the idea the loudest voices are often the most chicken shit, they will run for their little hidey-holes the second someone tells them to take a seat.

Then, we get to step 3: realizing both sides of the political divide are people, not ideologies. Granted, some of those barely qualify as sentient let alone human, but we still need to try and find some common ground. I will speak for myself, mainly because I’m the only one who knows me best, but I try to remove the politics from the person and look for something we agree on and go from there.

I love Samuel L. Jackson for no other reason than he has perfected the use of the word “motherfucker.” He and I don’t see eye to eye on politics, but we can groove together on movies. Once you find that common denominator, ideology takes a back seat to fandom. And last time I checked, there has never been a world war started because of a fandom.

Now, online, on the other hand…well, let’s just leave it alone.

But you see the point, I hope. Neither side is comprised of only domestic terrorists, nor should we assume they are. I quote the great philosopher Dave Mason:

So let’s leave it alone
‘Cause we can’t see eye to eye.
There ain’t no good guy.
There ain’t no bad guy.
There’s only you and me, and we just disagree.

And if we can’t trust someone who gave us “Ooh, oh-oh-oh,” who can we trust?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Ah, Minnesota, our neighbor to the north. (Please check local listings for the location of Minnesota in your area.) What was once the home of occasional professional sports titles (sorry, Vikings fans) is a hotbed of controversy due to a YouTuber named Nick “Don’t Call Me” Shirley. His 43 minute video exposing potential fraud with Somali-run daycares and medical facilities has put the Land of 10,000 Lakes under the microscope.

Which, of course has Leftists fuming. To be fair, though, when aren’t they fuming?

As we start seeing more fallout from this brewing scandal, I thought it would be a good time to take a look at Minnesota through my own perspective. That and the possibility of those sweet, sweet clicks.

Minnesota

What the Left thinks it means – a state unfairly targeted by the Trump Administraiton

What it really means – a state run by incompetents, fraudsters, or both

Minnesota was first inhabited by Native Americans, but eventually had Europeans show up, and they didn’t even bring a hot dish to pass! Those bastards! Eventually, it became a state in 1858 and became the home of many a Lutheran. Most of the time, Minnesota has been seen as quiet, unassuming, and above all else…normal.

That was until recently when Leftists took the state from the home of Spam and Garrison Keillor to a frosty heckscape. It’s like a hellscape, but more in line with Minnesotan phrasing. Granted, recent history has shown the state moving more to the left than a base runner leaning towards first base trying to avoid being tagged out, so the slide towards the heckscape has been slow, yet impactful.

This brings us to the current Governor, Tim “TIMMAH” Walz. You know, the guy Queen Kamala the Appointed thought would make a good Vice President for the same reason Hunter Biden would be a great accountability buddy: because you’re fucking insane. Governor TIMMAH is good at one thing, and that’s throwing shade.

Since Shirley’s video dropped, Governor TIMMAH has responded by… blaming Donald Trump, accusing white guys of fraud, and generally looking like a buffoon. You know, what Governor TIMMAH does every day.

But it’s not like he’s doing this alone, mind you. The Left is doing a lot of heavy lifting to try to protect the image of Governor TIMMAH as anything but a cartoonish crook with CNN playing the role of Atlas. They’ve tried going after Shirley and wound up looking like Governor TIMMAH as a result.

Not to be outdone, CBS (emphasis on the BS) did its own “investigation” and found nothing out of the ordinary. Because as we all know, potential billions of dollars in fraud is just ho-hum. (Note to Bari Weiss: this ain’t the journalism you’re looking for. And I hope you’ll forgive me for the Obi Wan Kenobi hand wave.)

Other outlets like NPR, MS NOW, The Intercept, and even the Minneapolis Star Tribune have helped with the heavy lifting in their own ways. Namely, by attempting to discredit Shirley’s video by discrediting the man himself. Because, as we all know, the real crime here isn’t the alleged fraud, but noticing the alleged fraud.

For you Leftists out there, that was sarcasm.

Now, if this were the only scandal plaguing the Land of Ten Thousand Fakes, we might be able to let Governor TIMMAH off with a warning. After all, he’s not the sharpest bowling ball on the Christmas tree, so he might just be dumber than two bags of hammers. Granted, he is, but that’s not important right now. What is important is this isn’t the first scandal that’s come under Governor TIMMAH’s tenure.

See, there’s a little thing the kids like to call Feeding Our Future, a non-profit organization in Minnesota designed to help feed children in need. What it became was a massive fraud case where millions of dollars were taken in, but few, if any, children got fed. But don’t worry! Governor TIMMAH is on the case! He announced a new fraud prevention program designed to address the Feeding Our Future scandal. And only 3 years after the federal government caught wind of the fraud! Way to go TIMMAH!

But, wait! There’s more! Behind the Shirley video there is another layer of corruption, that being possible fraud through the state’s Child Care Assistance Program. The state gave out money to daycare centers where there was no evidence of children actually on site with hours of operation well outside the norm. Apparently, this situation has been a thing since at least 2018 with a number of whistleblowers coming forward to advise of the potential fraud.

And Governor TIMMAH took that information…and promptly ignored it.

Along with potential Medicaid fraud.

And possible money laundering.

Oh, and maybe funneling money to Al-Shabaab, a known terrorist group operating out of…Somalia.

Hmmm…it seems there are a lot of ties to Somalia in these scandals, including to a member of the Squad, Rep. Ilhan Omar. Although there haven’t been solid links between Omar and the fraud, President Donald Trump wasted no time in making the connection. Granted, this is Trump’s standard operating procedure, so I’m not going to start demanding she address her ties or lack thereof to the Somalian scammers. Besides, she has enough on her plate dealing with allegations she married her brother to commit immigration fraud.

Or so I’ve heard.

Regardless, the Somalian connection is hard to ignore (not that the Left isn’t willing to try, mind you), and people on different sides of the political spectrum have offered thoughts as to why. Conservatives are split between whether it’s the Somali culture or the Muslim faith that drives the fraud. And the Left? Racism, sexism, and Islamophobia, of course.

Now, I can’t speak to the Somali culture part of the argument. I’ve never been to Somalia, and if I did I’m not sure I would talk about it. However, I can speak to the Islamic side of the argument because the Quran is pretty clear about how it’s totes cool to grift non-believers through a concept called taqiyya. Although modern scholars have tried to muddy the waters a bit to suggest Islam doesn’t allow deception towards non-Muslims, even the scholars admit it’s allowed if Muslims are under duress in a foreign country.

You know, like when they’re caught scamming tax dollars from Americans?

Even if you don’t buy the Muslim angle, human nature tells us people will lie to hide their deception, especially if that deception makes them money. Considering the size of the fraud and those who enabled/were enriched by it, they might have a few billion reasons to lie.

So, how do we fix Minnesota? Good question, and one where I don’t have an easy answer. Sure, we could trade the state to Canada for a first round draft pick, but it will only cause US/Canadian relations to get more sour. Rooting out the fraud would be a positive first step, but we’d be fighting the Left (who has a vested interest in maintaining/hiding the fraud) at every turn. Mass deportations? Another non-starter, unfortunately, because the money is still gone and I’m not sure the fraudsters have the cash on hand to start making payments.

Given the extent of the fraud, it may be impossible to save Minnesota without a full-blown political shift. Not that it can’t happen, but I’m more likely to trust 3 day old convenience store sushi than I am Minnesota going red in the near future.

In the meantime, we have to stay on these frauds, and not just the people stealing money from us, either. Every Leftist who says any damn thing even remotely defending or diverting attention away from the fraud needs to be challenged, not on the emotions or the attempts to divert attention away from it, but purely on the facts. Leftists hate that. Deny their bullshit reality and insert your own, and watch them screech in horror.

Of course, I have another suggestion. Leftist millionaires and billionaires talk about how little they pay in taxes, right? Send them the bill for the fraud and demand payment, like, three years ago.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

I’ve often said the Left loves to control the narrative through control of the English language. So much of our modern vernacular comes from the Left’s lexicon (if you’ll pardon the expression, and even if you don’t, I’m using it anyway), such as “woke,” “political correctness,” and “Joe Biden is sharp as a tack.” And when there isn’t a word that describes what they want, they invent one.

I ran across one of these new words recently. As with most things these days, it started with a message on the Social Media Platform Formerly Known As Twitter by James Woods about sitting Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. As you might expect, Leftists didn’t take too kindly to his take on the Justice’s intellectual prowess or lack thereof, but it wasn’t until one poster used the term “misogynoir” that I paid attention because once you’ve heard one Leftist bitching about something, you’ve heard their laundry list of offenses, real or imagined. Even so, this was a new one to me, so I decided to jump down this rabbit hole for this week’s Lexicon entry.

misogynoir

What the Left thinks it means – the intersection of racism and sexism

What it really means – a new term for old bullshit

Misogynoir isn’t exactly a new term, but it has its roots in more modern history. The term was coined by black feminist Moya Bailey in 2008 to describe hatred aimed at black cisgender and trans women and is steeped in the wonderful world of intersectionality. For those of you playing along at home, intersectionality is the idea that all oppression is connected. Think of it like one long human centipede, but with weirder hair color.

This allows for people of all walks of life (except for straight white men) to claim multiple systems of oppression at the same time. Conversely, it also creates an environment where you’re playing Pokemon: Oppression. Gotta catch ’em all! The more systems oppress you, the more of a victim you become and, thus, the higher your stature is within the Left.

Which is kinda sick when you think about it, and I do because my bank account is lower than the insole of a millipede with fallen arches.

Regardless, there is one thing about victimhood that often gets overlooked in the race to see who can be the most victimized: victimhood doesn’t define you unless you let it. The Left doesn’t see it that way; they only see the victim as a helpless soul that only they can “save” by…let me check my notes here…oh, yeah, enabling them.

Yes, the same people who say trans women can get pregnant are the ones saying it’s okay for you to be a victim, to feel all the fee-fees connected to it, and, above all else, vote for Leftists so you can continue to be a victim and get paid for it by the government. After all, it’s not your fault you were born the way you are! This was put upon you by The Man, and as long as you survive, you are the living embodiment of the double bird directed towards The Man.

Say what you will about the Left, and believe me I do, but they have the ability to get people to feel oppressed at everyday shit down to a science. I guess that makes them the Party of Science…

I’ll see myself out.

Anyway, I’m gobsmacked by how many otherwise semi-normal people are willing to take up the burden of others and make it their own, even if/when the most oppression they’ve actually faced was having a Starbucks barista charge for an extra shot of coffee in their steamed milk. And the ones who seem to feel the most guilt? Leftist white women.

It’s that reason that misogynoir is even a thing.

Leftists of color know they can get whites to capitulate to whatever bullshit they can imagine because they prey on guilt. And the more victimhood they can pile on, the guiltier white Leftists feel. Pretty good work (and I mean that in the professional wrestling sense) if you can get it.

But does it actually fix anything? Not really. Much like putting a Hello Kitty bandage on a gaping chest wound, it’s not helpful and actually counterproductive. Of course, if you put some Bactine on the wound…yeah, still not helpful.

When you start oppression stacking without attempting to get to the core of why you feel oppressed, you never make progress, which is ironic considering how many Leftists call themselves “progressives.” This is by design because once you do an honest assessment of your oppression it puts things into perspective. Those who experience real trauma spend years processing it in an attempt to overcome it. But those who perceive trauma never take those steps because it would expose how little actual trauma they’ve experienced, thus it ruins their victim status.

I don’t know what Ms. Bailey experienced, so I can’t and won’t paint her as someone in the latter category. There are still racist and sexist assholes out there, and it’s entirely possible, if no probable, the Venn Diagram of both groups come pretty close to a single circle. Having said that, the idea of misogynoir seems to be pretty rare in the real world, where women of color are held in high regard for their accomplishments. And those who aren’t find themselves in Congress.

What Mr. Woods posted doesn’t mention Justice Brown Jackson’s race or gender, just her intellectual prowess or lack thereof. In order to make the statement misogynoirist, one has to insert those subtexts and fixate on them rather than the substance of the statement.

And those who are happy to do so have a problem on their hands, namely the statements of another Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotomayor. The “Wise Latina” herself wrote an concurring opinion on a matter before the High Court that called out Justice Brown Jackson for addressing matters that were not involved in the case before them.

So…is Justice Sotomayor misogynoiristic? She is a woman of color, so that would negate both sides of the misogynoir equation. Not to mention, she’s right about Justice Brown Jackson.

As is James Woods.

The difference is when Woods makes the statement, he’s painted as misogynoiristic regardless of the merits of said statement. When Sotomayor makes the statement, the Left gets reaaaaaaaally quiet. But we’re not supposed to notice that, kids. We’re only supposed to believe Woods is the racist and sexist here, which is the whole point. The Left doesn’t want to admit Justice Brown Jackson has been a bit of a lightweight on legal issues in spite of her bona fides (as Leftists have and will tout as a defense of her inane decisions), which has caused more than a little friction with her ideological allies on the High Court, both with the substance and the style of her decisions.

But I’m sure they’re just racist and sexist, amirite?

While I’m sure there are legitimate examples of misogynoir out there, this ain’t it, kids. The Left throws out labels as a way to defend those they see as victims to divert attention away from any substantive debate. Calling out a Supreme Court Justice for bizarre legal arguments and those alone is fair game and should be done. Inserting intent, especially negative intent against the person making the comments, isn’t. But in the realm of Dungeons and Dragons…I mean Pokemon: Oppression, no quarter is given to protect the precious, even if it makes the Left look like hypocritical assholes.

Oh, and I’m waiting for the misogynoir crowd to condemn the racism hurled at Justice Clarence Thomas by their side. If they do, I’ll be in my cryogenic chamber.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

I know! I’m shocked at having a Lexicon entry two weeks in a row, too!

It’s no secret the Trump Administration has been actively working on illegal immigration, just like it’s no secret the Left is actively working to stop the Administration’s efforts because they need their votes…I mean they’re trying to help them live the American Dream.

Anyway, one of the stickiest elements of this involves birthright citizenship. The Trump Administration wants to end the practice and the Left wants to keep it so they can have gardeners and servants they can pay pennies to…I mean make great Americans out of them. Well, soon we may have our answer as the US Supreme Court agreed to take up the President’s case against birthright citizenship.

So, while the iron is still somewhat lukewarm, let’s dive into it!

birthright citizenship

What the Left thinks it means – a Constitutionally-protected method of citizenship

What it really means – an idea that has been warped into its current monstrous form

The idea of birthright citizenship has its origins in British common law and later codified in the 14th Amendment:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

There’s a lot more than this to the 14th Amendment, but this is the part that applies in this discussion. Previously, this has been interpreted to mean if someone is born in America, he or she (still two genders) is considered a citizen regardless of the status of his/her parents. This was further underscored with the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. And it worked for the most part, with further Supreme Court decisions expanding the breadth of those who

Then we started having people coming across our border like they were trying to get front row festival seating for Taylor Swift, only without the horror of Taylor Swift actually performing. Then, as soon as these illegal immigrants had children on American soil, these children became American citizens under the law and, thus, subject to receive all the benefits (figurative, literal, and monetary) of being a citizen. This, in turn, allowed the parents to gain access to said benefits.

So, yeah. A cluterfuck just waiting to happen.

And it happened. Quite a few times as it turns out.

While the concept itself has arguably noble roots, its current practice leaves a lot to be desired, much like a Queen Kamala the Appointed Presidential campaign. But we have to ask ourselves whether the solution the President proposed is going to fix the problem or cause more.

And to be honest, I’m not exactly sure.

Before the Supreme Court weighs in on the matter, we’re left with a lot of questions, mainly because the legal experts you can find on any news network can fuck up the interpretation of “water is wet.” The way the 14th Amendment is written, at least to your humble blogger and bestest buddy, leaves enough wiggle room for the current practice to continue.

Plus, there’s the way President Trump tried to address the birthright citizenship situation: through Executive Order. Granted, this certainly isn’t the first time a President has issued an Executive Order that has shakier footing than a bowl of Jello on the San Andreas Fault during an 8.6. Having said that, there is a matter of the Constitutional process to consider.

Because the 14th Amendment is a thing, the correct process to change it is to call a convention of the states and see if there’s enough agreement to amend the Constitution. Then, there’s a litany of other hoops to jump through, including getting Congress to vote on the proposed amendment (or amendment to the amendment in this case), which will make primates throwing shit at each other look like the Algonquin Round Table. But, that’s the process.

Issuing an Executive Order doesn’t circumvent the Constitution, nor should it. As much as I want to see our immigration policy overhauled, it has to be done within the confines of the law, and I don’t think an EO is the way to make that happen. The only possible reprieve I can see for the President is the fact he is the head of the Executive Branch, which is responsible for the enforcement of the law. And no matter how much the Left wants to sugarcoat it, immigration is a legal issue, which would put it under Trump’s job description. Well, that, and being the Troll In Chief.

Not that this is going to stop the Left from puffing out their chests and acting like badasses to protect immigrants. Like Eric “Fang Fang’s Bitch” Swalwell, who said, “Trump’s not touching a single Californian on my watch.” Of course, he’s saying this as a candidate for Governor of California, so it’s only natural for him to say it as a means to get votes. One tiny problem there, little buddy.

Trump has a bigger dick than you do.

And he has more of a legal basis to do what he’s doing than you want to do, too!

It’s amazing to me that a sitting Congresscritter doesn’t understand the difference between state executive power and national executive power, but then again this asshat serves with Jasmine Crockett, so maybe he’s the intellectual tofu of the Left and just takes on the stupidity around him. Even so, it would be funny to see Fang Fang’s Bitch try to act tough when the military is surrounding the state of California. Not that Trump would do that, mind you. He’d be too busy mocking him on Truth Social, but he might let Secretary of War Pete Hegseth take a crack at it.

Having said all that, we do need to take a hard look at all of our immigration policies, not just birthright citizenship. Whether the Left wants to admit it or not, they do want open borders for some people, but bureaucratic hoops for others. Or at least that’s what one of their financiers, our good buddy Uncle George Soros, may want. Of course, the Left denies it, but they thought President Brick Tamland was sharp for years, so I’m going to take their denials with a Mount Everest-sized grain of salt.

More to the point, however, is the Left’s desire for a two-tiered immigration system. The poor are allowed to get on the public dole and protected against deportation, while others who they see as better off have to endure roadblock after roadblock just to get a chance to come here and work for a living under the rule of law. And when you throw in the concept of birthright citizenship as a means for the former to get assistance, the frustrations for legal immigrants get easier to understand, yet harder to swallow.

That’s because the Left doesn’t see legal immigration as a means to their ends. Legal immigrants have to run through a phalanx of qualifications just to get a chance to come here, and even then they aren’t embraced by the Left as much as illegal immigrants are. We can speculate as to the why, but for me it comes down to one thing.

Legal immigrants are smart enough not to fall for the Left’s bullshit by and large.

When you have the power to give benefits away like a drug dealer at Hunter Biden’s house, you have a level of power over the lives of those accepting the benefits. Remember all the videos and TikToks of people upset at SNAP not being funded right away thanks to the government shutdown? That’s what I’m talking about there. And I’m going to go out on a limb here and say the illegal immigrants who vote (and, yes, they do vote, thanks to Leftist initiatives) will always vote for the people who promise to keep their benefits rolling in.

I know I’ve gone a little off the trail here, but it’s part of the larger point, that being America’s immigration policy needs an overhaul. You know, like tearing it all down, putting a moratorium on immigration as a whole until we get our shit straight, and rebuilding it so we can reverse the trend where the illegal immigrants get a pass and the legal immigrants get the shaft.

As far as how to reform birthright citizenship, that’s going to be messy, but I think I have a solution. We have to take a closer look at the circumstances behind the citizenship. If a pregnant woman (still 2 genders) comes to America and has birth while here, that shouldn’t automatically mean the child becomes a citizen by default. After all, the child doesn’t have the ability to give consent to stay here; they are still wards of their parents, for lack of a better term. Now, if the woman comes to America through legal channels (which can be verified through documentation and computers) or asylum (which can be verified through the American consulate), then I would be more inclined to allow the child to be a citizen because the parent/parents show their willingness to follow the law.

That just leaves the illegal immigrants. For them, the road gets tougher than it is now because they haven’t gone through any channels, legal or otherwise, to become citizens or seek asylum, then the child isn’t a citizen yet. See, I have this little thing I call “walking the walk,” and I’m not talking about border crossings here. If you really want a better life for your family, you have to put in the effort to make it happen. Why? Because it’s common fucking decency. If I decide to visit a foreign country, let alone settle there, the least I can do is learn the language unless I already know it. I will suck at it, I’m sure, but it shows I care enough not to burden others with my lack of knowledge.

And that’s really the point here. If you can’t or won’t do the basic shit, you’re going to be a drain somewhere down the line. If we don’t acknowledge that, immigration is going to continue to be a problem. States like California may feel the need to overlook the issue because they love spending money to coddle illegal immigrants in exchange for cheap labor, but the country can’t anymore.

If limiting birthright citizenship to those who put in the effort to become Americans is too extreme, so be it. I’ve been called worse names by better people. But we are reaching a point where we can’t sustain the current system that plays favorites and rewards criminality (often several times over) rather than a genuine desire to be productive members of a society.

And I’m not just talking about getting jobs. When you really want to assimilate into a culture, your attitude changes. Yes, you still have pride in your past, but you also take on a new sense of pride at your present and your future. Working hard to achieve a goal is a personal investment that you don’t want to squander by not giving something to add to the great potluck that is American culture. Whether you’re bringing couscous or tater tot casserole, we welcome it!

Oh, and make sure you bring plates and silverware for yourselves, okay?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

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.

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.

Thanks, But No Thanksgiving

One of the things that always got me in trouble in real life or online was noticing things. Patterns, dots that could be connected but weren’t, the mannerisms of different people of varying political ideologies, how my first serious online girlfriend was a 50 year old man named Frank with body hair that would make Bigfoot look like Vin Diesel.

I still wonder how Frank is doing…

Meanwhile back at the main point, I noticed something recently that I should have seen coming a couple of years ago. (Hey, I said I noticed things, not that I notice them in a timely fashion!) It seems Americans go right from Halloween to Christmas, skipping over Thanksgiving in the process. At first, it sneaked under my radar because I still recognize Thanksgiving as a holiday, but in recent years society has treated Thanksgiving like Pluto in that for a while it wasn’t recognized as legit. But Pluto was always real to me, dammit, and so is Thanksgiving.

This is where things get interesting if your into that kind of thing. I did some thinking about the why, mainly because there weren’t any good football games on yet. What I landed on was the nature of the three holidays in question: Halloween, Thanksgiving, and Christmas.

Halloween used to be about the fun of dressing up in costumes, some with uncomfortable masks, roaming the streets looking for houses to go trick-or-treating. Within the past decade or so, Halloween has really changed into a consumer-driven affair (with a side trip into Slutty Costume Land) where everyone has to have the best candy or costume to participate.

Similarly, Christmas had a different tone in the past than it does now. What was once a time to celebrate with family and friends with killer egg nog made with rum so strong it could double as paint thinner turned into a holiday where you hear “buy buy buy” more than N’Sync on an infinite loop. This is when stores, malls, gallerias, and other sources of yuletide commerce make most of their money. And if you’re not getting the hottest gifts for the people you love, you’re just a horrible human being.

Then, there’s Thanksgiving. Aside from being a professional and college football mecca, people just don’t pay as much attention to it as they used to, mainly because there’s no real commercialization that can be done. We’re already invested in buying turkey, ham, side dishes, and pies, so there’s no real kickback, as it were. Nothing that would make us want to go out and spend a lot of money.

And therein lies the problem.

It’s not that Thanksgiving is a bad holiday by any means. It’s just not as sexy, literally and figuratively. Thanksgiving is a time for self-reflection, appreciation for what we have, and a joy that can’t be bought with a gift receipt. The only real consumption going on involves food.

Which brings me to another discovery: we’re no longer a capitalist society. That may come as a shock to the capitalists out there, but we’ve moved into a consumerist society. Leftists will tell us this is an outgrowth of capitalism, but these are the same nozzleheads who consider Robert Reich and Paul Krugman respected economists, so I wouldn’t put much stock in their economic knowledge.

Capitalism has some rules to it, some of them right out of social Darwinism, others out of Ayn Rand’s objectivism. But one rule that is central is not to fuck with your potential customers in such a way they are unable or unwilling to buy your stuff. That’s the moral core of capitalism. After all, if your products or services cause people to die, not only is it going to reduce your customer base, but it’s going to cause bad PR and lead to the ruin of your business.

Where consumerism deviates from that is the companies will continue to nickel and dime you wherever they can, and people don’t consider that to be a deal-breaker. We’ve seen this (and by “we’ve” I mean “I’ve” because I really don’t have a life) in video games through microtransactions. Basically, microtransactions are way games convince people to buy their way to a chance at success or a cooler look, which totally looks good on a resume.

Although it’s easy to dismiss microtransactions as something only gamer nerds have to deal with, it’s gotten into the automotive market, where car companies are now selling subscriptions for automatic start capability. And that’s in addition to such things like OnStar and SiriusXM that are nice to have, but not absolutely necessary to drive a vehicle. And I say that as a guy who likes to listen to music and comedy while driving and being able to call someone if I get into an accident. More so the former than the latter, mind you.

And you know what? There are dipshits willing to pay for it! As much of a capitalist as I am, I draw the line at making people pay for stuff that should be standard issue or that will give people advantages others wouldn’t have. But there are people who only see the ends justifying the means and leave it at that. As long as they get ahead, fuck everyone else, right?

Yeah, about that. With this shift in morality (if you can call it that anymore), there’s been a corresponding shift in egotism, which makes the consumerism side of this matter even more troubling. When your self image is tied up in material goods or even the perception of material wealth, you’re willing to do anything to do better than anyone else so you get that dopamine hit.

Which explains the push for the best Halloween candy and costumes and the biggest, brightest Christmas tree and outdoor decorations, and the hottest gifts for under the tree. But you know one holiday that has nothing to do with any of those ego-driven pursuits?

Arbor Day. But also Thanksgiving.

When it comes to egotists, anything that doesn’t directly serve the “me” in a wide enough scale is not worth pursuing. And Thanksgiving tends to be more of an intimate affair, one where people think of others in some fashion or another either when feeding family, friends, or even the less fortunate. Aside from food selfies, there’s not a lot of traction to be gained on social media. In short, there’s nothing in it for them to think of someone else’s needs during this time of year.

And that’s what’s driving the “War on Thanksgiving.” Hey…that could be the name of a movement, maybe one that could generate millions of dollars.

Nah. Nobody would buy into it.

Anyway, the point I’m getting at (finally!) is we shouldn’t skip Thanksgiving to get an early jump on Christmas. I mean, stores are already prepping for Christmas while Halloween items are just hitting the shelves, so they’ve got that covered. Not to mention, they’re just putting out swimwear and putting all their winter coats on the clearance racks.

Outside of the stores, we can do a bit more about not letting consumerism take over our lives. Yes, I know we want to get out loved ones the best we can afford, but it doesn’t mean we have to overlook a major American holiday to get a head start on, well, consuming something other than turkey and dressing. There’s a reason Thanksgiving exists, people! For one, it’s to start political discussions so you can weed out your Christmas card lists. But more importantly, it’s to take a moment to appreciate humanity as a whole. Even if you don’t buy the Americanized story of Thanksgiving, just enjoy the food, fellowship, and football. We can all act like civil human beings for one day, right?

Well, considering I’m still banned from Boston Market for an incident my attorney has advised me not to explain, most of us can.

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31