To put it mildly, the US Supreme Court has been at the center of a lot of controversy over the past few decades. From the various rulings around Roe v Wade to however the fuck Ketanji Brown Jackson got a seat with the High Court while simultaneously being one-tenth of a halfwit, it’s a miracle there aren’t more protests.
After the recent rulings about birthright citizenship, though, there might be a few more coming down the pike. Immigration debates are already highly charged in the first place, and the Right hoped the 6-3 conservative majority would rule the practice would go the way of former President Brick Tamland’s sway over the Left.
Wellllll…it didn’t go that way. In Trump v Barbara, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 to strike President Trump’s Executive Order banning birthright citizenship. The Left were happy in spite of convincing themselves the court would uphold it. The Right were unhappy because they thought the 6-3 majority would guarantee it.
As for me…well, I have a headache thinking about the concept, so in lieu of aspirin, I decided to look into it further.
You’re welcome…I guess.
birthright citizenship
What the Left thinks it means – a way for newborns from foreign parents to become American citizens that should be maintained
What the Right thinks it means – a way for newborns from illegal immigrant parents to become American citizens that should be eliminated
What it really means – a simple idea complicated by politics
So, we’re all on the same page before moving into the sexy part of this controversy, we have to define what birthright citizenship actually is. Basically, it’s the idea if you’re born on American soil, that makes you an American. That’s going to piss off more than a few Leftists, but that’s not important right now. The crux of the idea comes from the 14th Amendment, which states in part as follows:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Seems pretty straightforward, right? And it was for a lot of years until someone got it in his/her (still 2 genders for those of you playing along at home) head that this would cover the children of illegal immigrants. And based on a plain reading of the 14th Amendment, I can’t find fault with that conclusion from a logical standpoint.
Until we add that little thing the kids today like to call context. The author of the section of the 14th Amendment quoted above was a man named John Bingham. His history prior to writing the 14th Amendment is interesting, so you might want to read about it using this link. For those who don’t, let me break it down.
Bingham saw racial injustice towards blacks and wanted to end it through targeted legislation. He failed at first, but eventually got it done.
Now, what does this have to do with the current state of birthright citizenship? Glad you asked because if not I would have had to come up with something witty to put here, and we know how well that works!
In his speech introducing the 14th Amendment, Bingham anticipated how future/current generations would try to adapt it to their needs, but focused primarily on how it would impact blacks, who had just experienced a painful history of being treated as less than human. Although this is a limited focus, it’s essential to understanding the context. Bingham didn’t want this to become a means for states to treat blacks as non-citizens under their laws, but a baseline for Congress to enact new laws to expand on the concepts within the Amendment. And they did.
And then they didn’t when it came to illegal immigration.
This is when President Trump took action, and when the Left lost their collectivist minds. One Supreme Court decision later, and here we are.
You may be asking “Thomas, what do you think of the decision?” You may also be asking “Thomas, why are you dressed like Ernest Borgnine in a tutu?” First off, don’t kink-shame me. Second of all, how did you get in my house?
But to answer the first question, as much as it will piss off the Right, the Supreme Court made the right decision, kinda. Here’s what I mean.
Section 5 of the 14th Amendment reads as follows:
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
As the big fan of the Constitution as I am, I can see the fundamental flaw with this section, namely being the Executive Branch is the enforcement arm of the government. Having said that, the 14th Amendment puts the onus on Congress to enforce it, so unfortunately any enforcement of the provisions falls on them.
Which means they’ll get around to it by the time we celebrate America’s 300th birthday.
The Executive Order President Trump made circumvented the process established with the 14th ratification. It asserted the power of the Executive Branch to do the job it’s been doing since 1787, but it also violated the Constitution, leading to the Supreme Court decision and the subsequent freakout.
The dissents on Trump v Barbara are worth reading if you have the time and a lot of coffee and truck stop speed because the history lesson and intent were laid out pretty thoroughly. You might want to read Justice Jackson’s dissent if only for the comedic concept that she calls out Justice Clarence Thomas by name to try to give him a dressing down. That’s like Dylan Mulvaney calling out Danny Trejo for not being as badass as he is.
So, what happens now? A lot of bitching and moaning without anything getting done. At the very least, Trump allies in Congress have a path forward to write legislation to address birthright citizenship. The problem is time is short, the problem continues to grow, and Leftists will call them racist. So, any Tuesday on Capitol Hill, pretty much.
To me, the concept of birthright citizenship has merit, but it also has a loophole that allows people to abuse it. Until that loophole gets fixed through the aforementioned legislative action, it’s going to continue to be a problem. It also raises a point about how far Constitutional provisions extend to illegal immigrants. Even as I write this, I see numerous touchpoints that intersect with birthright citizenship.
What’s the solution? I got nothing. We have allowed politicians to warp the Constitution so this matter can’t be undone without a lot of work, a united front willing to discuss it, and the courage to fix it once and for all so the loophole is closed tighter than a little black dress.
Well, I’m off to my cryogenic chamber to wait for the day this happens. Wake me when shit goes down.
Tag: 14th amendment
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Another week, another series of Ls for the Left, this time on the electoral side of things. The US Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana attempt to redistrict on the basis of race by a 6-3 margin. One of the key parts of this decision revolved around the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which in part prohibits racial discrimination in voting. What the case in question (Louisiana v. Callais for those of you playing along at home) did was bring to light the use of the Voting Rights Act to carve out racially-specific districts.
The Left, being the mature and thoughtful people they be, took to the airwaves to lay out a cogent and well-reasoned response.
Nah, I’m bullshitting you. They lost their ever-loving minds.
So, what’s all the hubbub, bub, over the ruling? I’m glad you asked, otherwise I would have had to pull something out of my ass to write about this week. You know, like I do every week.
Voting Rights Act
What the Left thinks it means – an important law that’s been gutted by the Trump Supreme Court
What it really means – a law that had noble beginnings, but got warped by the Left
To put it mildly, America has been pretty shitty towards blacks over the years. And by years, I mean centuries. Even during the more progressive 1960s, we still had to overcome societal biases and realize blacks were equal to whites and should be treated as such.
Enter Lyndon B. Johnson and the Voting Rights Act. With the President’s signature, many voting rules/laws that were around since the end of the Civil War, such as literacy tests and poll taxes, designed to prevent blacks from voting. And, unlike most laws getting passed today, it actually worked. Blacks started voting in droves, becoming an important voting bloc to this day.
Where this shitshow goes off the rails is in the application of the law, namely Section 2. You know how some states have gerrymandered districts that look like a meth head drew them on an Etch-A-Sketch? Thank the Left for that. In the 1990s, Democrats had the brilliant idea that only blacks should represent blacks in Congress. And by brilliant, I mean fucking stupid and racist. Then again, these are Democrats we’re talking about here, so being stupid and racist is kinda their brand. Just ask the SPLC.
Too soon?
Although the racial gerrymandering was permitted for decades, mainly because the Left made it so anything even resembling treating everyone equally racist (yeah, I don’t get it either), there was a tiny problem with it. Namely, the 14th Amendment.
I quote Section 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
There’s a lot to take in, but the Reader’s Digest condensed version is everyone is subject to equal protection under the law, and you’d better have a damn good reason to limit those protections. Although Leftists will disagree, being white isn’t a good enough reason. Neither is any attempt to get more minority representation in the halls of Congress at the expense of equality under the law.
“But what about the institutional racism of the past, you bigot?” Leftists will probably say. And my response is simple: you don’t seem to think very highly of minorities, do you? I mean, it’s not like prominent Democrats have recently tried to make themselves relatable to blacks by suggesting they’re not smart…oh, fuck, they have. To hear assholes like Chuck Schumer, Gavin Newsom, and too many others to count talk, blacks are incapable of doing anything in their own best interests, so white Leftists just have to do things in their best interests.
When it comes to Ilhan Omar and Jasmine Crockett, they might have a point.
Overall, however, blacks aren’t as helpless as the Left believes. I firmly believe America isn’t as racist as the Left wants us to think and Republicans (the most evilest raciest racists that ever racisted evilly) have shown they will vote for candidates who don’t look like them. Just look at the 2025 Virginia Gubernatorial race. Winsome Earle-Sears ran as a Republican and managed to get over 42% of the vote in a losing effort. One doesn’t do that well without at least some whites voting for you.
And who did Democrats vote for? A white woman who makes Edgar Winter look like George Hamilton.
And if you want to go back a little bit further, didn’t we have a black President a couple of times a few years ago? And it’s not like he didn’t get white votes.
So, why do Leftists insist America is too racist to elect blacks without their help? I mean, aside from the fact they’re racist dumbasses. It boils down to the same philosophy the SPLC used: they need there to be racism to justify their efforts. As long as rich white Leftists can convince people the country is one big melting pot of white supremacy, they can keep the votes and money rolling in.
That’s why they freaked out at the Supreme Court decision. They had to confront the fact their racist anti-racism attempts were actually racist racist attempts. And instead of saying, “Maybe we should rethink this whole racism thing,” they let their masks slip and showed they don’t think very much of blacks after all.
Aside from the gross misapplication of the Voting Rights Act, I still think it serves as an important reminder of why we had to pass it in the first place and to never let up in pursuit of racial equality. The USSC ruling doesn’t gut the Voting Rights Act so much as it removes a way for Leftists to skirt the issue while telling people they’re totally fighting for equal rights.
And if we can’t trust the words of people who think Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is a brilliant legal mind, who can you trust?
Leftist Lexicon Word 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
If you heard a loud squee recently, it came from the collective orgasm the Left had after the Colorado Supreme Court ruled former President Donald Trump could be removed from the 2024 ballot. The reason cited (and gobbled up by every Leftist like a crack whore looking for a fix) was the “insurrection clause” of the 14th Amendment due to what the court found was Trump supporting an insurrection on January 6, 2021.
Even though there’s a lot of debate over whether January 6th constituted an insurrection (short version: it wasn’t), there was no surprise the Left would try this tactic, and it would be a matter of time and/or court shopping to find a bunch of black robed dupes willing to do what Hillary Clinton couldn’t: visit Wisconsin more than once. Oh, and beat Donald Trump.
This gives us a chance to take a closer look at the “insurrection clause” to see what all the hubbub is.
“insurrection clause”
What the Left thinks it means – a provision in the 14th Amendment that disqualifies Donald Trump from running in 2024
What it really means – more proof the Left can’t read the Constitution very well
The 14th Amendment covers a lot of ground, but the part the Left has focused on is Section 3:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
And when you consider the Left believes Trump supported the January 6th “insurrection”, it’s not hard to come to the conclusion they did. Too bad that conclusion makes zero sense when the facts are examined.
I’ve discussed the “insurrection” previously, but the TL;DR (Too Long; Didn’t Reblog) version is January 6th wasn’t an insurrection because it doesn’t fit the legal definition of one. Furthermore, there’s an extreme leap of logic that has to be made to make the argument, namely the “insurrectionists” who were there to support Donald Trump would have needed to be in favor of overthrowing him for it to be an actual insurrection. After all, Trump was still President that day.
But leaps of logic alone aren’t enough to totally mock the Left’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Nah, we also need to mock their inability to read the damn thing from top to bottom. For this, we need to look alllllllll the way down to Article 1:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The case that originated this clusterfuck of a legal decision is Anderson v. Griswold, which brought up the question of whether Trump could be disqualified from the ballot under Colorado law. Although each state has the power to determine its own election laws, the application of law in this case runs afoul of the very Amendment being used to deny Trump his name on the ballot.
Remember that pesky thing called due process, kids? Yeah, it wasn’t used here. Trump wasn’t a direct party to the lawsuit, but his right to due process was violated in that he was essentially convicted of insurrection without every being charged or convicted of it. The special counsel’s indictment doesn’t even charge him with it! Also, he has yet to be formally charged with it!
So, what did the court do? Determined he was guilty because…fuck if I know.
The reason they gave was a “preponderance of the evidence,” would could mean anything from a hand-written letter on White House stationary signed by Trump saying “I’m going to incite an insurrection today, and it will be the best insurrection ever,” to the court not wanting mean tweets anymore. As of yet, I don’t think we’ve seen the evidence the court referred to, and I’m tempted to say we’re not gonna because that might expose the entire ruling for the farce it most certainly is.
Back to the point about due process. Insurrection is a federal crime, which means only the government can bring the charges. Since that hasn’t happened, the Colorado Supreme Court wouldn’t have the standing to bring the charges, and without there being an actual charge or conviction, there can be no application of the 14th Amendment. And without there being an actual trial (sorry, Ted Lieu), Trump was denied due process. Not even a fucking stupid statement from Colorado’s Secretary of State declaring Trump guilty of inciting an insurrection will overcome that.
How fucked up is this situation? A former Trump lawyer not known for sucking up to him after being let go says the US Supreme Court could rule 9-0 to overturn the Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling. And this is a guy who has said Trump was “toast” in his criminal indictments.
If this wasn’t bad enough, there’s even some debate over whether the “insurrection clause” would even apply to the Presidency. Given how loosely the law has been interpreted to disqualify Trump, I’m sure the Left would be willing to stretch the logic so much Reed Richards would need a chiropractor. In my non-legalese reading of it, I can see where it could be, but it’s not nearly as much of a slam-dunk as the Left thinks it is. There’s just enough wiggle room for Trump to argue it doesn’t apply (even though the arguments I’ve put forward above about the lack of due process would be stronger, but I’m not advising him).
Then, there’s Section 5:
The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
What the Colorado Supreme Court did completely ignores this part of the Amendment used to remove Trump in the first place. Congress didn’t disqualify Trump via legislation (and, to the Leftists reading this, this is not an endorsement of such action being taken). It was done by a majority of judges who are clearly incapable of ruling within the confines of the law. Leftists may be okay with it, but wait until it gets turned around on them.
If this decision is upheld by the USSC, it sets precedent, which can be used to disqualify politicians from both sides based solely on a politically-convenient interpretation of “insurrection” and a process where a favorable court decision is more certain than if you asked Hunter Biden if he wants crack for Christmas. Let’s take our good friends from the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest from that bastion of progressive living, Seattle. What the group did and advocated could be considered an insurrection (personally, I don’t, but for the purposes of this sketch let’s say I do). Using the Left’s argument here, no one who participated in CHOP would be eligible to run for public office.
And neither would any of the politicians who supported CHOP.
Then, all it would take would be a Republican with more balls than sense to find a court in Texas that would rule so and before you can say jurisprudence, a good chunk of Democrats would be out of a job. And it would be thanks to the Left’s “Orange Man Bad” rhetoric.
Okay, I’ll admit this sounds too good to be true because, well, Leftists have more double standards than they have genders (this just in…still 2), but it would be detrimental to the country as a whole. It would be weaponizing the legal system to get what an ideologically-driven segment wants. Or, as the Left calls it, Tuesday.
Regardless, the “insurrection clause” being used in Anderson v. Griswold shows a level of desperation on the Left because they know Puddin’ Head Joe is slightly more popular than an anal cavity search done by Willie “Giant Hands” McStuffins, and his accomplishments on issues that really matter to the people are sparse at best. He can’t run on the economy (but he can run from it), foreign policy, or any of the kitchen table issues that Joe Six Pack and his family worry about on the daily. But at least he can run on being the first Administration to hire incompetent and dishonest trans people, amirite????
To try to curtail a possible Trump 2024 victory, the Left counted on the courts to eliminate him from the running before the caucuses and primaries could begin. If the High Court (as opposed to the court in Colorado who appeared to be high when they rendered this dumbfuck decision) rules according to the law, there should be no doubt it will get overturned. If they rule according to political ideology, it will get overturned most likely, but it will have the stink of partisanship all over it and the Left will redouble their efforts to expand the court.
And, yes, my irony meter overloaded after typing that.
In the end, it should be noted there’s a reason the “insurrection clause” is rarely used and/or prosecuted: because there’s a fine line between legitimate protest and insurrection. Redressing grievances with the government is protected by the First Amendment. Acting out in a way that threatens the very fabric of our government isn’t. To conflate the two for the purposes of electoral victory is dishonest, detrimental, and a dick move.
If you read this before Christmas, I wish you the happiest of holiday seasons.
And if you read this after Christmas, I wish you the happiest of post-holiday sales.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
There’s a little word starting with the letter D that has Leftists up in arms more than usual. No, it’s not “domestic terrorism” or “DeSantis” or even “D-Student President.” The word is “default” and Leftists are sounding the alarm that unless those evil mean ole Republicans approve a bunch of spending (which is totally related to running the country and isn’t related to a bunch of partisan bullshit designed to help Leftists buy… I mean earn votes). And those evil mean dagnasty Republicans want to…horror of horrors…spend less! Those monsters!
While talks between President Puddin’ Head Joe and House Speaker Kevin “Not Charlie” McCarthy have broken down more often than the car I bought from a sleazy used car salesman (i.e. a used car salesman), it seems more and more people on the Left are afraid we aren’t going to pay our bills and Grandma Gertrude will lose her Social Security, Medicare, and all means to survive. It’s going to be worse than January 6th!
Yeah, not so much. Let’s dive in
default
What the Left thinks it means – what will happen right now unless House Republicans agree to keeping proposed expenditures at higher rates
What it really means – a condition that hasn’t happened yet, but will become a reality in the near future
First off, a bit of insider baseball. Congressional budgeting isn’t the same thing as personal budgeting because the government can always print more money. If you or I did that, we’d be thrown in jail.
Come to think of it, that would be an ideal solution to the problems I have with Congress…
Anyway, because of this federal ability to print money, you’re more likely to find a happy Bud Light drinker than the government is to default on our debts. There are risks tied to this, namely the US Dollar becoming more worthless than Kanye West’s 2024 Presidential campaign coffers, but our elected officials aren’t stupid enough to let that happen, right?
Considering there is a sitting Representative who expressed fear that Guam would capsize if there were too many people, I’m not betting the farm on that.
But what I am betting the farm on is a lot of histrionics from people who don’t know the first thing about how economics works, even those who boast of having economics degrees but couldn’t make change.
Or toast, for that matter.
At the heart of this current kurfluffle is the Left’s insistence we raise the debt ceiling to ensure expenditures get paid. Put another way, Leftists are “just trying to pay America’s bills.”
One tiny problem (well, more than one, but we’ll get into that a bit later). The spending being done now is for the next fiscal year, which doesn’t start until…October 1, 2023. The shit we’re dealing with now is from the fiscal year that began October 1, 2022, when Democrats controlled the House and, thus, controlled spending.
Waitaminute…wouldn’t that give Leftists a vested interest in raising the debt ceiling (which is like getting a credit line increase on the federal Visa card)? Why…yes, yes it would!
It also gives them a manmade…womanmade…wymynmade…transmade…whatever made line 0f attack against House Republicans. After all, they’re standing in the way of paying America’s bills, right?
Not so much. The House passed a debt bill waaaaaaaay back on April 26th, a bill that Senate Majority Leader Chuck “Not Amy” Schumer called “dead on arrival” and President Puddin’ Head Joe said he would veto the House bill if it passed the Senate. Compare this to his comments from a few weeks ago (and a few days after he made the veto comment) trying to spin the situation to his advantage.
Hmmm…kinda makes you wonder who’s really forcing the default issue, doesn’t it?
But it’s not like the Left doesn’t have solutions. Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus sent Puddin’ Head Joe a letter suggesting he invoke the 14th Amendment as a means to resolve the debt ceiling issue and avoid default. Although this may seem like a stretch that would make Reed Richards look like a block of stone, Section 4 gives at least somewhat of a framework.
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Now, I didn’t say the Left had good solutions.
The Left’s argument relies on the “validity of the public debt…shall not be questioned” part. Thanks to our good friends at Merrium Webster, we have two definitions of “validity” that maybe kinda sorta works.
the quality or state of being valid: such as
a: the state of being acceptable according to the law
b: the quality of being well-grounded, sound, or correct
Now, I’m giving the Left more credit than usual for deep thinking, but just because they put a little more thought into it than how they want their steaks cooked doesn’t mean they’re on the right track. Even with the most liberal (see what I did there) interpretation of the definitions, you’re still left with the “so what” question. How does this apply to the debt ceiling?
According to Al Jazeera (because I love to be an equal opportunity mocker of bad ideas), invoking the 14th would eliminate the debt limit and allow the nation’s bills to be paid. Now, this may solve the short term issues, but astute readers and students of history know how this is likely to end.
Spoiler Alert for you Leftists out there: it doesn’t end well for anyone, especially you.
Even though the Left is almost completely wrong here, they have inadvertently stumbled into a real issue: we aren’t taking federal spending seriously. I would say the government spends money like drunken sailors, but that would be insulting inebriated members of the Navy and I won’t stand for that. I don’t have any reason to believe we’d ever go into default, but only because of the power the federal government has to create money out of thin air. And we’re not talking about bills that have anything backing it, mind you. Right now the only thing backing the US Dollar is…our word.
Any Native American readers want to chime in on how much the government’s word is worth?
More to the point, our government’s spending makes the possibility of an actual default more and more likely unless we get a handle on it. As anyone who has had to take our a second mortgage to buy eggs this week can attest, inflation is a real issue affecting us all on some level. The more money we print, the less value it has. Before you know it, we’re post-WWI Germany without the pointy helmets.
And the thing is we keep running into this game of economic chicken every fucking year. The party in power of Congress and the party out of power always jockey for position in the weeks and months before the government can’t pay its bills and chaos ensues (according to the Left). Then, we might have to…shut down the government until a deal can be reached! Then, people might realized just how big, cumbersome, and mostly useless government actually is, and that’s going to hurt Leftists!
Wait. I’m not sure there’s a downside here. Oh, wait, I see one: this brinkmanship is tired, as well as tiring. But we will keep seeing it as long as both major parties prefer it to fiscal responsibility. Democrats and Republicans don’t want to think about what happens when the interest payment on the national debt exceeds our ability to pay since they’re too busy trying to figure out how to blame it on each other.
I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating (for no other reason than to pad out this piece a bit more). America has a spending problem. We are a shopaholic with the world’s most elite credit card, and we keep upping the credit limit because our elected officials are more than willing to sign off on it. And as long as the dipshits in Washington DC fail to grasp even basic accounting practices (i.e. being too far in the red is a bad thing), we’re going to keep playing chicken with the can being kicked down the road so a new group of dipshits can play.
Well, there’s a line from the movie “War Games” that applies here: “The only winning move is not to play.” Granted, we’re not dealing with Global Thermonuclear War or even chess, but we are hurtling towards a different point of no return, one where default is all but guaranteed. Cutting proposed spending while still increasing spending doesn’t help. Our national debt is in the trillions of dollars, and nobody on either side really wants to do the one thing that will help.
STOP FUCKING SPENDING!
While Republicans don’t seem to have any answers, at least they’re not really dumb ideas, which is what the Left has to offer right now. So, expect more chicken in DC and less in your refrigerator.
Speaking of which, could you help me out? I need to buy some chicken and I’m short by, oh, a few thousand dollars. Thanks in advance!