Tag: donald trump

In the Meme Time

The idiotic Left is at it again. Here is yet another meme that is so full of holes it would never float. Yet to the Left this is so real. Scary how they don’t think.

Stupid Leftist Meme made to frighten the ignorant.

Line by line we will take it apart. And of course there is usually a hint of truth to make something so idiotic as this believable by the ignorant.

“The are trying to bait us into violence.”

Well Leftist, violence is your specialty. The Right doesn’t commit violence, we have prayer vigils and peaceably assemble. It is the Left that riots, burns, attacks, and protests. All against the law. We don’t need to bait you in order for you to commit an act you were going to do anyway.

“That’s the plan.”

No, that isn’t the plan. The plan all along has been simple. To secure our borders, secure our cities, to secure our citizens. And in doing so we round up and deport the criminal illegal aliens from our nation. This is the plan and why we voted for Donald Trump.

“Kill Americans on camera until someone shoots a federal agent,”

There is no desire or plan to kill Americans or even the illegal aliens for that matter. The events in Minnesota would have happened without cameras present if agitators attacked federal agents doing their jobs. But most agitators want the cameras because it is all show to them. Their lives are meaningless to themselves. This is another example of suicide by cop. Don’t violate the law and you wont end up getting shot or killed because you did something stupid.

Now if some Leftist agitator DOES shoot a federal agent. That would be a crime, probably several, in the state of Minnesota. But that nothing that is hoped for at all. We would like our law enforcement officers and citizen to be safe.

“then declare “insurrection”, “

The quotes aren’t needed. If violent illegal mobs are attacking federal officers in the line of duty. That is insurrection. It would be a fully justified course of action to invoke the Insurrection Act. This part of the meme is true, if a federal officer is shot, I’m 100% behind invoking the Insurrection Act to restore order in Minnesota or anywhere for that matter.

“deploy the military”

Another truth. If the Insurrection Act is invoked due to a federal officer being shot by an illegal violent mob. Then the military would be deployed to restore order. That is part of the act’s powers.

“and cancel the 2026 elections.”

This is a scare tactic and fearmongering. It is also laughable unless one is unhinged and ignorant enough to believe the drivel. Federal elections cannot be cancelled. They are Constitutionally protected. They cannot be cancelled or postponed. They take place in November no matter what. Unlike other countries, we have no provision to stop federal elections. Leftist countries have those, not the United States.

“This is the fascist playbook.”

Yes it is a Leftist playbook item. And that is not a mistake, fascists are Leftists just as Marxists, Socialists, National Socialists (Nazis), Communists, and any other totalitarian regime. This is exactly what they would do but again it isn’t possible under the US Constitution. Sorry to burst your bubbles useful idiots.

“Do not give them their Reichstag fire.”

This of course is their inane juvenile attempt to compare Trump and the Right to Hitler and Nazis. Again, this just shows the ignorance. Nazism, National Socialism is a Leftist form of government. It has nothing to do with the Right. And Trump and Hitler have nothing in common at all.

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.

New Sedition

Sometimes I look at what Democrats do and say “I can see where that makes sense.” Most of the time I shake my heads and say “What in the wide world of fuck are you doing?” Today is one of those times.

It started with a video put out by former military and intelligence folks currently serving in Congress. Their message was clear: enlisted military have no obligation to obey unlawful orders. Seems harmless enough, right?

Wellllll…this is where things get messy.

As a personal aside, I will admit my knowledge of military justice is as limited as the range on Nerf gun. Therefore, I am going off my understanding of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and welcome any corrections, words of encouragement, and rotten produce you are willing to send my way.

The aforementioned UCMJ is designed to deal with legal matters within the military so that they can be dealt with in a way that doesn’t disrupt their duties. Which is killing the enemy and/or breaking their shit while at the same time making sure the same doesn’t happen to us.

Anyway, there are provisions within the UCMJ dealing with unlawful orders, namely military personnel don’t have to follow them. And that’s what the Democrats in the video are expressing, so there’s no real harm, right?

That’s where the wonderful world of sedition comes into play. Our good friends at Merriam-Webster define sedition thus:

incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority

Our laws go into greater detail, but you get the drift. Sedition is a big no-no, which I would hope former military and intelligence personnel now serving in Congress understand. Then, President Trump entered the chat and accused the Democrats in the video of seditious acts. He even went so far as to say the punishment for sedition is death.

Unfortunately for him, he got it wrong. The actual punishment is possible fines and imprisonment, so there’s that. But is he wrong about the video being seditious?

Wellllll…he kinda is. The Democrats’ defense on this is they were just reminding our military they can refuse to obey unlawful orders, which tracks. But then I started wondering why now. This message is the kind of shit military personnel get drilled into their skulls during basic training. From a military/tactical standpoint, there’s nothing objectionable in reinforcing basic knowledge. Legally, the Democrats in the video are in the clear, too.

From a political standpoint, though, that’s where there may be a case for sedition. The President has taken actions many on the Left find objectionable, from sending in the National Guard to police city streets or making drug running boats into the world’s most expensive and addictive flotsam. This latter example is the one the Left seems fixated on at the moment, with some on the Left calling it murder.

As you might expect, the UCMJ kinda frowns on murder, so to float the idea that what the military is doing to drug runners is murder might weigh heavily on the heads and hearts of those brave men and women. (Still two genders, kids!) With what they endure on a daily basis, it’s only a matter of time before someone cracks and decides to defy the chain of command by refusing a direct order he or she believes to be illegal.

That little seed of doubt is all it takes for our military to weaken just enough to break. Unlike in the world outside the military, order is what keeps things moving. It is the first, last, and only line of defense against a fully dysfunctional family feud with heavy artillery.

And these Democrats who served our country know that, or at least should know that.

That’s where I think the sedition charge sticks, if it even sticks at all. Politicians are known for being slicker than a non-stick pan covered in baby oil, and since this is more of a political line of attack, there’s a good chance they are relatively safe legally.

That’s not to say I condone what these six Congresscritters did in the name of politics. When pressed to give examples of illegal acts, these motherfuckers sputter more than Speed Buggy. Instead, they mention they’ve talked to military personnel who just so happen to say what the Left’s narrative is at the moment. Pretty convenient, I’d say.

You know, if I was a complete dipshit.

The video wraps deception in an American flag and tries to pretend it’s just a friendly reminder when it has the potential to be a bunker buster to the heart of the world’s most powerful military. I’d say they should be ashamed of themselves, but I’m not sure there’s an ounce of shame among them.

And if I may be so bold, I want to give the President some advice here. First, stay off social media before you fact check what you’re going to say. No filter works great, but not when it comes to proclaiming a punishment that is more severe than it legally is.

Second, let’s try some alternative thinking here. Don’t charge these assholes with sedition. Instead, charge them with something else and make the punishment having them pull KP duty until the Rapture.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

For as much time as I spend mocking the Left for their rampant stupidity, there is one thing I give them credit for, and that is mass distribution of their squawking points. Back in the heady days of, well, last year, Leftists were all squawking in lockstep saying “Joe Biden is mentally capable of being President.” This year, they’re singing a similar tune, but for a different President.

Yes, fellow campers, the Left is now saying President Donald Trump has, as they call it, “diminished capability.”

Wait. Too easy of a joke to make. (At least for now…)

With that being said, let’s take a closer look at what the Left is talking about, Willis.

diminished capacity

What the Left thinks it means – clear cognitive decline which negatively affects the President

What it really means – Leftists trying to avoid responsibility for propping up President Brick Tamland for so long while accusing President Trump of the same shit

The term “diminished capacity” is pretty nebulous when you think about it (and I do because I canceled Netflix before it was cool). It can refer to any number of maladies, ranging from possible dementia to not being able to go out in public without diapers. But enough about President Brick Tamland. There was bountiful evidence that the former President was doing a bobsled run down the cognitive course for a looooooong time. My proof?

All the Leftists who said he was fine.

And surprise, surprise, it’s the same Leftists who are all over Trump’s alleged cognitive decline like an social justice warrior on anything that hurts their fee-fees. And if you don’t know what a social justice warrior is, be glad you’re ignorant of the term and walk on by. It is not a safe space for anyone.

And with how nebulous the term is, it gives the Left plenty of ways to hold Trump to a standard they refused to hold the last President to, even though there were clearer examples of there being an issue with the latter. Not that that’s going to stop the fearless defenders of democracy, mind you! They have a country to destroy…I mean save!

This is where Trump gives them easy wins at times. Semi-coherent rants about inconsequential matters, stopping in the middle of a valid question to talk about something else, spending a significant chunk of his time on social media.

Yes, my friends. Our President is a teenage boy. Only his Call of Duty lobby involves actual military.

But that in and of itself isn’t evidence of diminished capacity. Erratic behavior? Yeah. Cognitive decline? Not so much.

Not that the Left is going to let a little thing like reality get in the way of trying to make President Trump look like Forrest Gump…or would that be Forrest Trump? Anyway, the point is the Left is grasping at straws here mainly because they can’t admit one simple truth: Trump was right all along about President Tamland. In the last year or so of his Presidency, President Tamland was definitely not firing on all trapezoids, let alone cylinders. (Geometry joke FTW!)

But this wasn’t the first time the Left wanted to point out a President’s mental decline. Waaaaaay back in the late 80s, reports came out that President Ronald Reagan was losing his memory and was suffering from dementia. Back then, though, the Left wasn’t so gung-ho to make a President serving his second term into an afterthought. They mentioned it, yes, but they weren’t mean about it for the most part.

Yeah, that ain’t happening now.

The Left needs more people to agree with them that Trump is incompetent, mostly because they were incompetent enough to lose to the guy under the banner of Queen Kamala the Appointed. What was her campaign slogan again? Oh, yeah, insane cackling.

The Left hated it when Trump beat Hillary Clinton because they thought she was the most qualified candidate in history, or at least the history of the time. Of course, when former President Barack Obama says that about it, that’s saying something because it’s a reaaaaaallly low bar to beat his qualifications. My dog is more qualified, and she doesn’t even eat Obamas!

For you Leftists out there, that was a joke.

And speaking of jokes, that brings us to Queen Kamala the Appointed’s campaign. Yes, she’s saying people tell her she was the most qualified candidate to ever run for President, but they’re either a) lying, b) lying to keep themselves in her good graces if/when she runs again, and c) have never met my dog. But the result was the same. The Left couldn’t handle losing to Trump, so they went back to the “Trump is unwell” well.

Here’s the problem. Trump hustles a lot more than most people think. His stamina and work hours make nymphomaniac hookers look lazy. The man works all hours and sleeps only 4. Doesn’t drink alcohol (which, given the state of things in Washington, DC, on a normal day is a Herculean feat). Doesn’t have any drug habits that we know of. In fact, the strongest substance he takes into his body seems to be…Diet Fucking Coke.

Yeah, tell me again he has diminished capacity.

The only case the Left can make is Trump has more than a few gaffes, misstatements, and genuine “What In the Wide World of Fuck Is He Saying?” moments. I know about these because the Left can’t stop talking about them or turning them into bigger stories than they might otherwise be.

Oh, and did I forget to mention these same assholes were oblivious to President Brick Tamland’s clear downward slide?

Let’s lay our cards on the table. This sudden concern with Trump’s mental acuity from the Left is politically driven. I know. I was as shocked as you are when I found out.

Seriously, though, what we’re seeing is IMAX level projection, and it tells me a lot about what the Left knew about President Tamland and when they knew it. If the former President hadn’t been seen at his cognitive worst, the Left wouldn’t be going in as hard as they are on Trump’s alleged decline. Sure, they’d still have the Nazi/fascist/homophobic/transphobic/racist/sexist/insult of the week shit to fall back on, but not the “Trump is in steep mental decline” shit.

Then again, these are the same people who turned Dr. Anthony Fauci into a religious icon, so maybe it wouldn’t stop them.

Regardless, we definitely should take the Left’s claims of the President’s “diminished capacity” with a Great Salt Lake sized grain of salt. Besides, the Left have their own issues with diminished capacity within their own ranks, namely the Socialist Socialite and Jasmine “I Say Stupid Shit and I Get Paid For It” Crockett. The two of them collectively wouldn’t even make a half-wit.

Let me close with a word of advice from Jesus: “Physician, heal thyself.”

It was much classier a closing than my “Get that weak shit out of here!”



Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

When you really think about it (and I do because there’s nothing good on Netflix these days), humans have a lot of awards they give out to each other. Everything from perfect attendance at school to making significant contributions to the arts or science is subject to getting a trophy, plaque, oversized check, or some other form of recognition.

Of course, there are problems with this, namely trying to cash an oversized check requires oversized identification. But more to the point not everyone who accomplishes something gets an award and others who get them aren’t worthy of them. Either way, feefees will be hurt worse than a submissive bottom at a BDSM club.

Not that I know anything about that, mind you…

Over the past couple of months, people on both sides have been arguing about one prize in particular, that being the Nobel Peace Prize. The MAGA Right think Donald Trump should get it because of the peace deals he’s been brokering as of late between Russia and Ukraine and more recently between Israel and Hamas. The Left, of course, says Trump doesn’t deserve it because he’s an evil fascist Nazi doodoo head.

So, let’s break of a peace of the action (see what I did there?) and talk about this award.

Nobel Peace Prize

What the Left thinks it means – a coveted international award to celebrate those who promote peace around the world

What it really means – an international award given out to people for more ideological than practical reasons

The history of the Nobel Prizes in general is kinda cool. The guy who came up with them in the first place, Albert Nobel, invented dynamite, which makes him an honorary American because we love explosions. If he had invented a way to deliver meat through explosives, he would be possibly the greatest American ever, next to Chuck Norris.

Alas, he reconsidered his role in finding out a way to blow shit up, so he decided to take a more reasoned approach by recognizing people who contributed to the global society in the arts, sciences, and humanitarian efforts. Hence, the Nobel Prizes came to be.

With some prizes, like the prizes for Literature and the sciences, you can point to an actual body of work. We can debate whether the work improves humanity, but it’s there to look at.

With the Peace Prize…well, that’s another story. Since can be more of a squishy term, it’s harder to quantify what constitutes a worthy recipient, so it could literally be any criteria the Nobel Committee wants to apply.

And that’s where politics comes into play.

When you have no hard and fast rules, there are no expectations, just the word of the Committee members saying “this person is worthy of recognition.” Let’s take a look at some of the recent winners.

Yasser Arafat (1994) – Awarded as part of an effort to broker a peace treaty in the Middle East. Also, the leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, a known supporter of global terrorism.

International Campaign to Ban Landmines (1997) – A group that wanted to, well, ban landmines. A noble pursuit (see what I did there), but among its members was noted Leftist organization Human Rights Watch because landmines hurt human rights or something.

Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontière (1999) – A group of medical professionals helping people globally and alerting people about humanitarian crises. Medical help is always appreciated, but I’m not clear on how the whole “raising awareness” part brings us closer to peace. I mean, doesn’t somebody have to actually do shit still?

Kofi Anan and the United Nations (2001) – I got nothing.

Jimmy Carter (2002) – I can make a case for him winning the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to broker peace between Israel and Egypt in the last 1970s, but this time? He was awarded for setting up the Carter Center, which focused on human rights. Unless those rights involved Jews, of course.

Shirin Edbadi (2003) – She was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts to bring democracy to Iran and defend women’s, children’s, and refugee rights. Again, a good cause, but I’m not sure how it would help global peace. It would make Iran a little less hostile in the grand scheme of things, but that’s like Idi Amin telling Jeffrey Dahmer to cut back on the cannibalism.

Wangari Maathai (2004) – She won the Nobel Peace Prize for, as the Committee put it, “for her contribution to sustainable development, democracy, ecology, and peace.” It was almost like the Nobel Committee had to tack on “peace” at the end to justify giving her the award.

Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank (2006) – Collectively they…did something. Not sure what, but it was something about economic and social development…which is peaceful, I guess?

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore (2007) – It was at this point the Nobel Peace Prize became a joke. Not even Dane Cook level, either. They got the Peace Prize for the same reason: being wrong about the environment. And I think Al got it for losing to George W. Bush and being wrong about the environment.

And then we get to the coup disgrace (and, no, that’s not a typo)…

Barack Obama (2009) – He won it before he did anything. You know, like drone striking innocent people?

There are more, but you get the picture. When you look at the full list of Peace Prize winners, you see a definite shift from those who actually contributed to peace and those who are getting a wider berth than Rosie O’Donnell and Michael Moore at an all-you-can-devour buffet in order to shoehorn them into the award.

And the same dickheads who swooned over Obama and Gore winning it are the ones saying Donald Trump isn’t qualified to win it in spite of the fact he’s actually trying to broker peace.

Of course, I’m half-and-half on whether Trump should be in the running. Half of me thinks it would be funny to watch Leftist heads explode at him showing up in Oslo to accept the award before the world. The other half of me thinks he’s trying too hard to get an award that doesn’t have the gravitas it once did. It’s like getting an honorary Daytime Emmy; yes it’s an award, but it’s a shitty one.

And when you consider the political leanings of those who are getting the award over the past 20-30 years, you’re more of a loser for winning it.

I’m sure the Nobel Committee reads my weekly missives judging from the Scandinavian hate mail I’ve gotten over the years, so let me give you a piece of advice. Just because you agree with your politics doesn’t mean they’re advancing peace. By expanding what the original purpose of the award means, you’ve watered it down to the point of irrelevance. I mean, you gave a Peace Prize to a fucking terrorist! Why not give Antifa one?

Wait, scratch that. You’ll take me seriously.

Regardless, you have to be a lot more selective in your selection process. Pay attention to those who are actually trying to bring about peace in our time and not just have the “oh, and peace” at the end. And sometimes you might have to hold your nose and pick someone you hate who is actually bringing about a more peaceful world by, you know, actually promoting peace.

As for the MAGA Republicans who think Trump should get it, I wouldn’t push it. If he can figure out how to get Russia and Ukraine and Israel and Hamas to get to the table and get results, then we can talk about him getting one. Until then, hold your applause until the Nobel Committee gets their heads out of their asses.

So, in 2548.








Don’t Threaten Me With a Good Time!

As of the time of this blithering…I mean blogging, the federal government is on the verge of another government shutdown. Before, the Leftists complained the Republicans weren’t willing to negotiate to prevent the shutdown, but this time…it’s Leftists complaining the Republicans aren’t willing to negotiate to prevent the shutdown.

If only that were an echo, it wouldn’t sound so stupid and hypocritical.

Regardless, the Left has gone all doom and gloom on the prospect of a government shutdown. People will die! Health care will be lost for millions! There might yet another Medea movie! Holy shit on a shingle, Batman! It must be a super-cereal problem for the Left to go all Red Alert like this!

Nope. It’s literally just Tuesday. (Please check local listings for the day of the week in your area.)

Much like a case of the clap, this seems to come around every so often, only a lot more irritating and a lot less fun to get. The federal government runs out of money more than Hunter Biden at an all-you-can-do crack den, so it becomes this ordeal to right the fiscal ship. Only, we never do.

I’ve mentioned this before, but it bears repeating. Our government keeps funding itself through Continuing Resolutions, which are promises we’ll pay our bills this time and never let this happen again. And then it keeps happening. The federal government hasn’t passed an actual budget since 2017, so we’re getting close to a decade of these budgetary tricks that would get the rest of us thrown in jail.

Which is why Arthur Andersen should have gone into politics instead of dealing with Enron.

The thing about government shutdowns is essential functions are still being paid out, so it’s not like we’re not going to fund the military for a few days because our elected officials can’t decide whether to spend a few billion on studies about transexual llama mating habits during a full moon occurring on Tuesdays. It’s only the shit that we decide to spend that gets impacted.

Which brings us to the latest sticking point for the Left. Democrats want to extend tax credits for health insurance and reverse Medicare cuts President Trump supported. And those mean ole Republicans don’t want that.

Funny thing. Leftists tend to hate tax credits and the Right love them.

Regardless, there is some question as to the veracity of the Left’s demands, namely that these nozzleheads think we should pay for health care for illegal immigrants because Murka. (Which I think they believe to be a foreign country that keeps sending us immigrants, but that’s neither here nor there.) And contrary to Leftist squawking points to the contrary, that shit is happening. So, maybe a little scrutiny is in order to make sure that doesn’t happen.

Or, yanno, don’t send in a Continuing Resolution with that shit in there. Just saying.

Apparently that’s a bridge too far for Leftists, so here we are. And I am so good with it.

What the Left fails to understand is people really don’t pay that much attention to government most of the time. Sure, there are times when we do, but the rest of the time we want them to get out of our ways. There are so many laws on the books, people break at least 3 of them every day, and that’s at least 4 too many in my book.

Maybe it’s my small government brain working overtime again, but it’s my belief that the federal government needs a DOGE-style enema. We need to know not only how our money is spent, but get an explanation of why. Given the USAID and NGO scandals from earlier this year, the government needs that enema, like, 10 years ago.

And I don’t mean just looking into Democrat-approved expenditures, either. Let’s go whole hog on eliminating pork! If there’s a line item that is unusual, unnecessary, or at the very least questionable, call it out and make the assholes responsible for it explain themselves. If they can’t, off goes the funding, along with their jobs.

Which brings me to a point I’ve made before, but it bears repeating. Why in the wide world of fuck are we paying non-essential employees? If they’re not needed for the day-to-day operations, they shouldn’t be on the books. Unless you can make one hell of an argument in favor of having a Regional Sub-Assistant Manager in Charge of Fetching Some Bureaucrat Starbucks Every Morning, have that bureaucrat pick it up himself or herself. If they make the big (or even the medium) bucks, they can afford to get their own ‘Bucks.

Of course, there are several thousand federal workers resigning October 1 due to budget cuts. Those are rookie numbers! You know what would really piss off the Orange Man? If more workers up and quit! Really stick it to him! Have a mass walkout that would make the Million Man March look like a Kindergarten class lining up for recess!

Of course, with the caveat being you decline getting your final paychecks and pension. After all, you don’t want to get any money Donald Trump has access to, right?

But I’m afraid that’s not going to happen any time soon, so we’re stuck with watching Democrats and Republicans fight over how to spend more of our money on shit we didn’t ask for and really don’t need. I guess the only thing left to do is pop some popcorn, get a cold drink or 50, and watch.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Since our last proper Lexicon entry (wait, there was a proper one?), we’ve seen a couple of news stories that caught my eye. The first was the story involving Iryna Zarutska, a young Ukrainian woman stabbed to death on Charlotte’s light rail system. The second was the assassination of conservative activist and commentator Charlie Kirk, who was shot during an exchange at Utah Valley University. Although these events seem different on the surface, there is one thing that brings them together: they were both victims of crime.

When it comes to crime, there are two fields of thought, and they seem to line up along ideological lines. For some, it’s dirt simple, but for others (and by others I mean Leftists), it’s far more complicated. You know, like trying to explain how two genders actually means 9,249,148,275 genders. And, as you might guess, the two sides’ reactions to crime are vastly different.

Which makes it a perfect subject to discuss this week.

crime

What the Left thinks it means – the consequences of a multitude of factors, including poverty, racism, and lack of support

What it really means – when bad people do bad things

Not to sound like an old man, but I kinda am, but back in my day people had an understanding of right and wrong. (Of course, back in my day we had to dodge velociraptors on our way through the tar pits just to get to school, but that’s another story.) We understood there were consequences to bad actions, whether it be divine damnation, a paddling from Dad, or, dare I even mention it, having to sit through “The Lawrence Welk Show.” To this day, bubbles give me flashbacks.

Not that I know anything about being bad, mind you…

And that model worked pretty well for a long time. Then, Leftists came along and muddied the waters with concepts that you’d have to be high to come up with, let alone make into actual policy. The Sixties were a time of questioning of traditional and moral foundations, mostly through the use of illicit drugs (hence the previous comment about being high). And after students who fought against The Man grew up and got into positions where they became The Man, they took those ideas and put them into place.

Among those ideas was redefining what crime is. It was no longer about theft, murder, or liking Nickelback. It was more about the underlying causes the Left could identify, i.e. exploit, to “understand” the criminal’s motives. It’s not that the mass murder was dagnasty evil; he was just the victim of a bad home life. The guy who broke into an appliance store and stole the biggest TV he could carry? He was just trying to provide for his family. I’ve literally seen Leftists say these people were just stealing food, but last time I checked, bread didn’t have a 56 inch HD screen.

By doing this, the Left has turned those who were the victimizers into victims themselves, and with that came a shit-ton of excuses to hand wave away their crimes. And as for the actual victims? Well, let’s just say the summer picnic at Ice Station Zebra was warmer than the reception the Left gives them. If the victims weren’t outright demonized (see the Tesla firebombings), they were ignored. While police departments and city officials were pushing for reform in the aftermath of the BLM riots…I mean fiery but peaceful demonstrations, the people who weren’t even part of the problem were left to deal with the aftermath without so much as a helping hand.

Put simply, the criminals were in charge of the judicial system.

That rot has spread to other areas that also directly impact citizens. Judge Hannah Dugan took justice into her own hands not only to obstruct ICE, but provide assistance to an illegal immigrant, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, to escape. And then she lied about it! On top of all that, she was suspended with pay. Imagine if you or I pulled that shit. We would be lucky to get the bum’s rush to Gitmo, but this shithead gets to get paid and file frivolous appeals to prevent her from getting her just punishment for her crimes?

And, yes, the Left has made her a victim of, guess who, Donald Trump.

Fuck me sideways, that’s, well, sideways.

But it brings us back to the second part of the FAFO sandwich within the legal system, punishment. Whenever one person wrongs another, there is supposed to be punishment. Notice I said “supposed to be” because in too many cases the punishment fits as well as David Byrne’s suit from “Stop Making Sense.” In some cases, like many of the January 6 “rioters,” the punishment is too harsh, too cruel, and definitely too unusual. In others, like with the lowlife that killed Iryna Zarutska, he got off most recently with…a written promise he would appear in court for a misdemeanor, something he has a history of not doing.

And, yes, there’s a connection here to your friend and mine, Uncle George Soros.

Seems Georgie Porgie has been helping more progressive prosecutors get elected in an attempt to “fix” the judicial system. Ironically, or perhaps intentionally, this has broken the system and lead to some mind-numbingly stupid decisions that have harmed people, all in the name of social justice.

But social justice isn’t actually justice in reality. It’s basically creating new rules for different people because of past injustices. That’s an issue when it comes to the prosecution of actual crime because not every criminal has been oppressed, thus assuming that people of a certain racial background has been makes it harder to hold them accountable without there being some kind of backlash. You know, like burning parts of cities, looting, and rioting.

And when you think about it (and I do because there’s nothing good on television), that backlash becomes a second method of excusing crime. After all, if you’re scared to say “You know, maybe burning down black-owned businesses isn’t a good idea” you are more willing to look away when it actually happens because you don’t want trouble. That’s the default position with most people: we don’t want to stir the pot. Oddly enough, the exact opposite applies to the terminally online population.

So, the Left has made it possible to be a criminal, get away with it, and in those rare occasions you face a judge, not see any consequences for your actions. All you have to do is pull your shit in a Left-friendly jurisdiction, play the sympathy card (along with any other cards available to you), and even raise money for your legal defense through online donations that you can use on things other than your legal defense.

The bad news is people are getting sick of it and noticing these mockeries of justice more frequently. All they need is someone who will do something about it if their local police and city officials won’t. When Donald Trump activated the National Guard to try to restore order to Washington, DC, the Left assumed they would be booed out of the city all the way back to Mar A Lago. Turns out the opposite happened, and the main people pissed about the situation were elderly white people who don’t even live where the crime is. Trump listened and took action when Leftists stood by with their heads up their asses because they couldn’t fit their thumbs up there at the same time.

What the Left doesn’t realize is when you’ve enabled lawlessness for as long as they have, the pushback is going to be harder than they think. Trump’s takeover of the Washington, DC, police duties has caused a drop in crime across the board, even if the Left has to spin it as though it were happening before him which is questionable. Please see my previous Lexicon entry regarding Washington, DC, for more details (and to drive up the views a bit). What’s more, it’s given Trump an easy win, leaving the Left gnashing their teeth and predicting an authoritarian/fascist takeover (the 89th this week!), but it’s not even that. It’s the fact the Left is softer on crime than President Brick Tamland likes his ice cream. If it were any softer, ED drug companies would use it as the “Before” picture in their print advertisements.

Which would help Elizabeth “Chief Running Mouth” Warren and Bernie “I’m Not Cool Enough For a Nickname” Sanders pad their pockets a bit more.

Did I say that out loud? No, I typed it out loud.

Anyway, there is a downside to reacting to crime with force, that being power is addictive. You think a crack habit is hard to break? Try being a Congresscritter with unlimited funds to play with and a city full of people who will let you play with it, and them. Even if you promise not to use your power for evil, there will always be the temptation to do it, which creates a problem in and of itself. When you make the law, you can make yourself above it very easily. And if there are no consequences when you break the law, you feel more and more untouchable.

And the more untouchable you feel, the more brazen you are with your crimes.

Although Trump’s actions in DC are a step in the right direction, it’s going to take a lot more steps to get to where we need to be, and they have to be careful steps. Anger from the killing of two young adults in such a short amount of time is understandable, but it cannot be the driving force because it can turn justice into vengeance. And that’s the Lord’s job. Well, either him or Ghost Rider.

Anyway, to me the only way to fight back against lawlessness is to show people a better way. Live your life with respect for others, even if they don’t share your worldview. Think before you act, and when you act, act with your head and your heart. You won’t be able to save everybody, but at least you won’t be adding to the situation that drives more and more people to become criminals. And don’t be afraid to call out fuckups on our side as well as theirs. What you allow your side to do is what you allow for the other side to do.

In closing, I feel horrible about what happened to Iryna and Charlie. I didn’t know either one of them well enough, but I’m a human being first and foremost. Pray for our country. We’re gonna need it.



Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week – Mail Bag Edition

Since there was nothing that struck my as particularly newsworthy or that I haven’t already mocked into next century, I thought I’d take a look inside the old Leftist Lexicon Mail Bag (as opposed to looking inside the Leftist Lexicon Male Bag, which would be rather painful). After all, I love getting all sorts of messages from my tens and tens of fans!

So, with no further ado (or adon’t), let’s dive right in!

Hi, Thomas. I’m a new reader and I want to know more about how you define a Leftist. Any insight would be greatly appreciated!

Of course! My definition of a Leftist is someone who thinks the government is the end all and be all of problem solving. And this isn’t just a Democrat thing, either. There were and are a lot of Republicans who I would call Leftist because they’re just as keen on big government as many Democrats are, even while complaining about government overreach when they’re not in power. As a small government kind of guy, I hate two-faced weasels like this.

What is your opinion of President Donald Trump?

Trump has always been a mixed bag for me. When he’s done or advocated for things that make sense, like DOGE or trying to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine, I’ve given him his due. When he’s done or advocated for things that don’t make sense, like his flip-flops on the Epstein files and his pussyfooting around with China, I’ve shaken my head in a “what in the Wide World of Fuck are you doing” kind of way. He’s not the man I’d want near the nuclear button, but he’s light years ahead of Queen Kamala the Appointed and President Brick Tamland.

And, yes, I realize that’s not a high bar to cross.

Democrats keep finding themselves on the wrong end of 80/20 issues lately. Why is that?

It’s complicated, but I’ll try to break it down.

Democrats have been on the defensive for the past few years due to a number of factors ranging from them overplaying their hands during COVID to just being absolutely tone-deaf when it comes to bread and butter issues. That, and they’re reflexively against anything President Trump supports, which puts them in a bind because he is a master of finding the pulse of the country and staking his claim on the side Americans want most. Whether he actually means it…well, that’s a different story altogether.

I know you’re against lawfare and weaponizing the federal government, so why haven’t you spoken out against Trump doing that, you MAGA asshole?

First off, I’m not MAGA, and never have been. It’s a catchy slogan, but it doesn’t give me a framework to build upon. What I think needs to happen to make America great is going to be vastly different than what someone else thinks needs to happen. Same goal, different approach.

Second, I am still firmly against the use of the legal system and the federal government to extract revenge on anyone. That’s just a jump to the left and then a step to the riiiiiight towards creating a perpetual cycle of courts and bureaucrats fucking over people they don’t like. And if you think Trump was going to let shit like what you did to him slide, you are a dumb motherfucker. Trump is petty personified. I tried to warn you, but you didn’t listen and now…enjoy the monster you created.

There’s a lot of tension between people these days. How do you think we can bridge the gap and unite again?

That’s an easy one to say, but harder to make real.

We have to get to a point where we see past our differences and focus on our common beliefs. I have a lot of friends from a wide swath of ideological beliefs, but I don’t let that stop me from being their friends. Only when lines get crossed do I cut ties, but most of the time nothing that someone says or believes is enough to make me stop liking them. Once most people start thinking like this, then we’ll see a societal shift towards unity.

Take this pill to increase your penis size by 5X. Click here for more information.

I’ll respond to this one privately. Moving on…

Hey MAGAt! How does it feel knowing you’re sucking on tRump’s cock as he leads us to a fascist future?

I had a similar conversation with an acquaintance recently. She saw herself as a member of the resistance fighting against the Nazis, a la the French Resistance, but I had to remind her she was cosplaying as a resistance fighter. No matter how much you hate Trump, you’d have a hard time selling me on the idea we’re either currently fascist or heading that way because…you’re still allowed to protest without fear of being prosecuted, persecuted, or a fuck-ton worse. Trump isn’t Hitler, and it’s time you get that through your pointy heads.

What are your preferred pronouns?

I don’t have any. I love all pronouns equally.

Who are your influences, political or otherwise?

When it comes to political influences, I lean into Ayn Rand, Ronald Reagan, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan. The latter two are because of when I started becoming politically aware and Rand because I could see where she was coming from and it made sense to me. Plus, all three championed being independent, even when the rest of the country didn’t agree. Being the sole person standing up for what’s right doesn’t make it the wrong thing because of the number of people saying it’s wrong.

Comedically, I draw a lot of influence from people like P. J. O’Rouke, Dennis Miller (even when he was more Left-leaning than he is today), George Carlin, Mark Twain, and Monty Python. Add the Zucker brothers to that mix, and you have me in a nutshell.

How do you deal with the insanity of the world today?

I try to match the world’s insanity, but try to make it humorous. Human beings have an amazing ability to make anything infinitely more complicated while assuming it’s a snap to do. If you let that kind of shit get to you, you’re going to be angry, frustrated, and may ultimately do something drastic, like becoming a Minnesota Vikings fan. (And I say that as a Vikings fan, no less!) The only way to get through life today is to find the funny and beautiful in life.

Failing that, there’s always booze.

What do you think is the biggest issue in America right now?

For me, it’s people comfortable with a lack of responsibility when they do shitty things. As much as the Left love to say “No one is above the law” there are a lot of people who seem to be above the law, and they tend to be on the Left. And until we get to see a bunch of people on both sides of the political slime trail frog-marched, tried, convicted, and sentenced appropriately for the crimes they commit, it’s not going to stick. And until we demand it, we’re not going to see it anytime soon.

You’re a fat fuck! Why don’t you lose weight?

I don’t know. Maybe I got scared off by Jim Fixx dying while jogging.

You call yourself a “recovering Leftist.” If you disagree with them so much, why do you still have a link to them?

The nature of Leftist ideology requires a level of deep commitment that one cannot completely detach from quickly. It’s very much like a cult, and it has been for a long time. But if the WalkAway Movement has shown, it’s possible to escape the Leftist hivemind and live a happier, more genuine life. Yet, even though I like the Left as much as I like genital herpes (not that I know anything about that, mind you), there are times when they are on the right side of an issue, even if it’s for completely different reasons than mine. My nature is to be honest, and when Leftists are right about something, I call it out.

It may be more rare than how Dracula likes his hamburgers, but I still do it.

I don’t know who you are. I don’t know what you want. If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don’t have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills, skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you.

And on that note, let’s close the mail bag for a while. Like a few centuries.





The Curious Case of Jasmine Crockett

As you might guess, I hold politicians in the same esteem as I hold most used car salespeople, but it’s a rare individual that makes me do a double take, and not just to look at their two faces.

One such individual is Texas Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett. She has garnered a lot of attention from both sides of the political aisle for her blunt talk and seemingly intelligent questions/retorts when asked questions or speaking at a committee meeting. Many on the Left consider her to be the de facto leader of the Democrats, and many on the Right are perfectly willing to let her be that. Regardless of the reasoning behind it, I figured I’d do some homework on the good Congresswoman and give my honest appraisal of her.

One of the first things that caught my attention was not where she stands on issues, but how she articulates them. (Sue me, I have an ear for that kind of thing.) I noticed there are times when she can be eloquent, even if her points are dumber than a bag of hammers. She reminds me of the old time fire and brimstone preachers when she speaks sometimes, full of passion and direct rhetoric designed to get us motivated to do better.

Then, there are times she takes on a different tone for different audiences. Behind her bravado there is also a woman who can speak softly or more down-to-earth. When she does this, she becomes more relatable and is actually charming.

Which makes for an interesting question: who is the real Jasmine Crockett?

That…is a complicated story.

Judging from her past, she has an educational pedigree that would rival many of her peers. She also has a legal background, where performance can mean the difference between a guilty and a not guilty.

At the same time, she’s kept in touch with “her” community. I put “her” in quotation marks because her pedigree clashes with the experience of the people she represents. She looks like them, but that doesn’t make the Venn diagram of her ability to relate to her constituents into a circle.

Not that it stopped her constituents from voting for her, mind you. For a lot of voters and politicians, there’s a notion that if someone looks like you, they’re better able to represent you because the voters feel a kinship. It’s not racially, politically, or socially driven; it’s hard-wired into our societal DNA. Sociologists note we feel most comfortable when we’re amongst people who look like us. And to be fair, whites have done some pretty shitty things to blacks in history, and vice versa, so it’s not hard to understand why we have racial division in this country stoked in part by the political leadership.

That brings us to the wonderful world of identity politics. Instead of being seen as the sum of one’s parts, identity politics seeks to strip a person down to his or her (still two genders, kids) basic attributes. And I’m not talking about anything more complex than surface attributes here. Then, consider intersectionality (which is pretty much trying to figure out who is most oppressed by looking solely at the aforementioned superficial aspects and checking off boxes because that’s totally how you determine how oppressed someone is in America, amirite?), and you’ve created Franken-Candidate. Or Franken-Candidate’s Monster if you’re pedantic. Or if you’re trying to excuse a former Minnesota Senator’s joking behavior caught on film.

Anyway, the point is Crockett is the right mix of racial and gender factors, well-heeled connections and urban appeal, and above all else Orange Man Bad levels that are over 9000. Yet, even with all of that, we still don’t really know who she is because there are so many conflicting pieces to this puzzle. For example, she gives two different stories about how she got promoted to a position early in her career. In one story, she busted her butt to earn the position, and in another she simply demanded it because she was black. Vastly different story depending on what version you hear at what time.

More recently, she’s gone on to the Social Media Network Formerly Known as Twitter to attack MAGA supporters who troll her. And this is after the multiple times she’s gone after MAGA supporters in Congress and in real life. When she gets on a roll, she sounds like a badass, but after this most recent social media meltdown, that may be the extent of her badassedness. She’s a Tweeting contradiction.

And that’s what makes Jasmine Crockett such a mystery to me. You don’t know what she’s going to say at what time, but she’s built up a fan club based on it (not unlike a certain President I know). As long as there are conflicting stories out there, there will always be some doubt as to what she truly stands for, at least to anyone paying close attention. To the Left, she’s a hero, taking the fight to the Republicans. To the Right, she’s a loud-mouthed joke not to be taken seriously.

And somewhere in between is…well, I can’t say for sure, but I’m not sure it’s where Jasmine Crockett is at any given time. All I know for sure is she’s going to be in our faces for a while longer.

Or until her district gets redrawn and she’s out of a job.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Mark Twain once wrote, “History never repeats itself, but it does often rhyme.” Far be it from me to disagree with one of my comedic idols, but I do have to disagree, thanks to the actions of one Donald J. Trump. And in Twain’s defense, he hadn’t experienced modern politicians.

While everyone else was obsessed with changing the Cracker Barrel logo, our President issued an Executive Order announcing his Administration would start prosecuting people who burned the American flag. Which caused Seattle Leftists (which is pretty much redundant) to…say it with me now…plan to burn the American flag.

But remember, kids. They’re smarter than we are. Just ask them.

While people on the Left and the Right debate this topic, I’d like to approach this week’s Lexicon entry with a bit more insight, and maybe a little more humor if you can dig that.

flag burning

What the Left thinks it means – burning a symbol of the country because it’s our First Amendment right to protest

What the Right thinks it means – burning a symbol of our country that shouldn’t be done because it shows disrespect for the county

What it really means – burning a symbol of the country because…reasons, I guess?

And just like that, I’m back in the early 1990s. A time when grunge started to fill the airwaves with more distortion than a Jen Psaki interview, but well before boy bands and Nickelback became the scourges we know them to be today. Flannel was a fashion staple, which surprised many lumberjacks who had been wearing it for centuries. Things were on the cusp of being EXTREEEEEEEEME!

And a young man named Gregory Lee Johnson was at the epicenter of a Supreme Court ruling regarding flag burning. Johnson burned a flag at the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas, and was fined and imprisoned under Texas law. After a prolonged legal battle (or in other words anything more complicated than a jaywalking ticket), the US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that flag burning was protected speech.

Which, to me, it is. The First Amendment protects our right to redress grievances with the government. Although I’m not sure the Founding Fathers would think an American citizen would resort to burning a flag as a means to make grievances known, I’m pretty sure they might not object to it as much as many on the Right do.

Meanwhile back at the main point, the President’s Executive Order suggests he doesn’t agree with the Supreme Court and wants to make the practice illegal all over America. Having a President at odds with the High Court isn’t anything new, but at least with Trump it’s entertaining.

As predictable as a weather forecast from, oh, now, the Left is rushing to defend flag burning using the First Amendment as a shield. Which, of course, is to be expected and supported…up to a point. More on that later.

Protest has been a part of the American life since, well, before there was a United States of America. Our very foundation was an act of defiance against England, and we’ve weathered the storms of everything from the Whiskey Rebellion to whatever the hell you want to call Queen Kamala the Appointed’s 2024 Presidential run. America isn’t a Fabrege egg; we are built on being able to take an asswhupping, standing up, and saying, “I can do this all day.“

And if you can’t trust America’s Ass, I don’t know who you could trust.

With all that being said, the Left has a teensy little issue regarding the desecration of a flag. And by teensy, I mean a rainbow colored or an off colored one. Seems the Left is perfectly fine burning, destroying, pissing on, or otherwise not respecting the American flag, but don’t you dare do anything to a gay or trans pride flag! That would be horrible, a sign of a deranged person consumed by sheer hatred of what that flag represents.

You know, like how the Right feels about people burning the American flag?

So, I hope you Leftists out there will excuse me for telling you to take a seat. Or two. Or a few million for that matter. And if you don’t excuse me, take the fucking seats anyway because you have fewer legs to stand on than Lieutenant Dan.

The Right is only marginally better than the Left here because they’re just playing by the rules the Left have set regarding flag burning, except for the American flag. That’s the issue a lot of people today have with the First Amendment, particularly the freedom of speech part. The First Amendment is supposed to protect all speech, even speech you find wrong. Today, you’re more likely to find a coherent sentence from President Brick Tamland than you are to find someone who actually understands this concept.

And since I’m one of them, the former President has some catching up to do.

So, we’re left with both the Left and the Right not getting this concept well enough to leave well enough alone, which is not unfamiliar territory for your humble provider of bloggy goodness, unfortunately. Both extremes agree on one thing: they protect their speech and fuck anyone else’s. Of course, that’s not how it works at all. If you want free speech for yourself, you have to allow free speech for others. This isn’t Golden Corral, where you can pick and choose what you get. When it comes to free speech, it’s all or nothing.

And when it comes to flag burning, I’m all in favor of it as a form of protest. Of course, it also allows me to use my “heckler’s veto” to mock it mercilessly. Really, has anybody watched a burning flag and said, “You know, I should really change my opinion on [insert name of issue here]”? Sure, it’s provocative, but it’s as edgy as a Nerf ball these days. These days, anything less than a burning Tesla recharging station is Hot Topic-level edginess. Seriously, all you’re doing is burning a symbolic piece of fabric. It’s as revolutionary as shoes with Velcro straps.

On second thought, Velcro straps are more revolutionary. And a lot more useful, now that I think about it.

If there’s anything from the 90s that should have made a comeback, it’s Hi-C Ecto Cooler. That shit was awesome! Instead, we get…flag burning.

And the worst thing? The Left finds itself yet again on the losing end of an 80-20 issue and they don’t even know it yet. Most Americans will side with the President on flag burning because they still feel some level of pride in this country and the flag over which it waves. They don’t hate it as much as the Left does, and with all the insane shit the Left is doing and finds itself supporting, people don’t have any other choice but to side with Trump.

Fucking. Brilliant.

At least we may be able to make it rhyme this time.

HEYYYYYYYY!