One of the most attractive elements of Leftist thought is how they take up for the underdogs. Even when it seems impossible, Leftists will side with the less fortunate in their attempts to defeat The Man. But I never would have thought they would actively try to become the underdogs.
It’s hard for me to pinpoint exactly when Leftists went nuttier than squirrel shit, but it was between the 2022 midterms and the 2024 Presidential election, probably when they realized Donald Trump was not only going to be the Republican nominee, but that he had a good chance of defeating President Brick Tamland. To be fair, a cardboard cut-out of Trump could have beaten the President and been far more articulate in doing so, but the point is the same. Somehow Trump broke the Left to the point they would protest breathing if Trump said, “I love oxygen. Oxygen is the greatest thing.”
And I know you read that in his voice.
Regardless of what the sensible action would be, Leftists have decided to take the under in almost every hot button issue today. When it comes to trans women in biological female spaces, they went with the trans women, no matter how creepy they were. Illegal immigrants who just happened to be connected to gangs? They sided with the illegal gang members. Government waste? Pile it on, buddy!
Spoiler Alert: It’s shit like this that cost you the 2024 Presidential election.
Many people have attempted to figure out why the Left takes the losing side of issues lately with various conclusions, ranging from not wanting to give Trump a W to Leftists being utter dumbasses. And to be honest I keep going back and forth between these two extremes (although they’re probably both right). Personally, I think it’s because of how partisan the country is right now.
Not that long ago, Democrats and Republicans could disagree on how things got done, but could find common ground on issues that would benefit the entire country, like defeating the Soviet Union. Once the Soviets fell, we no longer had an outward enemy, so we turned our sights inward and found new enemies. Since then, we got consumed by the Left and the Right fighting like the US and Soviets, only without the possibility of Mutually Assured Destruction.
Nowadays, MAD would be getting off easy. With the rise of Internet and social media culture, both sides are looking for ways to “own” the other side. And this is one reason Trump is so popular among the Right: he is a master of owning the Left. The problem for the Left is they don’t have anybody who can do the same to the Right. Oh, they think they have people, but they suck at it, and if they’re being honest with themselves (which is a stretch, I know), they would admit it.
Since they can’t due to not wanting to give even a micron to Trump, they’re stuck being the party of Jesse Helms, who was notorious for often being the sole “No” vote on bills. Oh, and being racist pricks.
Hence, the reason Leftists are running for every unpopular position with the American people. (The not wanting to give Trump even a micron bit, not the being racist pricks bit.) As a result, Democrats are getting as popular as STDs in a brothel. So, how are they trying to right…or left the ship?
Swearing a lot more.
And I’m not even fucking kidding.
As someone who occasionally peppers his posts with adult language, I can appreciate a good cuss word and, when done correctly, it can add impact to a statement. The way the Left has been doing it, though, is like seeing your grandma curse: it’s unexpected and even a little off-putting. Even when some of the more junior members of Congress do it, it doesn’t feel natural to me. If anything, it feels more like a political calculation that came out of a focus group rather than any genuine emotion.
And what’s worse than the potty mouths on the Left is the fact they keep doubling, tripling, and quadrupling down on their unpopular positions because…well, I’m still trying to figure that out. One thing that comes to mind is the Left’s desire to be on “the right side of history.” As noble as that sounds, it’s bullshit that falls apart under its own weight when balanced with another saying, “History is written by the victors.” For the Left’s version of history to be the right one, they have to win.
Granted, with some issues like civil rights and gay marriage, they ultimately won, but only after a prolonged struggle where public opinion shifted to adopt the Left’s position. In a world of TikTok and entitlement, though, that window shrinks significantly leaving only two options: shame the opposition into supporting the cause, or abandoning it when it gets nowhere.
Take the recent kerfluffle over the Equal Rights Amendment caused when President Brick Tamland and Vice President Kamala the Appointed tried to get it “ratified” by saying “it’s ratified.” All it took for the Left to adopt the squawking point was for the aforementioned political figureheads to put it out there. Of course, these same idiots didn’t bother to bring it up for the decades since the ERA failed to be ratified through the existing process. If it were such an important issue, the Left would have made it a cornerstone issue. And it’s not like they haven’t had control of Congress and the White House since the 80s. They had their chance, and they decided it wasn’t important enough to fight for.
So, ladies, how do you feel about voting for Leftists now?
This is going to be a major problem for Leftists going forward. The more they let themselves get played into supporting causes on the losing end of the polls just to spite Trump, the more potential voters they’re going to give away, and no amount of demanding those voters support Leftist candidates because reasons is going to change that. At some point, the political leadership will have to set aside their swearing and figure this out or else it’s going to be the year 8020 before they get a whiff of the White House again.
Not that I have a problem with that, mind you…
Tag: donald trump
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
In my 55 years of kicking around this ball of rock and water we call Planet Earth, I’ve seen some pretty amazing things. The first Space Shuttle flight. The Berlin Wall coming down. Internet porn…not that I know anything about that, mind you. But this past week, I saw something that caused me to almost swallow my face.
Leftists finally found asylum seekers they didn’t support.
President Donald Trump granted refugee status to white South Africans who were fleeing racial oppression at the hands of their government. So far a whopping 59 white South Africans came to America. And, predictably, the Left lost its collectivist shit over it trying to explain it away through cries of “racism” in lieu of “wolf” and whataboutism to the extent my Bullshit-O-Meter overloaded.
At the heart of this controversy is our asylum process. To put it mildly, it’s more fucked up than having Hunter Biden as an accountability buddy/crack dealer. So, naturally, it’s worth exploring further.
asylum
What the Left thinks it means – a means for oppressed people to come to America and seek a better life
What it really means – a process that needs a serious overhaul
To say our immigration policy is more fucked up than Sybil on LSD is an understatement, but we do try to set forth a semblance of a policy. In some cases, a situation is so dangerous or dire that we have to make exceptions to the normal immigration rules. That’s where the asylum process comes into play. Although it’s been abused…I mean used as a catch-all by previous Administrations that will remain nameless (but it rhymes with Slow Mindin’), there are certain criteria that have to be met before it can be granted. And even then, there’s the wonderful world of bureaucracy to deal with, which makes the process even more frustrating and/or dangerous.
This is where the Left gets things wrong when it comes to asylum. As much as “no one is above the law” has become a mantra when it comes to President Donald Trump, the Left believes the law can and should be circumvented for every Tomas, Ricardo, and Jaime that arrives at our southern border without even trying to seek asylum. Although it’s amazing elected officials are ignorant of the laws on the books and the concept that breaking these laws is a crime, it did lead to one of the most epic takedowns in Congressional history.
Oh, and a tip for the gamblers out there. If you ever bet on the number of fucks Tom Homan gives, always bet the under.
This brings us to the current situation involving the white South Africans. President Trump called what they experienced as a “genocide,” which is a gross overstatement and unnecessary given the conditions already in place. However, there are details that can move that needle one way or the other.
It started with a little thing the kids call apartheid. For almost 50 years, white South Africans treated the black population as second-class citizens at best. This was a bad idea, not just because it was racist and stupid, but because the whites were and still are vastly outnumbered. This practice got the boot in the 1990s due in no small part to Nelson Mandela.
Then, something predictable happened: the oppressed became the oppressors. Once black South Africans got into power, the urge to flip the script was too great, and the white South Africans found themselves on the wrong side of the apartheid stick.
Where things get really funky (and not in a Parliament Funkadelic way) is the passage of a law where white South African farmers had to give up portions of their land without compensation because racial justice or something. Even if you think it’s okay given how much property white South African farmers own, the civil libertarian in me (and hopefully in you) says that’s not right. If you own something and any entity takes it from you, you are due compensation of some kind, whether it be monetary, legal, or legislative.
Now, remember the criteria for asylum I referenced and linked earlier? One of them involves persecution or possible persecution on the basis of…race. And, surprise surprise, white South Africans have a pretty good case for that based on the aforementioned land law.
Oh, and there’s the “Kill the Boer. Kill the Farmer.” song popularized by anti-apartheid groups and more recently by Julius Malema, a political leader in South Africa. While Leftists swing between “it’s not about white genocide” and “it could be construed as being in favor of white genocide,” the simplest explanation is…fuck yeah it’s about white genocide, and only fucking dipshits would say it wasn’t!
Oddly enough, the Leftists who think it’s not about white genocide are the same people who take Donald Trump literally whenever he says anything even slightly controversial in a joking manner.
Regardless, the white South Africans have a legitimate case for asylum, so why is the Left complaining if following the law is so important to them? You know, aside from being hypocritical asshats. Fortunately for us, they’ve tipped their hands early and often. It’s all about racism. Sure, Leftists say it’s Trump being racist because he’s allowing white South Africans to get asylum, but it’s the other way around; Leftists want to deny them entry because of their skin color.
Simple enough, but there’s another reason related to the race issue. Leftists have tried to turn racism from hatred of another race (which it is) into hatred of another race with the inclusion of power (which is bullshit). Without going too far into the weeds, let’s just say the Left’s revised version of racism does more to create minority victims than actual racism does, which makes it racist by definition. Funny how that works out, isn’t it?
Why do I mention this? For one, it pads out the Lexicon entry a bit. But more to the point, the situation with the white South Africans puts the Left’s definition of racism on its head. They may own the vast majority of the land, but that in and of itself isn’t power. The power in South Africa is clearly on the side of the black population, so the Left’s dynamic doesn’t work. But since they can’t admit that, they pretend a) it doesn’t exist, b) it’s totes different because reasons, or c) Orange Man Bad!
The problem, of course, is the law itself. Racial persecution is clearly written and is hard to argue against in this case, but dammit the Left is going to try!
Which is why I think we need to overhaul the asylum process when we’re overhauling our immigration system. To the Left’s credit, they are correct that economic issues are a valid reason to consider offering asylum to others, especially if we want to be seen as a land of opportunity. The question becomes where do we draw the line. The way we’ve done it recently is not sustainable and creates a dangerous strain on our social safety net. If we demand these potential asylees bring something worthwhile to the table (i.e. marketable skills, a good work ethic, etc.), we run the risk of looking heartless or driven solely by materialism.
Beyond that, the current asylum process can take years. There’s tons of paperwork, red tape, and contradictory practices to overcome. So, we’re left with the challenge of streamlining the process while keeping as many relevant avenues to asylum open without stretching ourselves too thin.
Good luck with that.
Seriously, the best way I can figure out how to tick all of these boxes is to create a system to separate the different types of asylee claims to maximize the speed at which they can be processed. And with specialization, it’s going to create a stronger knowledge base overall. Instead of having to have 100 people looking at the full gamut of cases, you can have 10 people working on economic asylum requests, another 10 working on racial asylum claims, and so on. Through that process, the groups of 10 are going to gain an intimate understanding of that particular process. Then, if you have a case that covers more than one asylee area, they can be called in to offer their expert opinions.
With everything electronic these days, doing a background check and filling out paperwork can be quicker and easier. It shouldn’t take cutting down a forest for a mountain of paperwork to come here under dire circumstances. There are other reasons to cut down a forest, after all. (Just kidding, environmentalists!) And we can hire some of the Sallie Mae folks to do the background checks, which will guarantee the asylees can be found.
And finally, and this is the hardest part, we need to approach each claim the same: with a healthy mix of optimism and skepticism. Not every asylum claim is truthful, but we can’t assume they’re all fraudulent. It’s going to take some research and knowledge of world events to pick out the bad actors from the legitimately needy.
That eliminates TikTokers.
But it opens the door for people like me who are curious, compassionate, and cynical. In fact, Gen X is gonna be flush with job opportunities for decades to come, so win-win baby!
As far as the white South Africans, welcome to America, where most people will welcome you and those who don’t claim to be all about diversity. Ignore the latter and you’ll be fine. Most of us do, and those who don’t are getting something out of it, like content for a mildly successful weekly blog series written by a handsome, well hung, and incredibly sexy man.
And since you haven’t found that one yet, read mine!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Have you ever spent a ton of money on something you barely use and then wonder why you’re still spending money on it? Lately, the Trump Administration has been wondering about that in the area of public broadcasting. Thanks to a recent Executive Order, National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service may find their funding cut due to allegations of bias. Of course they deny it (using the same terminology, I might add), which leads us to the inevitable question: why do Republicans want to kill Big Bird?
Or, better yet, the inevitable Leftist Lexicon entry.
public broadcasting
What the Left thinks it means – a valuable service that provides balanced and factual reporting
What it really means – taxpayer-funded propaganda favoring the Left
Both NPR and PBS are under the umbrella of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a private non-profit. They describe themselves as:
the steward of the federal government’s investment in public broadcasting and the largest single source of funding for public radio, television, and related online and mobile services.
In other words, they handle the money once they get it from us. And with an operating budget of $545 million for Fiscal Year 2025, that’s ain’t petty cash. So, what are we getting for this investment?
That depends on who you ask. If you ask the heads of NPR and PBS (or their squawking heads), they’re providing a valuable service to society, the economy, and education. To someone who used to work there, it’s become a Leftist mouthpiece, which has negatively affected the public’s trust in it. To me, a consumer of what public broadcasting has put forth over the years, it’s a mixed bag.
Remember Slobodan Milosevic? Not only is it one hell of a Scrabble score, but he was the former leader of Kosovo, accused of ethnic cleansing. As it turns out, I first heard his name while listening to NPR’s “All Things Considered,” and at the time I thought their coverage was pretty balanced. Then, when Leftists decided ethnic cleansing was bad, that coverage changed and Milosevic became Public Enemy #1. Well, #2 after Rush Limbaugh.
I bring that up to a) show off the big brain on Thomas, and b) give you an idea of the subtle biases that was already involved in NPR’s reporting. The Left doesn’t come right out and say “We’re biased as fuck and we don’t care.” At least, outside of MSNBC, and they’re not really a news channel as much as a way for Al Sharpton to keep getting a steady paycheck. Their bias comes through through less obvious means. A turn of a phrase here, a descriptive word there, and before you know it, you’re being indoctrinated.
Just ask Bernard Goldberg.
Where PBS and NPR get more cover than the traditional media is in the idea they just present facts. Welllll…that’s subject to debate. Sometimes they present facts, and other times they suppress them, like they did with the Hunter Biden laptop story. Their now-infamous statement about why they didn’t cover it?
We don’t want to waste our time on stories that are not really stories, and we don’t want to waste the listeners’ and readers’ time on stories that are just pure distractions.
Yeah, because who would want to hear about what’s on the laptop of the President’s addict son during a Presidential election? That would be like…oh, I don’t know…covering when the Bush twins got busted for fake IDs when their dad was President.
Oh, wait…
Setting the bias aside for the time being, there is a serious question on the table: should we be funding public broadcasting using federal tax dollars? The artist in me says we should because it provides viewpoints and entertainment people might not get otherwise. Like reruns of “Are You Being Served?” or “The Red Green Show.” The capitalist in me says we shouldn’t because PBS and NPR should be able to stand or fall on its own merits like any other media outlet. Like reruns of “Are You Being Served?” or “The Red Green Show.”
Where I come down on the question is…kinda both options? I appreciate the fact public broadcasting exists and, when the product is closer to the lofty goals of the CPB, it’s pretty fucking good. When the product is tainted by biases, the image of public broadcasting suffers.
Although it would be easier to find a time when Adam Schiff hasn’t made himself look like a dumbass, I don’t think it’s impossible for public broadcasting to change its fortunes without costing taxpayers a fortune in the process. The first step (which is always the hardest, especially if you’re drunk) is to remove any pretense of moral and intellectual superiority. You may think you’re providing pure wisdom from the gods themselves, but you’re really just college radio and public access TV stations with a trust fund. Get off the Shetland Pony you call a high horse and just talk to us like we’re fellow human beings.
And while we’re here, let’s figure out a way to reduce dependence on donations and federal funding by spinning off popular intellectual properties. Take “Sesame Street,” for example. The nonprofit behind it struck a deal with HBO to run new episodes exclusively with those same episodes being shown on PBS after a few months. Now that this deal has reached its end, there’s a possibility of Disney buying it. And considering Disney already owns the Muppets, it’s not that much of a stretch.
Imagine being able to do that with other public broadcasting properties. Yes, I understand doing so would be hard for some people to take because they think selling a property is selling out. On the other hand, it’s really no different than what the CPB already does with different foundations and companies picking up the tab for programming. And, you might actually be able to get free of the federal influence, which will give you more freedom to thrive.
Unless, of course, you want to keep donating the GDP of small island nations to get a crappy tote bag. At least with a more capitalist approach, you might be able to get a crappy tote bag for a lot less.
Meanwhile, public broadcasting could use a few more encouraging voices to help them navigate the possibility of being without federal funding. When PBS and NPR do well, tell them and, if you’re so inclined, toss them a few bucks. When they fuck up, call them out and offer constructive feedback. They may not take it, but at least you tried in a way that doesn’t come off as automatically anti-public broadcasting.
When you really think about it (and I do because the Interwebs went out at Casa de Tomas recently), public broadcasting provides us with all sorts of programming that appeals to different audiences. And, aside from the amount we kick in unintentionally via taxes, it’s free-ish. You can do a lot worse than watching a nature documentary, period dramas, British sitcoms, and the occasional Doctor Who episode.
And given what DOGE has found so far, we’ve spent money on a lot worse.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
The Leftist world was all atwitter (or if you prefer all aX) recently with the story of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a poor illegal alien soul who was deported back to his home country of El Salvador, allegedly without due process. Without going too far into the weeds, let’s just say you’re more likely to catch Bernie Sanders flying on a private plane than you are to understanding the ins-and-outs of this case.
Wait. Scratch that.
So, to borrow a phrase from hack comedians, what’s the deal with deportation? It’s a complicated issue that deserves sober thinking to understand the gravitas of the subject. But since I’m already a few beers into this, you’ll have to put up with me.
deportation
What the Left thinks it means – a practice that needs to be done by the book, no matter how long it takes
What it really means – the legal consequence for illegal immigration
Contrary to what Rep. Jasmine Crockett says, illegal immigration is a crime. The law in question is the Immigration and Nationality Act which, along with other laws and regulations, provides direction for the immigration and deportation processes. Seems everything should be in order, right?
Not so much.
Much like Disney with negative reviews of “Snow White,” our political class loves to ignore the laws on the books when they’re inconvenient. And let’s just say the immigration laws are mighty inconvenient to the Left. After all, that’s the use of following immigration laws if they prevent you from ensuring Democrat control? You know, aside from those laws being the fucking laws.
That’s not to say Leftists don’t follow the laws all the time. In fact, one area where they demand the laws be followed to the letter is in…you guessed it, Frank Stallone. Actually, it’s deportation, which is really convenient considering it’s our topic for this Lexicon entry. After allowing people to enter the country through our southern border like wine moms going to a Taylor Swift concert, it’s funny to watch Leftists be such sticklers to the letter of the law.
And by “funny,” I mean calculated.
I know I’ve mentioned our good friend Saul Alinsky so often I could be his agent, but one of his Rules for Radicals applies here: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” Since Republicans believe in the rule of law (unless they find the laws inconvenient for political gain), the Left knows it has them in a box when it comes to immigration. If we have to follow the laws when it comes to stopping illegal immigration, we have to follow the laws when it comes to deportation.
And that’s where Constitutional law comes into play. The US Supreme Court previously ruled all aliens are entitled to due process under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. So, that means regardless of the way they come into the country, they get their day in court.
A noble gesture in theory, but a burden in current practice, thanks to a little thing the Leftist kids like to call the Cloward-Piven Strategy. In short, this strategy is designed to achieve Leftist goals related to poverty by forcing the system to get overwhelmed. And guess how that gets accomplished: illegal immigration.
“But wait, Thomas. Wouldn’t illegal immigrants be ineligible for federal benefits?” you might ask. Or “Are you aware you’re not wearing pants?” The answer to the former is they should be, but thanks to loopholes in the law and soft-hearted and soft-brained politicians (I’m looking at you, Gavin Newsom), they gain access.
So, what does this have to do with deportation? By having to follow due process and the delays caused by so many illegal immigrants being processed over the past few years, the strain to the social safety net continues unabated.
That is, until President Trump got back into the Oval Office and decided to start enforcing immigration law. In the first six weeks, the Trump Administration deported 27,772 illegal immigrants, which is a step in the right direction. Where I think they’ve gone wrong is through fast-tracking the process. Yes, I know this plays into the Cloward-Piven and Alinsky playbooks, but it’s necessary to ensure the Left has no room to bitch. Not that it will stop them, mind you…
Nor will it stop the Left from lying. With the Kilmar Abrego Garcia case alone, we’ve seen attempts from the Left to paint him as an innocent victim denied due process and attempts from the Right to paint him as a gang-banger terrorist who has been legally deported back to his home country of El Salvador. Well, the truth is a bit murkier than these extremes are letting on.
First off, Kilmar Abrego Garcia freely admits he entered the country illegally, but has received a court order preventing him from being deported back to El Salvador out of fear of being attacked by a rival gang. So, not only have we confirmed he’s a member of a gang (MS-13 to be exactly, and I ain’t talking about Microsoft) and that he’s not supposed to be here, but he’s already had due process. But he also has a court order that should have protected him from deportation, as well as a questionable designation as a terrorist.
That means…well, a whole lotta shit, to be honest. If we deport him, we run afoul of the legal process. If we don’t deport him, he will still be affiliated with MS-13 which could put us in mortal danger.
Congratulations. We’re now in Kobayashi Maru territory.
The only way forward is being transparent, follow the law, and, oh yeah, stem the flow of illegal immigration to give the system time to catch up. And guess what the Trump Administration is doing? They’re cracking down, and that’s resulted in reduced encounters at the US/Mexico border. It’s a start, but there’s still a lot more to do.
First of all, let’s stop treating gang members like terrorists. Not only does it set a bad precedent for future Presidents, but it gives Leftists ammunition to call the deportation process into question. And, let’s face it, it’s not exactly the swiftest nor the clearest process in government. Plus, it elevates gang members, which only feeds their egos and gives them enough bravado to commit bigger, more audacious crimes. That, in turn, may cause other gangs to try to play catch-up, making the gang problem even worse.
Second, as much as the Trump Administration wants to rush through the deportation process to get results, we have to play it by the book. It won’t stop Leftists from lying or making gang-bangers look sympathetic figures, but it cuts the due process complaint they have off at the knees. And at the very least, it will make Leftists look like Cotton Hill, which will never fail to make me laugh.
Lastly, it’s long past time we overhaul our immigration and deportation policies. And that requires taking a hard look at our border policies. We can’t keep letting anyone with a sob story (and without paperwork) walk in unexamined while others jump through bureaucratic flaming hoops to gain legal entry. As draconian as Leftists think Trump’s border enforcement may be, it’s working. That gives us time to get our house in order.
If you really think about it (and I have because I’m as boring as an Amish rave), the deportation issues we’re seeing now are an outgrowth from the immigration issue. The more illegal immigrants come into the country, the more deportation orders have to be made once they’re caught. Of course, Leftists will continue to push for sanctuary cities and sanctuary states because, well, they don’t have to deal with the aftermath since they live more in the suburbs than where the illegal immigrants are.
So, let me float this idea, one that I’ve modified from Governors Ron Desantis and Greg Abbott. While they flew illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities and states, I want to send them to the residences of those who insist on being sanctuary cities and states. Preferably, to the houses of those politicians who made those things possible. Maybe that will drive home the point that illegal immigration isn’t something we should encourage.
Or, at the very least, we can point and laugh as we give Leftists exactly what they said they wanted.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Since Donald Trump was reelected, people have kept an eye on the economy since that was one of the areas he ran on. After all, President Brick Tamland’s economy was one of the world’s biggest dumpster fires (in spite of Leftists saying everything was fine like Kevin Bacon in “Animal House”). So, naturally, we were curious what Trump could to to put out the fire.
And apparently, he’s big on tariffs.
Tariffs are a touchy subject because there are so many people talking about them, but very few who understand them. So, just like social media on any day ending with “day.” Since there are so many armchair economists spouting off, I might as well give it a go.
tariffs
What the Left thinks it means – an indirect tax on goods and services that will hurt everyone
What it really means – an economic bargaining chip if things are done right
Since I’m only an armchair economist, the good folks at Investopedia have a pretty good explanation of what tariffs are and how they can impact us. For the purposes of this sketch, tariffs are additional taxes levied on imports designed to get the exporting countries to cut us a deal. This is what I mean when I say they’re an economic bargaining chip.
The problem comes when the country whose goods are getting slapped with tariffs doesn’t want to play ball. That can lead to economic and diplomatic strife if both sides continue to jack up tariffs like they’re a tub of popcorn and a small pop at a movie theater. Anything larger than a small pop requires a credit check.
The way the Left sees tariffs is correct, but only to a point. Yes, tariffs can cause prices to rise, but it’s not a guarantee. However, it does cause shitty memes.
If you’re not into clicking links, let me describe the meme. The title is “How Tariffs Work” and it pictures Donald Trump pissing into a fan and getting hit in the face with his own piss. Cute? Maybe. Funny? Possibly. Accurate? Wellllll…not so much.
The meme’s assumption (provided I don’t get smacked by Chris for stealing his “In the Meme Time” bit) is tariffs will always backfire, especially when it comes to Trump. But what happens if they don’t? The cartoon doesn’t even consider that possibility, which shows at best a surface understanding of basic economics.
Which means Leftists aren’t prepared to talk about the companies who have already decided not to test Trump on tariffs and made arrangements to avoid or lessen their impact. Their squawking points only go as far as “things are going to be more expensive.”
You know, like things under President Brick Tamland?
But there is one element the Left keeps overlooking when complaining about tariffs: Trump is pushing for reciprocal tariffs. Basically, it’s a tit-for-tat move. The higher the tariffs on us, the higher Trump will set the tariffs on them. And needless to say, we’ve been on the wrong end of the tariff game with a lot of countries. We will have to see what this will do because I’m not sure anyone knows what will happen.
Especially not the Left.
When it comes to economics, Leftists are as smart as Eric Swalwell among female Chinese spies. They know a few terms and can bullshit their way through a discussion (provided it’s shorter than a ferret’s attention span after a quadruple espresso laced with truck stop speed), but when it comes to actual knowledge, they are lacking. Want proof? One of the Left’s favorite economists is Paul Krugman, a man whose accuracy percentage looks like the ERA of a really good pitcher.
The reason for this is simple: Leftists don’t get economics. Remember, Leftists thrive on emotion, and you just can’t fee-fee your way to a good economy. There are hard and fast rules, concrete numbers, and historical data to contend with, which make it harder for Leftists to digest. That’s why they tend to make emotional appeals when they talk about economic issues. Once you accept them as valid, they take the high ground.
Which explains the Left’s approach to the tariff issue. They want people to believe only the worst of outcomes awaits us, just like they do with any Republican or conservative idea. DOGE is intrusive. Closing the Department of Education will make students dumber (to which I say how could you tell the difference). And tariffs are totally bad.
Which is why other countries have tariffs on our shit. Because tariffs are bad, m’kay?
I think the Left’s objection to Trump’s tariffs stems from a belief America deserves to have to pay more for foreign goods because we have it so good here. To them, America is wealthy, so we can afford to pay jacked up costs (except when it comes to shit like healthcare, student loans, the cost of living, etc.). Although we are still one of the prime movers of the global economy, we should be more frugal in what we buy and from where. As the song says, “You’d better shop around.”
Either that or, “Do do do do do do do do do do do do do do do.” I always get those two songs mixed up.
Anyway, I’m going to take a wait-and-see approach to Trump’s tariffs. It’s way too early to dismiss them as a failure or a success, but try telling either extreme that in their rush to be right. If Trump can make good on his promise, all the better. If not, he’s going to have to do some fast talking to get himself out of this mess, which will give Leftists plenty of fodder for the 2026 midterm elections. It’s a pretty big gamble, so let’s see if we hit the jackpot or don’t have a pot to piss in.
Oh, and Leftists? Can you learn how to meme, for the love of Pete?
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
As social media and other electronic forms of communication have evolved, there is still a fundamental truth that will always remain: someone is going to fuck it up. Whether it’s the idiots who hit “Reply All” on a mass email asking to be taken off the email or posting videos on Instagram that results in getting the poster fired, people can and will be boneheads.
Just like members of the Trump Administration, thanks to a little app called Signal and a reporter named Jeffery Goldberg. The short version of the story is government officials including Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth discussing an impending military strike. And Goldberg was somehow invited to be in the chat.
And just as predictably, Leftists want to turn this matter into a major scandal because it’s not like they have anything to do between firebombing Tesla dealerships and posting lame videos about an impending silent riot. (Yes, it’s just as stupid as it sounds.) But is it a nothingburger or a major scandal requiring figurative heads rolling? Let’s find out!
Signalgate
What the Left thinks it means – a major scandal that exposes the Trump Administration’s incompetence
What it really means – a boneheaded move that may or may not have legs
One of the hardest things to get a handle on when researching this situation is figuring out the severity of it. It’s definitely a bad look, but so is the “Choose Your Fighter” video put out by Democrats. (And for those of you who click on the link, I cannot be personally held responsible for any brain cells lost.)
Where things get muddy is what security level the information in this chat was. I will be the first one to admit I don’t know shit about fuck when it comes to security levels. The best parallel I can make is the various internal security settings on company emails. The main difference? An email from Steve from Accounting about cover sheets on TPS reports probably won’t start a nuclear war.
I say probably because there’s always a chance. Fucking Steve from Accounting!
If you’re really interested in classified information designations, Wikipedia has a breakdown and the history behind it.
Anyway, we have two different camps. One side thinks Signalgate is a nothingburger with a side of nonion rings and a Coke Zero. The other side thinks it’s a major security breach that puts us in danger. Meanwhile, I’m somewhere in the middle based on the sheer dishonesty from both extremes.
Let’s face it, the MAGA Right has a vested interest in playing defense, mainly because they don’t want to give the Left any Ws. In an environment where politics is divided into teams, neither side wants to admit defeat, even when it would be the best thing to do in order to get past a scandal. And when your entire political existence is wrapped up in a single political figure, you’re going to do whatever it takes to keep your guy clean.
Meanwhile, the Left has a vested interest in attacking, mainly because they have nothing going for them. Their approval rating is further in the tank than Michael Dukakis circa 1988. Their attempts to get younger voters? Swear a lot more. And on top of that, there’s party infighting with younger party members openly questioning the old guard. (And I’m talking reaaaaalllllly old here.) They need a unifying issue to at least pretend like they’re on speaking terms.
Clowns to the Left of me, Jokers to the Right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you. I’m sorry.
As of this writing, the chat screenshots are still coming out in dribs and drabs, due in part to the journalist who shouldn’t have been there in the first place, Jeffery Goldberg. Whomever let a known Trump basher in on this chat needs to be fired. Preferably out of a cannon.
And if the fucknuts who said “Hey, let’s make Signal a thing in the federal government” is still employed by the Trump Administration, he or she should be fired. Out of a catapult. You know, just to switch things up.
Let me make this perfectly clear to the Trump Administration members reading this: whenever you use any social media app, it’s only a matter of time before shit gets leaked. Provided you’re not dumb enough to post that shit willingly, mind you. (I’m looking at you, Anthony “I Have a Small” Weiner.) If you have Signal on your phones, delete it, destroy your phone, and get a brand new one. And for God’s sake, don’t download it or any other social media apps ever again! Let’s the public find out about information leaks the old fashioned way: in the Weekly World News.
Where the Left has a point is Signalgate has some legs to it. Not only is it a black eye to the credibility of the Trump Administration, but it shows a level of judgment that doesn’t bode well for the next 3+ years. Trump needs to get his shit together and fast before his second term gets sidetracked by unnecessary bullshit.
Or you can sit back and watch the proverbial circular firing squad going on in Leftist circles, knowing they’re too inept to do anything.
Personally, I prefer option 1. Being President isn’t an entry level position. It takes at least some level of competency to be effective. Granted, we’re coming off a low point after President Brick Tamland, but that’s no excuse to coast. Fix this shit!
And for the Left, as long as you have Hillary Clinton on your side, you can take all the seats regarding the handling of sensitive information.
As for the rest of us, we’ll have to see how Signalgate shakes out. Hopefully, there isn’t any military or foreign relations fallout from it. If not, Lucy won’t be the only one with some ‘splainin’ to do.
And with that reference, I am officially old.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
When Donald Trump won a second stint as President, his supporters saw opportunities to start remaking the government in his image. And for a while, things went swimmingly. Trump’s Cabinet nominees were confirmed, Leftists made asses out of themselves in the process, and some bold ideas got advanced. Everything seemed to be going great.
And then judges got involved.
Time after time, judges ruled and temporarily locked some initiatives or struck down others. While the MAGA Right got upset that who they see as activist judges obstructed Trump’s plans, Leftists cheered, citing checks and balances as justification.
Time to go back to your civics classes, kids, because this one’s gonna be a thinker!
checks and balances
What the Left thinks it means – a Constitutional protection that is rightly obstructing President Trump’s agenda
What the Right thinks it means – a Constitutional protection that is wrongly obstructing President Trump’s agenda
What it really means – a Constitutional protection that is being bastardized due to politics
As you may know or at least gleaned from old “Schoolhouse Rock” episodes, we have three co-equal branches of government: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. In terms of the law, the Legislative branch passes the law, the Executive branch enforces the law, and the Judicial branch interprets the law. And, for the most part, this system works pretty well.
That is until we get into the wonderful world of Executive Orders. Basically, Executive Orders are when the President says “This is the way shit’s gonna be because fuck you I’m the President, bitches!” Granted, this power is limited in one of three ways.
1. Congress can pass legislation to negate or circumvent the Executive Order.
2. The judicial branch can rule the Executive Order breaks federal law or the Constitution.
3. A future President can revise or negate the Executive Order by issuing a new Executive Order.
The heart of the current conflict involves the second one. Since the President is trying to get things done via Executive Orders, the courts can get involved and tell the President to pound sand, as they’ve done repeatedly since the Trumpster resumed the Presidency.
In other words, it’s checks and balances in action. Or is it?
Where things get a bit muddy is in the Judicial branch’s power to interpret the law. If each judge were committed to the rule of law and the Constitution, this wouldn’t be an issue. But since we live in the real world, it is. And we have politics to thank for it.
Much like an STD, politics can turn an important job like interpreting the law into a position where a judge can put his or her thumb on the scales of Justice to rule as he/she fits…or how his/her backer(s) want him/her to rule. But unlike an STD, the only fucking going on is being done in the courts, and it’s going to take a lot more than the right meds to fix things.
In recent years, politics has wormed its way into the judicial branch, whether it be from the Left or the Right. And when you really think about it, having political backers support you in any number of ways makes it easier for judges to say “fuck it” and rule the way the backers want them to, which makes the checks and balances part of the equation a lot less just.
The Right, especially the MAGA Right, think the solution to the problem is impeaching judges, which has gotten predictable pushback. Although this is a strategy, it’s not a good one because it sets a bad precedent, one that Leftists will definitely use. Judges can be impeached, but there has to be something to it besides “this asshole is blocking what we want to do.” In most cases, actually, that’s not a crime so much as it is a service to the country. Even so, impeaching a judge because you don’t like his or her ruling sets the table for when the opposing party gets into power and you find some of your favorite judges getting shit-canned for obstructing the President’s agenda.
And outside of “American Idol” or “America’s Got Talent” you really shouldn’t have a favorite judge. The judicial system is not a place for idolatry or fandoms.
Now that I’ve pretty much confused/bored/enraged/amused you, let me get back to the main subject of this Lexicon entry.
The Left is using the checks and balances card as both a shield and a sword (which would be pretty cool now that I think about it). On the one hand, it’s used as a shield to absolve the judges of any criticism of their rulings, no matter how fucked up they are. They can throw up their arms and say “well, the judge is only acting as a check on President Trump’s power, so it’s okay.” But just wait until the US Supreme Court makes a ruling they don’t like and their love of checks and balances.
The way they use the check and balances like a sword is to annoy MAGA supporters. All it takes is a “ha ha Trump lost in the courts again” and the MAGA Right goes ballistic. Which is exactly what the Left wants the MAGA Right to do because it plays into their narrative about Trump supporters being unhinged and incapable of accepting any negative outcomes.
And, to be fair, some of the MAGA Republicans are playing a little too closely to the typecasting.
Of course when the roles are reversed, both sides flip like an IHOP cook working straight commission per flapjack, but that’s not important.
What is important is recognizing the checks and balances as they’re being used today don’t work as intended. The Founding Fathers set up the checks and balances system to ensure all three branches of government could keep each other honest without one branch getting too much power. Nowadays Congress has electile dysfunction, so even the simplest of tasks become an exercise in futility or gets loaded down by more riders than a Hell’s Angels convention clashing with a rodeo convention. We’ve already touched on the problems with the Judicial branch, and that leads us to the Executive branch.
And the less said about that, the better.
So, how do we fix it? Unfortunately, we can’t. Even if we elect good people (which are rarer in politics than the way Count Dracula likes his steak), they will get ground up by the political machine, run by people who have long since thrown away any concept of following the rules as written. The only way to get things back on track is a bit on the drastic side.
We have to nuke the site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.
A bonus 500 Leftist Lexicon points if you got that reference.
Seriously, we’re at a point where the checks and balances are imbalanced either through bureaucracy, lust for power, or just general dumbfuckery, and neither major party wants to do anything about it. They would prefer to be outraged when the checks and balances don’t go their way than to actually make sure the checks and balances are still there in the first place. (Spoiler Alert: they ain’t.)
So, the only solution I can see is to hit the reset button and start over. I’m guessing it’s somewhere under the Washington Monument because why wouldn’t it be there. Good luck getting to it, though.
Under advice from my lawyer, I’m not allowed to say anything more on the subject. Good luck on finding that button!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Being a Leftist in the second Donald Trump Presidency has to be rough. Not only do you have to deal with knowing the man you’ve tried to sue into oblivion is in the White House again, but you’re whiny pussies on top of it. Because or in spite of this, Leftists have taken up the mantle of being “the resistance,” which gives them a source of inspiration to do things.
Like vandalizing Tesla vehicles.
And with a cable news network giving these actions a resistance tag, it’s bound to empower more Leftists to resist.
On the bright side, it gives me a opportunity to mock them!
resistance
What the Left thinks it means – standing up to the fascist/authoritarian Trump Administration and conservatives
What it really means – Leftist pussies cosplaying as badasses
Back in the heady days of 2017, Leftists were coming off a stunning upset after Trump beat former First Lady, Secretary of State, and general horndog enabler Hillary Clinton. As any mature adult would do, they looked back at the loss, recalibrated their strategy, and came back with a new approach to winning elections.
I’m kidding. They started pretending to be fictional characters.
Whether it was invoking the Rebel Alliance from “Star Wars” or Lord Voldemort from the Harry Potter books (before they decided J. K. Rowling was too toxic for…checking my notes…standing up for biological women against transgender women), the Left went into full-blown delulu mode. This served a few purposes, not the least of which was making themselves into the heroes and, by extension, their actions righteous. This made even their most egregious actions justifiable in their eyes since the “evil” they were fighting against was worse.
Ah, moral relativism. Ain’t it great?
Empowered by their self-righteous indignation, the Left was able to parlay that into action, namely riots…I mean protests. Whether it was the George Floyd protests, Black Lives Matter, or taking over a section of Seattle and setting up an autonomous zone (CHOP/CHAZ for the people playing along at home), Leftists were able to grab attention and headlines.
Oh, and a few criminal charges. You know, for being dumbasses.
With the second Trump Presidency underway, the “resistance” has gone back to their old habits and become assholes again. When they aren’t going after Tesla vehicles (and the people inside them), they’re organizing protests in each state and boycotts. Because nothing sticks it to The Man like…gathering in public areas with signs and not shopping.
Don’t look at me. It doesn’t make any sense to me either.
And that’s pretty much the problem with the resistance we’re seeing these days. The closer you look at it, the less sense it makes. Sure, there are some causes like trans rights, immigration, and whatever the fuck Representative Jasmine Crockett says on any given day, but most of it is a patchwork of smaller causes coming together to fight fascism, authoritarianism, or whatever the fuck Representative Jasmine Crockett says on any given day.
And speaking of faux edgelords, another way the resistance is making itself known is through politicians using vulgarity. Granted, I don’t have a leg to stand on here because I can swear like a sailor with Tourettes sometimes, but then again I’m not Chuck Schumer or Elizabeth “Chief Running Mouth” Warren. Namely, old people. Watching Schumer and Warren do their watered down impression of Andrew Dice Clay while talking about political issues isn’t edgy; it’s cringy as fuck.
And if you’re watching Chuck and Liz, you’re not Betty White. She could pull off being vulgar at an advanced age. You can’t. You’re as edgy as a Nerf ball when you swear just to be swearing.
In other words, keep it up, you two! You’re doing great!
While I’m waiting for Bernie Sanders to break out an f-bomb during a speech, I can see where the resistance is headed: to the same junkyard Occupy Wall Street wound up. Although we still remember the name, they didn’t accomplish anything. I mean, aside from proving Leftists could fuck up a one-step instruction manual when left to their own devices.
The only thing that gives me pause is how violent the Left can get when pushed. Granted, you can push most Leftists pretty far by merely existing, but most of the time they won’t try to fight back. That is, unless they have the advantage. Just ask Kyle Rittenhouse. Even then, they are at a distinct disadvantage because they vastly overestimate their ability to avoid retaliation. The thing about engaging in violent behavior is there is always a chance for the other party to engage in violence right back. Just ask Moldylocks.
And as much as I would like to say Leftists know how to fight, let’s just say they make Pee Wee Herman look like Chuck Norris. And I mean right now, not when the former was…enjoying an adult movie a little too much. Maybe some of the trans women can teach the Left how to fight, provided you use their proper pronouns or else things could get messy.
Just remember, kids, trans women are women. Just bigger, stronger, taller, and overall more masculine women.
There is one constant with any type of Leftist resistance: the Right will always be on the hook for violence. No matter how much blood gets spilled from Leftist attacks, how much intimidation Leftists inflict on others, or how much property gets damaged as a result of one of their temper tantrums, the Right will always be seen as the ones who are most likely to commit violent acts. In fact, Representative Maxine Waters even said Trump wants a civil war to break out.
This is after Leftists vowed to get more aggressive in opposing Trump’s plans. Oh, and the number of Leftists who wanted Trump dead in one form or another.
You sure it’s the Right that’s getting violent? Because I would think you would know, considering the Right has more guns.
In the end, there are very few Leftists who are actual badasses. Seriously, if you can make a Leftist run for a safe space by eating Chik-fil-A in front of them, he/she/it poses no real threat to life and limb. Some “resistance.”
Having said that, the best advice I can give you is to be aware of your surroundings and the situation. Leftists will do anything in their power to get you to react badly to what they say or do. They want you to throw a punch or shove them because then they can claim to be the victims. And as long as there’s at least one more Leftist to corroborate the story, you will be the villain. Don’t give them that satisfaction. Don’t go looking for trouble.
If you must engage, keep a cool head about you. The worst thing you can do to a Leftist who wants to start shit is to not even acknowledge it. Shrug it off and go on with your day. If you want to take your chances, try the Thomas Two-Step Program for Dealing With Leftists.
Step 1: Point
Step 2: Laugh
Do not attempt to do this if you are mobbed by Leftists or the Leftist in question is bigger than you are because physical harm may come to you. If you need to, bring a hoss of a man with you to be your second. That way you’ll not only have some muscle to protect you if the Leftists want to start shit, but also have a witness to counteract the Leftists’ victim narrative.
Plus, you’ll have one other person who can also point and laugh, so triple bonus!
In the end, though, the current Leftist resistance is as dangerous as walking through a Leftist’s gated community with a “Coexist” t-shirt on. At least until they call security on you for trespassing in their neighborhood, but you get the point. And just like the resistances before them, the current one will end up with a lot of assmad Leftists, a lot of side-splitting laughter from the Right, and nothing actually getting done.
Fine by me!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
For those of you who don’t know, I studied journalism in college. And in my defense, I was young, dumb, and in love. Now, I’m old, dumb, and in love, but that’s besides the point.
I bring up that therapy-inducing memory to ease you into this week’s Lexicon entry involving journalism. During my studies, the Associated Press was one of the gold standards in the news game and was generally considered a neutral source of information. Oh, how times have changed.
This past week (please check local listings for the week in your area) the AP broke the cardinal sin of journalism by becoming the story rather than reporting it. And it’s all over a body of water, the Gulf of Mexico/America. President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order renaming the Gulf, but the AP refused to acknowledge it. As a result, the White House barred an AP reporter from an Executive Order signing ceremony and other events and trips on Air Force One, which of course lead to the AP suing members of the Trump Administration for the act.
And you thought high profile divorces were messy.
Anyway, for its efforts to gain my attention, let’s take the Associated Press on a tour of Leftist Lexicon Land!
the Associated Press
What the Left thinks it means – a trusted news source and vibrant defender of the free press
What it really means – another water carrier for the Left, this one masquerading as a wire service
To complete my old curmudgeon cosplay, I must invoke the “back in my day” power.
Back in my journalism days, there was an expectation of neutrality in news reporting because journalists at the time believed personal biases would get in the way of the public interest. This commitment to serving the public before advancing an agenda is what helped build a stronger, more intelligent society.
Then Watergate happened. The country’s eyes were opened to the dirty corners of our halls of power, and it created a rise in the interest of journalism as a form of activism. Now, instead of just reporting the news, reporters would seek out the news related to a particular evil they wanted to expose and uproot.
There is nothing inherently wrong or unethical in this, mind you. But it opens the reporter up to letting emotions (and possibly greed) taint the end result. Yes, you’re still trying to meet the public need for information, but you also have a personal stake in the outcome. That leads to potential conflicts of interest.
Not that modern journalism has any problems with that. This may come as a surprise to you, but our media sources tend to lean left more than a runner trying to avoid getting tagged out at first during a pickoff attempt. In other news, the Chicago Cubs are already eliminated from post season play before spring training, but that’s not important right now. By taking a side, journalism has gone from being watchdogs to lapdogs, and as much as I love lapdogs, I would prefer journalists play it straight.
The Associated Press used to do that, but has since moved more towards the Left, as slight as some think it has. Even if it’s considered to be factual and, thus, credible, the bias still poses a problem because it can lead to misinformation.
Of course, the AP and its defenders will say it’s fighting against misinformation through fact checks, even the slightest implication that is supported by an extrapolation of the fact checks they do can be misinformation in and of itself. Take the fact checks the AP does and who tends to be the target of those fact checks, namely conservatives. Leftists claim fact checkers have to do more fact checking on the Right because they lie all the time, but there’s one tiny problem with that.
It’s a little thing the kids like to call confirmation bias. When you have a set of beliefs as we all do, you tend to reject information that contradicts those beliefs and accept information that conforms to them. So, when a certain allegedly credible source of journalism decides to fact check the Right more than the Left, that gives the impression that…wait for it, kids…the Right lies more than the Left.
But it also gives the impression the AP covers up the lies of the Left more frequently.
Of course, Leftists and the AP would never admit that because it would expose the misinformation they both agree with, but that’s that’s neither here nor there. The point is the AP has a credibility problem.
Which brings us to their lolsuit. (And, no, that’s not a typo.)
The AP is arguing their ban violates the First and Fifth Amendments, more specifically the freedom of the press and due process, specifically. Not to be pedantic, but both arguments are bullshit to anyone with even a Schoolhouse Rock level of Constitutional knowledge. Or anyone who can read, which might be over the journalism class’s pay grade, but here we go.
The freedom of the press argument doesn’t work because of five little words from the First Amendment. Sing along if you know the words:
Congress shall make no law
Since this beef is between the White House and the AP, Congress doesn’t have a role and, thus, the First Amendment doesn’t apply. Even if you accept the notion freedom of the press is being violated by the Administration, there is a secondary problem, that being access. Just because you’re a reporter doesn’t give you a VIP pass to go where you want for a story. You see, the freedom of the press doesn’t equate to a right to access. What the AP’s First Amendment argument tries to do is establish they have a right to be where the President is.
Of course, if I were advising the legal team defending the Administration officials, I would limit that access to only when the President is in the can, but that’s just me.
More to the point, the press pool tends to be rotated and cover various beats, so the AP being excluded from certain events isn’t as egregious as they want you to think it is. And what’s more, there are these things called pool reporters who compile the news from multiple sources and pass it along to those media outlets who didn’t get the luck of the press pool draw. This doesn’t impede the AP’s ability to distort…I mean report the news, so there is no violation.
In short, get that weak-sauce shit outta here, AP!
Now for the Fifth Amendment. Let’s start with the text itself.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness agThe ainst himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The AP’s argument in this case is based on the “due process of law” element, suggesting their ban was put in place without being allowed a day in court. Aside from all the reasons I cited above as far as access, there’s also another pedantic but vital detail: there is no allegation of a crime. This whole thing, as fucking stupid as it is, surrounds the name of a body of water. Even if the Gulf of Mexico self-identifies as the Gulf of America, it matters not. The AP isn’t being denied due process so much as it’s being denied a spot at the table over a disagreement outside of any legal constructs.
No allegation of crime? No violation of due process.
Checkmate, bitches.
Of course, the AP and its defenders will try to argue the contrary and may actually score a court victory depending on which Leftist judge gets a chance to shit on the Constitution to give them a victory over the Evil Orange Man. Which will give them reason to crow…at least until the case makes it to the Supreme Court or gets laughed out of court by a judge who reads beyond an AP reporter’s grade level.
How the mighty have fallen. From globally trusted news source to the punchline of a blogger’s weekly journey into Leftist madness.
Seems they’re getting off a little light, don’t you think?
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Another week, another round of Senate hearings over the nominees President Donald Trump has put forward for consideration. And that’s on top of the other bullshit that’s been going on with Executive Orders, illegal immigration, and, oh yeah, Leftist freakouts over it all.
But one of the craziest shitstorms came during the nomination hearing for Trump’s nominee for the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Between Chief Running Mouth Senator Elizabeth Warren sticking up for Big Pharma while sounding like a shrew (to be fair, that’s her everyday voice) and Senator Bernie Sanders shitting his onesie over literal onesies, I was reminded why I hold politicians in such low esteem: they make the functioning humans look bad.
While the Senate treated us to some of the worst theatrics this side of an off-off-off-off-Broadway production of “Spider-Man: Turn Off the Dark” done by Miss Reedy’s second grade class, there was another massive figure in the Senate chamber (aside from Senators’ egos) that had as much to do with the theatrics as it did the confirmation hearing itself. I’m talking of Big Pharma, the entity every Leftist hates…or do they?
Big Pharma
What the Left thinks it means – an entity that makes people suffer with illness so they can make a buck
What it really means – an entity that provide both a punching bag and a source of income for Leftists
America has a health care problem, several actually. One of the biggest ones is Americans typically don’t give a fuck about health care until they don’t get it for one reason or another. A lot of this can be traced back to our society where we want to do the least amount of work for the most amount of benefit. I mean, if there’s a pill or a shot we can take so we can fill our gullets with deep fat fried unknown chicken parts smothered in gravy (because the chicken makes it healthy), we’ll go that route every time.
That’s where Big Pharma comes in. Like most business models, the end goal is to create profit whenever possible. And when you have a business model that requires people to be less-than-healthy, that profit comes from human suffering. Or at least the concept of human suffering. Although modern medicine can and has developed ways to help improve the lives of those afflicted with diseases or conditions, Big Pharma has also sold us on the idea we can live better lives if we just inject this or ingest that. Now, Mom, Dad, Billy, Suzie, Grandma Mabel, and the family dog Scruffy can live a better life free from the annoying and personally devastating effects of…whatever malady they can come up with to sell their products.
This is where the Left actually has a point other than the ones on top of their heads. Pharmaceutical companies can be a bit on the shady side, which is like saying Michael Moore is a little husky. As much of a capitalist as I am, I can’t really say the way Big Pharma does business is legit. Even if your drug is going to be a game-changer, it’s hard to reconcile the good it will do with the bad it takes to get there. Overall, you need to have a real moral vacuum in your soul to be a Big Pharma employee.
And that brings us to Congress.
To put it mildly and geekily, Capitol Hill makes Mos Eisley look like Amish country. And for any Amish readers out there, I’m sorry for comparing you to Capitol Hill. Also, how in the fuck are you reading this?
Anyway, one of the areas where Big Pharma has a lot of power is in Congress. And in the halls of Congress, money talks to both sides. Remember this for later because it will come in handy.
Although Big Pharma swings a big…hypodermic needle, there are some who see what they do and aren’t afraid to speak out. One of those individuals is…the aforementioned Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Regardless of what you think of the man, the fact remains he puts his money where his mouth is and promotes good science when it comes to vaccines. Now, who would be opposed to that?
Big Pharma. And their minions in Congress.
When you take on a big entity like Big Pharma, you put a big target on your back and expect to hit once in a while. If you’re connected to Donald Trump in any way, you might as well grab a helmet because you’re going to get bombarded.
Just ask RFK Jr.
Fortunately for him, the metaphorical sharpshooters (i.e. Senate Democrats) are the Gang Who Couldn’t Shoot Straight. With every gotcha question, every bit of theatrics, and every bit of disregard for parliamentary decorum, Kennedy looked and sounded like the adult in the room. Mainly because, well, he was.
But there’s another tie that binds the Senate Democrats questioning Kennedy together. Remember what I said earlier about Big Pharma playing both sides? Yeah, each of the Senate Democrat big hitters are Big Pharma puppets.
Chief Running Mouth? $822,573 from 2019 to 2020.
Bernie Sanders? Almost $2 million since 1990.
Ron Wyden? $351,513.
Maggie Hassan? $313,576.
Angela Alsobrooks? $96,643.
Tim Kaine? $200,824.
And the shits keep coming! All of these Democrat Senators going after RFK Jr. for trying to hold Big Pharma accountable…all having a financial stake in protecting Big Pharma from people…like RFK Jr. How do it work????
Quite well if you’re a fucking hypocrite.
With both major parties beholden at least in part to Big Pharma, you’re more likely to hear Mazie Hirono ask a salient question than you are to get Big Pharma to shape up. But with Donald Trump pushing for a Make America Healthy Again and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. heading it up, there’s a chance it could happen.
Especially if the Leftists continue to bring their meh game.