With President Brick Tamland announcing he was not limping…I mean running for reelection, the eyes of the world turned to Vice President Kamala Harris as the heiress apparent. And that means we get to do a deep dive into her accomplishments so far.
Fortunately for us, that deep dive doesn’t take that long since she’s accomplished what other Vice Presidents before her did: Jack Shit, and Jack left town.
But one role she had was Border Czar. Or not, depending on who you ask. In true Tamland fashion, she was put in charge of looking into the reason why so many illegal immigrants are coming here. (Spoiler Alert: it’s because we have the best free shit in the world.) And in true Harris fashion, she visited El Paso and called it a day. But she hadn’t been to Europe, either, so it’s totes cool, guys!
While the Left tries to figure out what excuse to use to try to cover up Harris’s ineptitude on the border, it gives us a chance to wade into the wonderful world of what a Border Czar even is.
Border Czar
What the Left thinks it means – a title bestowed upon Vice President Harris by evil Republicans to try to connect her to the border crisis (which doesn’t exist, by the way)
What it really means – a meaningless title given to a meaningless figurehead
The concept of policy czars has been around for a while. The first ones came about during the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Presidency to address certain aspects of World War II and the economy, but later expanded into areas like combating drug abuse, reading, and weatherizing. (And I wish I was kidding about those last two.)
Put bluntly, being a policy czar today is like being salutatorian of summer school: only a few people actually care about it and even fewer will remember it. And in the end nothing gets done, really.
Which means it’s a perfect gig for someone with a lot of time on his or her hands and who isn’t expected to succeed in any meaningful way. You know, like the Vice President.
It also means it shouldn’t be done just to put a body in a seat when it come to addressing a high profile issue like illegal immigration. Depending on which lie you want to believe, our southern border is either perfectly secure (but Republicans are totally to blame for record-breaking crossings) or less secure than an unlocked Ferrari in South Central LA. And for your eagle-eyed readers out there who click on the links, you’ll notice these statements come from two different members…of the same Administration. But you know who didn’t weigh in on the border situation?
The fucking Border Czar herself.
Now, I’m no policy wonk, but I would think one of the most important elements of being a Border Czar is presenting a consistent, fact-based message. Unfortunately for us, the Tamland Administration’s consistency is in denying the problem exists until it gets to a point where they have to do something to make it look like they’re doing something. Meanwhile, illegal immigration is still very much an issue, despite Harris’s brilliant message to some looking to enter the country illegally: do not come.
Well, Kams, they’re not listening. Or maybe they’re trying to figure out your message amidst the vomited word salads you frequently put out there as cogent statements.
Maybe that’s why the Left is trying to scrub the collective memories of the general public by denying she was the Border Czar. After all, Kamala Harris has to beat Donald Trump, even though she’s never won a national election by herself yet. The last time she tried to win the Presidency she pulled out of the race before the Iowa Caucuses after Tulsi Gabbard bitch-slapped her into oblivion.
It also means I got the same number of delegates Harris did and I didn’t even run.
It’s clear Harris’s role as Border Czar has been a dismal failure (and I’m being verrrrrrrrrrrrry generous here). This begs the question of why we need one in the first place, especially considering we already have one: the President. If you remember your civics homework (or in the case of Leftists if you’re hearing this for the first time since you blew off civics to protest), the Executive Branch is responsible for enforcing the laws of his country. That means the President and his staff are the Czars and they’re not doing a good job.
That means anybody who is called a Czar becomes a lightning rod to absorb any criticism for when they fuck up their one jobs. But, as with so many government jobs, you can’t be fired for being incompetent. If anything, it’s a career enhancer. (See the current President and Vice President for two examples.) Plus, you get a nice stipend and a government pension, and that much capital goes a long way to fix any hurt feefees.
But the immigration problem is still there. Pretty soon we’ll have to throw the concept of the Border Czar on top of the pile of other well-meaning, but poorly-executed government ideas, like the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, and making the Socialist Socialite a Congresswoman. Yet, there isn’t really much of a will to do anything about the problem from the Czar on down because there’s too much to be gained by both sides of the issue. The Left use illegal immigration to help their candidates win and create a “humanitarian crisis” that only Big Daddy Government can fix. The Right use illegal immigration to create scary scenarios where all the jobs are taken, only violent criminals make it across, and no one but them can fix the problem.
But where the Right gets it right (see what I did there?) is in pointing out the national security aspect of illegal immigration. Open borders, such as the kind promoted by the Tamland Administration, create gaps in our security network. And with Leftist dipshits on record as not wanting to even look for illegal immigrants let alone deport them, those gaps are going to get wider and harder to close. Worse yet, we don’t have much of a strategy for dealing with the implications.
Certainly this is something a President (or a prospective President) should take seriously enough to do more than appoint some toadie to do nothing and get paid for doing it. The last guy who even attempted that got called all sorts of names, ironically by some of the people currently in charge of the failed border policy but are now trying to copy what Donald Trump did. See, President Tamland can’t help but plagiarize!
Ultimately, though, we don’t need a Border Czar in the same way we don’t need an extended warranty for a beater from Uncle Sleazy’s It Was Like That When We Got It Used Car Emporium where their motto is “No Refunds.” It’s a worthless position that should already be covered by the existing leadership structure.
Then again, this is the federal government we’re talking about here. Expecting leadership in Washington is like expecting the hooker to fall in love with you after you pay her. Not that I know anything about that, mind you…
Tag: donald trump
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
This past week has been a bit on the wild side. I’m not talking 80s Motley Crue backstage party wild, either. I’m talking Alex Jones debating Art Bell while doing mushrooms and truck stop speed with Gary Busey wild. Or as Mr. Busey calls it, Tuesday.
Former President and current Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump was wounded by an attempted assassin’s bullet while at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania. As events unfolded, questions arose surrounding how such a security clusterfuck could have happened, and a lot of fingers pointed at the Secret Service. You know, the people who are supposed to protect the President and Presidential candidates?
Well, Leftists are starting to call criticisms of the Secret Service (especially of the female Secret Service agents at the scene) “right wing attacks,” which caused my Spidey-Sense to tingle. It was either that or my dandruff shampoo, but I’m going with the Spidey-Sense angle. And it also gave me the inspiration to dig a bit deeper.
the Secret Service
What the Left thinks it means – a band of men and women devoted to protecting the President under any circumstances
What it really means – a group of men and women who may be politically compromised
The Secret Service started in 1865 as a means to curtail counterfeiting after the Civil War. Originally under the umbrella of the Treasury Department because, well, counterfeiting, it was moved into the Department of Homeland Security in 2003, which isn’t a good thing in this humble blogger’s opinion. Regardless, the Secret Service’s role has evolved into what we know today and into a few areas we don’t consider.
When it comes to protecting the President, they succeed far more than they fail, even investigating threats or potential threats before they can escalate. So, it’s thankfully rare when they err. When the Secret Service does its job well, we don’t see them. When they fuck up, we do because it’s not exactly easy to hide when the President gets shot at.
Or in this case, a former President and potential future President.
Whenever there’s a high profile scandal, one of the first things people do is look at those in leadership to see if there are any decisions that affected the outcome. For the Trump assassination attempt, we can look to Kimberly Cheatle. And, Lucy, you got some ‘splainin’ to do!
In the aftermath, politicians are taking a closer look at the failures and what could have caused them. Based on what is coming out right now, there appear to have been staffing issues that spread the protection thinner than it should have been. Even though the Secret Service is pushing back against allegations the Trump campaign were denied additional security, it’s kinda hard to take it seriously after they initially blamed local police for the failures and noted safety concerns for Secret Service agents because of…get this…sloped roofs.
Yeah. These assholes are totally cereal, guys.
And, as with most things in Washington, DC, demands will be made, but nothing will get done. Yes, I realize this is both cynical and jumping the gun, but given how previous fuck-ups have been swept under the rug, I have more faith in 3 day old gas station sushi than in anybody involved being held accountable, least of all Ms. Cheatle who may have gotten her job because of Dr. Jill Biden, wife of President Brick Tamland.
If this is even remotely true, it would explain a lot when it comes to the failures. With President Tamland looking weaker than Joy Ann Reid’s grasp on reality, the possibility of Vice President Kamala Harris having to take up the reins and making President Tamland look lucid in the process, and Donald Trump picking up steam, there is a vested interest in letting things slip a bit to keep the current Administration in power. Not to mention, the Left has ramped up the hate, making Trump sound more and more like a real threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of TikTok videos.
Of course, I’m sure the super-heated rhetoric from the Left has nothing to do with someone wanting to shoot Trump. That would just be silly! I mean, it would take a really dumb person to believe saying mean things about a politician and his or her party would lead to violence.
Oh, by the way, Steve Scalise is on line 1.
Either way, the Left is circling the wagons (as well as the drain) around the Secret Service, using the same playbook they used when it was the FBI caught screwing up in the Left’s favor. They paint the criticism of the female Secret Service agents attempting to protect Trump as misogynistic, even after footage came out showing such an agent struggling to put a gun back in a holster. They brush off calls for Ms. Cheatle to step down, instead presenting her as a defiant leader.
All to protect the agency responsible for nearly bungling their way into the history books as the ones who let a major party Presidential candidate get whacked. Fucking brilliant!
Regrettably, I can’t help but feel the Secret Service has been infected with the same ideological biases that still fester in the FBI’s ranks. Support who you want, but don’t let it affect your job. When you let your hatred of a man overrule your better judgment, it’s time you hang up your black suit and tie, kids. On the other hand, if incompetence instead of hatred caused you to make mistakes that could have cost a candidate his life and actually cost two people theirs, you shouldn’t wait to get fired. You should resign in shame.
But that would require having shame, wouldn’t it?
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
After a particularly disastrous performance in any venture, there are usually two groups of people: ones who reflect, retool, and try again, and ones who point fingers trying to find a scapegoat. This past week, CNN got a load of people from the Left doing the latter after their debate between President Brick Tamland and Donald Trump.
Well, unless you want to go with the idea Donald Trump zapped the President with an energy weapon that made him look like, well, himself.
And this Leftist dumbfuck wasn’t the only one. Leftists all over the Social Media Network Formerly Known as Twitter came up with any number of excuses, but the general consensus was CNN fucked President Tamland.
And now we’re going to see why that is quite possibly the shittiest take ever.
CNN
What the Left thinks it means – a cable news network who is in the back pocket of Donald Trump
What it really means – a once and hopefully no longer DNC stenographer
I know I’ve gone over some of this stuff before, so I’ll keep it brief. When CNN first went on the air, it was a media marvel. A 24 hour news channel that you could tune in to any time of the day or night and get caught up on the day’s events. It was novel and changes the face of news forever.
Over time, though, the novelty wore off and they had to start generating buzz (and revenue) somehow. And, let’s face it, Bernard Shaw Is My Daddy t-shirts weren’t exactly flying off the shelves. Then, the first Gulf War came about and CNN got a whole new set of eyes on it. And with those eyes came a feeling of invincibility. No one else could do what they did as well as they could do it. They were Kings and Queens of the Mountain.
Which made them cocky and sloppy. Over time, their on-air talent and their talent behind the scenes started letting their political biases creep into the product. And eventually, the network started being called the Clinton News Network after its mostly favorable coverage of President Bill “I Don’t Know Where My Pants Are, Why Do You Ask?” Clinton.
And if you thought CNN wanted to slob Slick Willie’s knob, watching them cover Barack “I Don’t Know Where My Balls Are, Ask Michelle” Obama would make even the most tenured sex worker look positively virginal.
Put simply, CNN is in the tank for the Left. So, it boggles the mind how the Left could even consider CNN to be on Trump’s side. Even the two moderators of the Trump-Tamland debate were on record as being critical of the former President. And in Jake Tapper’s case, that criticism was rather pointed. So, when they handled the debacle…I mean debate with a fairly even tone, I was honestly surprised.
And apparently so were the Leftists. They wanted Tapper and Dana Bash to fact check Trump on the spot instead of letting him say what he wanted. (No word yet from these same Leftists if they wanted the two to fact check Biden in the same manner, by the way.) But there’s one tiny problem with that approach: they were moderators, not fact checkers. And after the Candy Crowley debacle in 2012, I would think Leftists wouldn’t want moderators to let their masks slip that much.
This change from being a reliable Leftist media outlet to something closer to centrist is by design. Recent leadership changes within CNN signaled a move back towards the straight news reporting they were once known for while allowing for a narrower focus on prominent news stories. While still not quite as centrist as some would say CNN is, they’re at least acknowledging there’s room for improvement.
Which, of course, makes Leftists lose their collectivist shit.
The thing is it’s frightfully easy to be a Leftist media outlet. All you need to do is find a way to keep money rolling in since you’re preaching to the same choir night after night. CNN used to be able to do this, but with the advent of MSNBC on the further Left and Fox News on the Right, it found itself trying to appeal to both sides and making nobody happy.
Why, it’s almost as if alienating potential audience members is a bad fucking idea!
So, from a business standpoint, CNN moving closer to the middle is fiscally responsible. Whether people still see it as a viable news source is yet to be seen. And judging from Leftist reactions to even the slightest move to the right of Trotsky, it didn’t go over well.
This is for a couple of reasons. First, Leftists suck at basic economics. Second, they tend to look at things through an emotional lens (which helps explain the first point). And third, Leftists hate anything that removes even an iota of power from their grasp or exposes their ideology to ridicule.
Enter President Tamland’s debate performance, which is less of a disaster than a Hindenburg movie by Michael Bay written by Tommy Wiseau. Although I would pay good money for Wiseau to make a cameo just to say “Oh hi-drogen!”
You can stop booing now.
Since Leftists are less capable of admitting a mistake than The Fonz, immediately CNN became the primary reason President Tamland looks like, well, himself. Of course, the real reason Leftists attacked CNN for Tamland’s disaster is not that they went out of their way to make him look bad, but that…they noticed he looked bad and didn’t come to his defense. They tried to do some damage control after the debate by fact-checking Trump and Tamland, but the damage was done. Tamland looked frail, confused, and without mental clarity. But at least we beat Medicare, amirite?
And after weeks and weeks of denying it, CNN among others had to admit President Tamland was not firing on all cylinders. Or maybe on any cylinders, for that matter. No more “cheap fakes.” No more deep fakes. No more right wing talking points. The Emperor had no clothes, but maybe had on adult diapers.
I have my issues (or subscriptions as the case may be) with CNN, but I have to defend them here. They didn’t cause President Tamland to look bad, and that’s even with all the preparations he did prior to the debate (including going to the debate stage). He’s just that bad of a candidate this time around, and no about of finger-pointing is going to change that.
So, to any Leftists reading this, lay off CNN. It’s not their fault your side decided to run a Strom Thurmond body double in 2024. You had your chance to pick someone else, even with the knowledge he was getting as sharp as a Nerf ball on the regular. It’s your fuck-up, so enjoy the ride.
And as for CNN, welcome to what conservatives and other non-Leftists have experienced for decades! Don’t worry. We have drinks, snacks, and more open-minded people than the Left. And what’s more, we validate parking!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
In case you’ve been living under a rock or on the campus of UC Berkeley, you’ve heard President Brick Tamland is old. How old? I wish I could say this is a set up to a Johnny Carson-esque joke, but I can’t. He really is old, and it shows.
Or, it would show if Leftists were honest about it. Instead of admitting President Tamland is so old he makes Strom Thurmond look like a newborn (and, to be honest, I’m not sure the President wasn’t at his baptism), they’re going with a different approach: pretending everything we’re seeing isn’t real. In fact, the Tamland Administration has come up with a new term to describe it, that being “cheap fakes.”
Given the inflation caused by the Administration, I’m surprised anything is cheap. But it’s a good jumping on point for this week’s Lexicon.
cheap fakes
What the Left thinks it means – the results of right wing media distorting videos to give the impression the President is feeble and not capable of being President
What it really means – Leftists trying to gaslight us more than Victorian times
The Left knows the President has issues, and by issues I mean subscriptions. He mumbles incoherently like he’s taking diction lessons from Ozzy Osbourne. He loses track of where he is in speeches, even reading directly off the teleprompter when it was more instructional. He freezes in the middle of sentences and stares blankly into space. He wanders off and has to have others help him get to where he’s supposed to go. He’s even fallen up stairs. Not down, up!
But Orange Man Bad, amirite?
No matter what video evidence there is (and how many videos show the same deteriorating conditions), the Left has an answer. They provide statements from numerous sources, including Republicans, saying President Tamland is as mentally sharp as ever. They compare the President’s mental ability to Donald Trump’s. And now, they’re saying it’s all fake.
It’s at this point I’m throwing the brown bullshit flag. It’s one thing to have it happened once in a while. We all get old and occasionally forgetful. It’s another thing altogether to dismiss multiple televised and live instances to consider it to be a total right wing conspiracy with altered footage, distorted camera angles, and selective still shots to make President Tamland look bad. He’s doing that well enough all on his own, so he doesn’t need the Right’s help.
But the Left’s response to people noticing President Tamland is shakier than Rosie O’Donnell eating Jello on the San Andreas Fault during a 7.8 earthquake is a tell. As you’ve seen in previous Lexicon entries, the Left has no problem doing what they’re accusing the Right of doing. Fuck, Media Matters has made a tidy career of doing just that. Then, there’s documentarian/all-you-can-eat-buffet enthusiast Michael Moore, a reliable Leftist liar.
And don’t get me started on the Left’s “very fine people on both sides” lie.
The Left has no problem lying when it suits them, so when they call actual video footage of President Tamland acting like a broken down animatronic robot from the Hall of Presidents a cheap fake, it’s pure drive in movie level projection, baby!
That’s not to say the right-leaning news organizations aren’t prone to distortion when it suits a narrative, mind you. Fox News has seen legal repercussions from lying, as has Alex Jones. And, for what it’s worth, I don’t trust either of them (although the video of an Alex Jones rant turned into a folk song is pretty funny). But it’s Hank Johnson opinions on Guam levels of stupid to say the Right is on par with the Left when it comes to distorting the truth. Dishonesty against political opponents is the coin of their realm.
Oh, and being absolute fucking idiots.
And they’re being absolute fucking idiots here. Instead of saying “Yeah, President Tamland is a PR disaster that shits himself on the regular, but he’s the best candidate we have,” the Left will continue to blame right wing disinformation and expect us to either cower in fear or question what we clearly see time after time after time.
What they don’t expect is for people across the ideological spectrum to see President Tamland’s decline and express concern he may be too old and incapable of being President. It’s getting harder and harder for the Tamland Administration and its lapdog media sources to tell us what we clearly see isn’t what we’re seeing and there’s a perfectly rational explanation for everything. They haven’t come up with this rational explanation, mind you, but they insist there is one.
Of course, this wouldn’t be a Leftist Lexicon entry without exposing at least some Leftist hypocrisy. Back in the mid-to-late 80s there was another President who was accused of being in cognitive decline while in office. That man was Ronald Reagan. Media outlets at the time questioned his mental acuity and there is some debate as to whether Reagan had Alzheimer’s Disease while in the White House. At that time, more than a few of the Leftists now saying President Tamland isn’t experiencing any decline in his faculties were suggesting Reagan was incompetent. They’ll deny it, of course, but it happened. I was fucking there. And they continue to do it.
But when it’s one of theirs (or two if you count Dianne Feinstein), such concerns are brushed aside. All for political gain.
Fuck that shit! We are seeing a man who shouldn’t be running a lemonade stand let alone have access to the nuclear codes getting worse and worse at a job that has physical and mental strains attached to it. And the worst part is I can’t even be mad at President Tamland for it. He’s being used by others as a figurehead while the real shitty work is being done behind the scenes when it’s not being done in his pants. This is elder abuse, but with global implications.
And the people using President Tamland as a meat-shield don’t care. They care about us noticing his mental decline repeatedly and deciding he should be home, not in the White House. And that’s utterly fucked up when you think about it.
So, save me the “cheap fakes” bullshit. Not only is a stupid turn of a phrase, but it reveals how little you really think of the President as a human being. The more you run interference for the guy, the worse it gets for you.
But look at the bright side. After this Administration gets tossed out on its asses and all the bullshit gets exposed, they will always have a seat on any panel on MSNBC.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
It’s been a busy couple of weeks as political figures and politically adjacent figures have had their days in court and come out with convictions (the legal kind, not the moral kind). First, we had former President Donald Trump get convicted on 34 felony counts in a trial even Stevie Wonder could see was legally shaky. Because he’s a legal scholar, you guys. Surely, there’s not another way you can interpret…ohhhhhhh! Moving on before I get in more trouble.
Then, President Brick Tamland’s son, Hunter Biden, caught three felony convictions for lying on federal gun forms to illegally obtain a firearm while being a drug abuser. Wait a minute…I thought stricter gun laws were supposed to prevent this kind of thing! But that’s a blog post for another time.
In both cases, the Left cheered the rule of law. After all, both had their days in court and they met their fates. So, there’s nothing more to say, right?
Wrong, because if there wasn’t anything more to say, this would be a really short Leftist Lexicon entry.
rule of law
What the Left thinks it means – a fundamental principle where everyone is treated the same in the eyes of the law
What it really means – a fundamental principle where everyone should be treated the same in the eyes of the law, but isn’t
For all of their faults, the Founding Fathers understood the potential for dishonest people to put their thumbs on the scales of justice. That’s why they included specific limitations in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights to mitigate those instances whenever possible. Granted, I’m not sure they could have foreseen the sheer scumbaggery of some legal “professionals” (I’m looking at you, Michael Avenatti), but they did the best they could with the scumbags of their era.
What they didn’t foresee was the power of politics and wealth on judicial proceedings. In some cases, the guilty are set free because they could afford better lawyers. In others, the innocent get railroaded because of factors beyond the facts of the case.
And then we have the Donald Trump and Hunter Biden cases. Since I’m not a lawyer, I won’t pretend to know all the ins and outs of the proceedings, but I can speak to what I know.
You can stop giggling now.
With the Trump trial, there was a clear bias against him starting with Alvin “Not One of the Chipmunks” Bragg. Bragg is one of those District Attorneys that has to be elected rather than appointed, and he ran on a platform of holding Trump accountable, as did the other candidates he ran against. New York Attorney General Letitia “I’m Not Rick” James, who was also elected on a platform of getting Trump, didn’t help alleviate questions of impartiality.
Of course, there was Bragg’s move to elevate Trump’s crimes, which were misdemeanors under the law, to felonies because…reasons, I guess? Actually, I’m not even sure he knows why other than it’s what he promised to do when he ran for District Attorney. All I know for sure is there were shortcuts taken to achieve the end goal. And gain the fawning adoration of Leftists and media folks (sorry, for repeating myself). Of course, those shortcuts may lead to not only an appeal, but the entire verdict being overturned, but hey. Bragg and James made good on their campaign promises, so all’s good, right?
I quote the great philosopher Lana Kane from “Archer”: Noooooooooope!
The thing about the rule of law that sticks with me is it isn’t about the final verdict so much as it is about how that verdict is reached. There is a process that has to be followed to ensure there is as level a playing field as possible for all parties. When political and media parties get involved, that playing field gets less even than highway lines painted during a 5.8 earthquake.
But it isn’t a one-way street. While rushing to prosecute a former President because he happened to beat an unlikable candidate in 2016 certainly shows the effects of political biases on legal proceedings, the same can be seen when political biases are used to slow down proceedings. That brings us to Hunter Biden’s recent convictions.
The Constitution guarantees the accused the right to a speedy trial, but when your daddy is the President, that speedy trial gets slower than Al Gore’s speech on Ambien. And it’s even worse if you’re the one taking the Ambien.
Although Hunter’s gun case is the one we’ve just experienced, he’s also on the hook for possible tax crimes. And thanks to his daddy and his lackeys in the IRS and Department of Justice, there were delays in prosecuting the Huntster. Oh, but that didn’t stop that same DOJ from dragging its feet of clay in prosecuting Hunter’s federal gun charges as well.
Does that sound like the rule of law being respected to you? If so, seek help.
Although the delays are humorous in a way because President Brick Tamland is bragging about pushing for stronger gun laws, it doesn’t speak well of his efforts or the rule of law when people under his…well, I wouldn’t call it leadership so much as being lead-ership are throwing a Sahara Desert’s worth of sand in the legal machinery to avoid embarrassment. Of course, if these folks really cared about not causing President Tamland to be embarrassed, they wouldn’t have allowed him to run for a first term, let alone a second term. Oh, and here’s another tip for the President: if you want to avoid embarrassment from your family, don’t let your son be a fucking crackhead!
What the Left’s approach to the rule of law is if you make the laws you make the rules, which is admittedly the way things have gone in recent years. From a political perspective, it’s ruthless, cutthroat, and devoid of a moral framework, which means it’s perfect for today’s government. But when the political makes a move into the judicial, it doesn’t work so well because invariably you are going to run into people who try to stay true to the words and the meanings of the law. That’s why Leftists hate originalist Supreme Court Justices. If you believe the law is written in stone, there isn’t any wiggle room. If you believe the law is written in erasable marker, you can create your own wiggle room and get rid of it when it’s no longer necessary.
The Left does have respect for the rule of law when it comes to precedent, namely any precedent they agree with. For decades, the Left relied on precedent to force through whatever it wants from abortion to gay rights to Affirmative Action. After all, if you get a court to agree with your interpretation of the way things should be, it’s all the Left needs to turn it into 50 more things tangentally related to the original decision because precedent.
The problem with precedent, though, is it can be overturned by later rulings. Take Plessey v Ferguson, for example. The court wrongly decided state discrimination laws did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment as long as things were “separate but equal.” Of course, they never were, but still. Just because Plessey was precedent doesn’t mean it was good precedent. Then, Brown v Board of Education pimp-slapped “separate but equal,” thus relegating it to law texts, history books, and the occasional blog post by some asshole trying to make a point about the rule of law.
The Left’s situational love of the rule of law is telling, and it’s not telling us anything good. When an ideology bases its appreciation for it on whether it gives them a desired result, the rule of law becomes more of a club than a scale, which cheapens it. The good news is the highest court of the land is in the hands of people more inclined to respect it than use it like a cheap hooker. And the greatest part of it all? Leftists paved the way to make it happen!
Thanks, Harry Reid!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
As you might have noticed, Leftists have this tendency to overblow some things (not using the correct pronouns leads to trans genocide) and underplay others (the Green New Deal is all about green energy…and enriching green companies who could drive a kid’s lemonade stand into Chapter 11 bankruptcy). Recently in Leftist circles online, the latest buzz is around Project 2025, a little something the kids at the Heritage Foundation put together in preparation of a Republican becoming President in 2025. To hear the Left talk about it, it’s a blueprint for an oppressive conservative government. You know, just like the Trump Presidency was?
By the way, Leftists, that was sarcasm.
What isn’t sarcasm is how Leftists are losing their shit over Project 2025, so that means it’s a worthy topic for this week’s Lexicon.
Project 2025
What the Left thinks it means – a plan by extreme right wingers to destroy the federal government
What it really means – a wish list of conservative expectations should a Republican become President sooner rather than later
The Heritage Foundation describes its mission as:
Heritage’s mission is to formulate and promote public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.
No wonder the Left thinks they’re worse than bathing, holding down a steady job, and not hating Jews.
Although this would be enough to outrage any Leftist, the existence of Project 2025 sets them off more than assuming their genders. (Pro Tip: still 2) In fact, Leftists have been screeching about it being a template for Donald Trump to get revenge for his 2020 loss, a means to bring about “widespread, wholesale policy violence“, a “movement that could erode black equality“, and other hyperbolic statements that would make hypochondriacs look sober and rational.
So, what is it exactly? In one form, it’s a nearly-1000 page book outlining different areas the Heritage Foundation would like the next Republican President would enact. There are five major legs to this policy stool:
Taking the Reins of Government
The Common Defense
The General Welfare
The Economy
Independent Regulatory Agencies
Given what the Heritage Foundation’s mission statement referenced above says, some of these are “no fucking duh” policy areas. Of course, this sort of thing is confusing to Leftists and, thus, evil! But for others who can read and write at beyond the Socialist Socialite level, it shouldn’t be so much of a mystery to get Scooby and the Gang to figure out. And they don’t even have to talk to Old Man Jenkins, the guy who runs the haunted Washington think tank!
After looking at some of the proposals (since I didn’t have time to read the whole thing due to having to work for a living), most of them don’t sound so bad. Some of them, like suggesting dismantling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, have me giddy with delight for reasons I won’t get into here. But that I did get into here.
So, why are Leftists losing their collectivist shit over Project 2025? The most obvious reason is, if implemented, it will undo a lot of what they’ve been able to do under President Brick Tamland and even further back. The Left loves bureaucracy because it’s easy and well-paying work. You could put an elderly guy with an affinity for lying and not being able to string together full sentences at the head of such an agency and Leftists wouldn’t bat an eye. Good thing America isn’t so stupid as to let that kind of person have any kind of power, amirite?
Beyond the surface, though, there is an air of the Right picking up on tactics the Left have been using for decades. Like creating training courses for future conservative leaders, for example. Teaching potential leaders on how to advance a political agenda is a horrible practice…that Democrats have been doing for a while now. And Progressives. But it’s not like the Left has a think tank backing them…oh, shit, yes they do! In fact, the Left has a network of groups that do what they’re afraid the Heritage Foundation wants to do.
And that’s the operative word here, kids: afraid. The Right has one major advantage over the Left in that the Right tends to understand how things work. With modern technology, not so much, but with more concrete concepts, absolutely. When the Right decides to do something the Left does, they tend to do it better and more successfully. When the Left tries to do something the Right does, it tends to be a disaster. The former gave us Fox News Channel. The latter gave us Err America.
It’s this fear the Left is manifesting in shrieking harpy-esque ways. If the Heritage Foundation’s plans are successful, the Left will have to fight on a little more even ground than they’ve had to previously. And if things aren’t tilted in their favor, it’s just not fair, dammit!
But this fear manifests itself in another way, that being creating doomsday scenarios where we’re living in a Handmaid’s Tale dystopia. Or a Hunger Games dystopia. Or some other fictional dystopia that the kids are hip to these days. Remember how Donald Trump was going to turn America into Nazi Germany? Contrary to the Leftist protests to the contrary, that didn’t happen. Women weren’t relegated to second-class citizens (they had to wait until Brick Tamland became President for that to happen). People who disagreed didn’t get rounded up and put into camps. In fact, little, if any, of the dire predictions the Left invented over the Trump Presidency came true.
That’s another advantage the Right has over the Left. They don’t have a no-contact order against reality.
But the thing about Project 2025 that scares Leftists more shitless than eating an ExLax Enchilada from Taco Bell? People might actually agree with the proposals in the current political environment. Leftists suck when it comes to arguing ideas since they tend not to have two functioning brain cells to rub together. That’s why they appeal so often to emotions. When someone comes up with a better way to do things, the self-professed progressives tend to be a lot less receptive to change, especially if the better way disrupts the way the Left likes to do things. And anything that disrupts their status quo gets the Left really pissed off.
The one knock I have against Project 2025 is its implementation hinges upon the will of the Republican in the Oval Office. Although former President Trump did listen to the Heritage Foundation on some matters, they were at loggerheads on others. This puts Republicans and conservatives into a no-win situation. Either you support a candidate who agrees with 90% of an agenda and can win or a candidate who agrees 100% and can’t win. And then watch as that 90% gets whittled down bit by bit because reasons.
And people wonder why I left the GOP?
The larger point here is Project 2025 is ambitious even by Republican standards, but it doesn’t mean shit without the will to bring it about. Leftists are going to scream and cry because that’s what they do, but the Right needs to put some muscle behind the ideas. Given how spineless Republican “leaders” have been in recent decades, I don’t think the Left has to worry about Project 2025 becoming a reality. That will give them more time to deal in fantasy, like convincing people a man in a dress is actually a woman in spite of having a dick as big as a four-year-old’s arm.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Election years can be wilder than a Motley Crue after party with Charlie Sheen, Willie Nelson, and Lindsay Lohan. This year’s election, though, makes that scenario look like a Mormon church picnic combined with an IBM leadership forum. From the Left cheering the legal process preventing presumed Republican candidate Donald Trump from campaigning (and having it backfire on them in ways they have yet to fathom) to telling people the flaming shitstorm of an economy brought to you by Bidenomics isn’t really that bad, we are seeing a lot of chicanery before the first ballot is cast.
Or before the first 5 billion ballots for Biden can be fabricated by Leftist groups, as the case may be.
In recent decades, there’s been a concern that non-residents are allowed to vot, a concern that’s been raised this year as well. And Leftists, using all the logic and knowledge at their disposal, have said “Nuh-uh!” So, what is the truth of the matter? Well, let’s just say the Left doth protest too much.
non-resident voting
What the Left thinks it means – a conspiracy theory dreamed up by Republicans to stir up anger and fear of immigrants
What it really means – something the Left has been allowing to happen because it helps them
There are a number of criteria that must be met in order to vote in most elections, as dictated by the federal government. And in case you don’t want to open the link yourself, the one at the very top is…you must be a citizen to vote. Of course, Leftists are quick to point out it’s already illegal for non-residents to vote in state and federal elections, so we don’t need more laws.
Remember these are the same assholes who believe more gun laws are needed to protect people after every shooting.
Anyway, I do have to give the Left credit. They are correct non-residents can’t vote in state or federal elections. However, they are allowed to vote in local elections in some places. So, if they’re only voting in local elections, what’s the harm?
Because it’s only a matter of time before Leftists start demanding non-residents be allowed to vote in state and federal elections because “they live here, too.” Normally, this might fall under the slippery slope fallacy (and, to be honest, it still might), but when you consider this sort of thing has happened more than a couple of times in my lifetime, I’m going to call bullshit on anyone saying it’s a fallacy in this case. Remember, it wasn’t that long ago Leftists went from gays just wanting to be treated like everyone else to gays being allowed to dictate how other people live under fear of public humiliation.
Because tolerance, you bigot!
The push to allow non-residents to vote is similar to another movement Leftists have tried to advance, that being allowing felons to vote once they’re out of prison. Most states have a restriction on felons voting until their sentences are complete or after a probation period, but in Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia, felons never lose their right to vote. Granted, the most hardened criminals in Vermont are maple syrup traffickers, but the point is still there. What was once a “no voting ever again” sentence has been turned into a “well, maybe we will let you vote again if you promise to be good boys and girls, m’kay.”
And we’re not supposed to think this will happen with non-residents why exactly? Oh, yeah, because we’re not supposed to notice this shit.
Just like we’re not supposed to notice how state and local agencies aren’t exactly following the laws on the books. Recently, a South Caroline Medicare office gave a non-resident a packet which included…a voter registration form. Leftists will be quick to point out getting the form doesn’t mean the non-resident was going to register to vote or even vote. Then, why would the packet include it automatically? Granted, it could be an oversight or the way the bureaucracy runs because Lord knows they can’t be allowed to make exceptions.
Then, there’s California’s “Motor Voter” Law. For those of you unfamiliar with it because you have lives outside the Interwebs, this law allows people to register to vote when they get a driver’s license. It’s super convenient…and also a good way to get non-residents registered to vote without so much as a first glance, let alone a second one. And with California being a sanctuary state (meaning they won’t check for citizenship if a non-resident is caught after a crime or in general), that means there is no check on whether non-residents are voting in more than local elections.
And if you think I’m picking on California, I am, but it’s not just a problem there. In our nation’s capitol, it’s estimated there are over 42,000 non-citizens eligible to vote in city elections as of 2021, thanks to a bill passed by the DC City Council. Granted, it’s unlikely these non-residents could sway the elections in a district where the choices are Democrat or other Democrat, but it has a symbolic significance.
After all, if the area where we house most of our degenerates, idiots, and psychopaths allows non-residents to vote (but enough about the DC Mayor’s office), it’s only a matter of time before Leftists make the case more communities should be open to the idea.
Sure, if you want to make Mos Eisley look like an Amish village.
It’s at this point I get to introduce a concept Leftists don’t get yet: a law is only as effective as its ability and/or desire to be enforced. When there’s a vested interest in a law not being enforced, it gets easier to overlook criminals, which makes it a lot easier to break the law with impunity. Just ask Californians. The good ones, not those who complain major companies are leaving California after being looted on the regular. And when no one’s enforcing the law…more people will be tempted to break the law.
Funny how that works, isn’t it?
There is an argument to be made for non-residents being allowed to vote in local and school board elections, but it will require a commitment to enforce the laws on the books. Since that’s not going to happen thanks to Leftists, that argument is a non-starter with me. Not because the Leftists are shitheads, but because it sullies the election process.
And because Leftists are shitheads.
Allowing non-residents to vote for anything more than what new Lays potato chip flavor should be produced is a recipe for disaster and many Donald Trump Truth Social posts about election interference. And the sad part is he’s right, albeit with a lot of exaggeration. When we can’t even verify the people casting votes in an election are eligible under federal law, it makes our elections less secure than a crack rock near Hunter Biden. When you consider the number of votes separating Donald Trump and President Brick Tamland in 2020 in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin, even 15,000 illegally cast votes can make the difference between a winner and a loser.
Or a decent economy and a flaming shitshow of an economy.
Unless you like having to take out a third mortgage to buy a carton of milk, maybe you might want to take non-residents voting a lot more seriously.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
In a post-COVID world where the world went nuttier than elephant shit, I thought nothing could shock me. Today, I was shocked by CNN of all things.
You see, Anderson Cooper admitted Michael Cohen, a witness in the ongoing show railroading…I mean trial of former President Donald Trump, may have lied in his testimony. I’ll give you a moment to pick your jaws off the floor.
After years of holding the former President accountable for every statement that could be construed as untrue, it seems the Left seems to have lost its taste for finding the truth. Of course, I’m sure that’s just a complete coincidence, though. I mean, you would have to be complete assholes to demand the truth from only one side of the political aisle!
Oh, wait…
lying
What the Left thinks it means – something the Right does to advance their agenda
What it really means – something both sides do to advance their agendas
To borrow a phrase from some former President whose name escapes me at the moment, “Let me be clear.” Both sides of the aisle lie. In fact, lying is the coin of the realm in Washington. Where the Left and the Right differ, at least to me, is only the Left swings back and forth between demanding the truth and excusing the lies.
And one way the Left loves to lie is through the use of “fact-checkers.” The Washington Post claimed Trump made over 30,000 “false or misleading” claims. Of course, they don’t come out and show their math because, well, it’s fact-checked, so it has to be true, right?
Well, that depends on what the definition of false or misleading claims is. I got that from a different former President whose name escapes me at the moment. Turns out the fact checkers were stretching the truth on what they considered false or misleading. Why, it’s almost like these self-important assholes had a Paul Bunyan-sized axe to grind!
And this can be seen by watching the utter lack of fact-checking done for the current Administration under President Brick Tamland. First off, there’s the President, who recently told 15 lies in a 17 minute interview with CNN. And if you can figure out what Vice President Kamala Harris says, she doesn’t have a notarized tongue either. Just ask Willie Brown.
Then, we get to White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre. To put it bluntly, she is as trustworthy as Hunter Biden’s accountability buddy. And when she gets caught in a lie, she doesn’t take it well. In fact, Fox News reporter Peter Doocy has proven to be Jean-Pierre’s version of Jim Acosta. I’m sorry. That is insulting. For that horrible and utterly demeaning comparison, I apologize to you, Mr. Doocy.
Anyway, the Left’s on-again/off-again love of the truth is hypocritical, yet utterly amusing. I mean, how can you legitimately take Leftists seriously when their commitment to the truth is as spotty as dial-up Internet? The problem is there are people out there either willing to swallow the bullshit or not informed enough to see through the lies, which encourages Leftists to continue to lie. And when they can’t lie their way out of a situation, they’ll gaslight you. For those of you unfamiliar with the term, gaslighting is lying, but a lot meaner.
So, this is where we come in. The fact the Left lies with such ease and without consequence makes it a lot harder to reach people, but it’s worth it. Expose the lies and have backup from multiple sources. Know your shit, and be unafraid to express it.
Yes, this is going to get you in trouble with the Left, but let’s be honest. Most Leftists are as dangerous as a Nerf marshmallow. And those who are dangerous tend to be dumber than the plot of a Michael Bay movie, so the likelihood of running into a Leftist badass is less than finding Hunter Biden not doing drugs. Still, you have to weigh your options and pick your battles accordingly. Remember, your goal isn’t to convince a Leftist to change his/her/its mind, but to convince a non-Leftist that you’re not full of shit.
And given how Leftists are trying to push the idea the economy is just fine in spite of having to take out a third mortgage to get a cup of Mostly Okay, But Possibly Inedible Raman (spelled differently because it’s a cheap knockoff of Mostly Okay, But Possibly Inedible Ramen), it may not be as hard as you think.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
There’s a relatively recent concept in media called “The Streisand Effect.” In short, whenever an entity tries to hide or distract from a major fuck up and it gets caught, it brings more attention to what the entity was trying to hide.
Guess who got a crash course in the Streisand Effect this week. If you guessed National Public Radio, you win…absolutely nothing, but you still got it right so there’s that!
It started with a piece written by long-time NPR staffer Uri Berliner where he laid out how NPR went from liberal-yet-respectable to batshit-insane due in part to the election of Donald Trump. After a week or so of NPR doing its best to disparage Berliner’s opinion (and in some cases the man himself) and to pretend nothing was wrong, NPR suspended Berliner and eventually he resigned.
But not before NPR got dragged into the spotlight for being partisan assholes.
And not before they earned a spot in the Lexicon.
National Public Radio
What the Left thinks it means – a trusted source of high quality journalism falsely accused of partisanship
What it really means – a publicly funded Leftist PR firm
That’s right, kids. We pay for the Leftist propaganda to the tune of almost $128 million through its parent entity, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, for fiscal year 2024. Granted, it’s not much in the grand scheme of things both on the federal budget and percentage of NPR’s annual budget fronts, but it’s not insignificant.
Especially when this allegedly non-partisan group donates heavily to Democrats. Or at least as heavily as they can with the budget they have, which is still pretty extensive.
Maybe it’s me, but I’m thinking a news network shouldn’t be funding any political figures and still claim to be fair and honest. Something about a potential conflict of interest. And by “potential” I mean “huge fucking.”
When I started listening to NPR in the late 90s (since it was the only radio station I could pick up in the office building where I was working), I found it interesting and unique. They were covered stories from perspectives the mainstream news media didn’t and more in-depth. But even then, I knew there was a bias because I learned how to root it out. Now, I can turn on NPR at any time of the day and predict what angle they’re going to take or how they will frame a story. They really don’t even try to hide it anymore.
And therein lies the problem. No matter how accurate an NPR story is, it will always be subject to doubt because of the leadership’s political leanings. Depending on who’s listening, that’s going to either create an echo chamber that leads to the logical fallacy the kids like to call Appeal to Authority. After all, if NPR is so consistently accurate (check local listings for the level of accuracy), it must mean they’re right about whatever they cover.
Except, of course, when they’re not.
To be fair, some of the errors they make are misspellings which can be excused. But when you dig into some of the factual errors they make, it casts a long shadow of doubt over how accurate they are. If they get the small shit wrong (like, oh I don’t know…publishing an article that originally said Donald Trump plead guilty to 34 felonies, only to have to correct it after the fact), it’s not that hard to imagine they get the big stuff wrong from time to time. No media outlet is perfect and I don’t expect it to be. But there’s a pretty big fucking difference between pleading guilty and pleading not guilty.
And imagine how many Leftists paid attention to the original flawed reporting and never bothered to check the correction or even the basic facts before tweeting (or would that be Xing) out the wrong information. That’s not a minor “oopsie,” either. That’s a letting-Hunter-Biden-run-the-DEA level fuck-up.
By the way, if anyone from the President Brick Tamland Administration is reading this (or having it read to you slowly so you don’t get confused by all the multi-syllabic words), I don’t want you to make Hunter Biden run anything, let alone the DEA. It was a joke. Move along.
What isn’t a joke is how NPR handled the situation. Let’s just say the nuclear plant operators at Chernobyl were less incompetent, and a lot less radioactive. From an optics perspective, NPR and its fellow Leftists handled the criticism poorly. Instead of making a public spectacle of how non-biased they are (while simultaneously proving how biased they were through their actions), they could and should have taken a calmer approach. Accept the observations publicly and work on ways to address any concerns behind the scenes. You know, like mature adults?
Well, expecting Leftists to behave like mature adults is like expecting a Michael Bay movie to be good: it may happen, but the odds are heavily against it. What they did was act like Leftists. No matter how benign or harsh the criticism, the reaction is always to paint the critic as evil. Not just wrong. Fucking evil. And that’s exactly what NPR did to Berliner. It wasn’t that his essay was factually wrong, but rather that it put NPR in a bad light. And much like Gollum with the One Ring, Leftist had to protect their precious.
Which, surprise surprise, amplified what Berliner said. Thus, welcome to the Streisand Effect. Population: NPR.
There’s not much that can be done right now to salvage NPR’s credibility with people outside the Leftist hivemind. Even if you remove all taxpayer funds from their budget, do a top-to-bottom mass firing, and select someone who isn’t a lunatic to run it going forward, the stigma of what they did to Uri Berliner won’t easily be forgotten or forgiven. Especially among those on the Left who see what Berliner did and are sick of the bias.
Way to shoot yourselves in the foot with a Gatling gun, NPR!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
To put it mildly, the mainstream media tend to be rather…how can I put this delicately…secure in their beliefs, which just so happen to coincide with Leftist beliefs. Rarely will they even entertain someone from a different ideology to penetrate the bubble they inhabit, and usually it’s done to show how superior they are to that person.
Most of the time, this doesn’t end well. Just ask Sonny Hostin of “The Spew”… I mean “The View.”
It’s because of this the Leftist media tend to hire milquetoast Republicans/former Republicans to nod approvingly at whatever insane shit the Leftist squawking heads say. Such was the case when NBC News/MSNBC hired former Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel as a contributor. And then promptly fired her.
Sometimes when a Leftist sets itself on fire to get my attention, I just have to give it to them.
NBC/MSNBC
What the Left thinks it means – two news outlets known for solid journalism and an honest, tireless pursuit of the truth
What it really means – reliable stenographers for the Left
Granted, the latter definition could apply to a lot of mainstream media outlets, but since we’re focusing on the two-headed monster that is NBC and MSNBC, it fits as well as any.
Back in the day, NBC had some journalistic giants in their employ. Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, and John Chancellor, just to name three. These were the faces and voices people depended on to deliver the news on a nightly basis, and they became the gold standard in the network news industry among so many others.
But as the 70s and 80s came along and new journalists with standards looser than a customer’s stool after eating the new Prune and Ex-Lax Burrito at Chipotle, the newsrooms turned into breeding grounds for ideological PR. Ethical standards, basic reporting, and even conflicts of interest became secondary to advancing the “right” ideas. Which, not surprisingly, got them in a bit of trouble. Repeatedly.
As bad as NBC’s news division got, it wasn’t until MSNBC came into being that the Leftist media utopia could be realized. And, as anyone with an IQ anywhere approaching a heat wave in Antarctica could tell you, it was and continues to be a dumpster fire. The worst part about it is the President of NBC News at the time Phil Griffin allowed it, chalking it up as a natural progression and pointing to ratings as justification. I don’t know who thought becoming a Mirror Universe version of Fox News was a good idea, but I’m sure they were with the same consulting agency that got Air America off the ground…and then right back onto it.
This brings us to the McDaniel hiring and firing. As soon as it was announced she was hired, Leftists within MSNBC threw a temper tantrum because…McDaniel didn’t stop Donald Trump from perpetuating the notion the 2020 election had issues. We can’t have differing opinions in a newsroom, as chairman of the NBCUniversal News Group Cesar Conde wrote in an internal memo:
No organization, particularly a newsroom, can succeed unless it is cohesive and aligned.
But I’m sure that doesn’t mean ideologically aligned, amirite kids?
Not so much.
The Left says they welcome all voices, but the voices they approve are of the controlled opposition variety. Look at the Republicans and former Republicans on MSNBC’s payroll.
Joe Scarborough
Michael Steele
Nicolle Wallace
Charlie Sykes
Steve Schmidt
Along with guests like Liz Cheney, George Conway, and Adam Kinzinger, it’s pretty clear who MSNBC trusts as “real Republicans”: people who are anti-Trump and marginally Republican. Although it can be argued the GOP is the Party of Trump thanks to his daughter-in-law Lara Trump becoming RNC Co-Chair and subsequent house cleaning within the RNC, the point is there are more Republicans than just the anti-Trumpers out there, and MSNBC is doing a disservice to its viewing public by ignoring or “otherizing” them.
Then again, maybe that’s the point.
The idea behind controlled opposition is to give the illusion of a counterbalance to the prevailing powers that be while secretly knowing this counterbalance is working for the powers that be. From a media perspective, this allows news networks to put on people from opposing political parties to make the reporting/commentary look and sound balanced. But if you can reasonably predict what the opposition is going to say and do…it’s not really opposition. Fox News does the same thing with its Left-leaning commentators, so it’s not just a Leftist activity.
How NBC News gets looped into this is when they perpetuate the “otherizing” of Republicans, particularly pro-Trump Republicans. MSNBC does most of the heavy lifting here, but NBC isn’t shy about helping out when necessary. They just aren’t as rabidly partisan in appearance.
At least, they weren’t until McDaniel was hired. “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd ripped into NBC for hiring her…and he did it on-air. That act alone showed me NBC and MSNBC are no longer variations on a theme; they’re the same fucking song.
And it’s being sung by the same Leftist lunatics.
To watch NBC’s history go up in a fireball that would make the Hindenburg look like a wet sparkler is sad to an old school journalism fan like your humble correspondent, but it’s a self-inflicted injury. The people who made the decision to have both NBC and MSNBC go so far left they see Karl Marx as a poseur created this environment where someone who allowed Donald Trump some leeway is not worthy of hearing from, in spite of the fact this woman ran (albeit poorly) one of the two major political parties in America. To someone like me, that’s not just doing a disservice to McDaniel, but to anyone who watches NBC or MSNBC.
Yes, I know Michael Steele was a former RNC Chair, but he’s been out of power long enough that his perspectives may be obsolete. McDaniel is fresh out of the position, so her insight on the party right now and how Trump has operated as a Republican candidate should be highly valued. Especially going into a Presidential election where Donald Trump is the presumptive fucking Republican candidate.
But, best not to offend Leftist fee-fees in the name of actual political and newsworthy commentary, right? You keep that hugbox alive, dammit!
At this point, there is no coming back for NBC. The Faustian deal they made by joining MSNBC on the lunatic fringe can’t be undone, and the Ronna McDaniel hiring/firing only shows how close to the cliff’s edge they are. It’s gotten so bad Republicans are thinking about limiting NBC’s access to the Republican National Convention this year. If they go through with it (and with more Trump loyalists at the helm, they might), that’s going to hit both NBC and MSNBC right in the pocketbook.
Fucking brilliant.
I’m sure they’re working on their bullshit excuse to claim victimhood status, but it’s just that: bullshit. They made this bed and now they’re going to lie about it. And I will be here to laugh as they get frozen out of one of the biggest stories of the year, all because their fee-fees couldn’t handle a Partially-Trump Republican.