With the midterm elections taking up so much media attention (as the non-stop shitstorm of political ads shows), there are some stories that slide under our respective radar. One such story is that of Christa Pike, a woman on Tennessee’s death row who just happened to survive two execution attempts via lethal injection. Aside from questions about how she would do in Atlantic City casinos, it opened up another discussion about a controversial topic, that being the death penalty.
The public is still divided on whether violent criminals should meet their maker via the world’s most lethal Tinder date, with a majority still favoring it. Of course, that means the Left opposes it, including groups like Amnesty International, because, well, the Left is fucking contrarian these days. And in the past. Well, ever, if you really think about it, and I do because there’s nothing good on TV anymore.
Needless to say (which is why I’m typing it), the death penalty is worth a gander for a Leftist Lexicon entry.
the death penalty
What the Left thinks it means – a barbaric process that should be outlawed for various reasons
What it really means – a punishment that should be the on the table for the most extreme cases
There are a lot of divergent opinions on the Right when it comes to the death penalty. Some of the faithful variety support it while others reject it, both on religious grounds. And both sides have valid perspectives on whether God would allow His followers to end a life in the name of justice. Even more secular members of the Right have concerns about whether the state should be in the business of killing prisoners. These positions show a great deal of thought and introspection.
The Left, on the other hand? They just fucking love criminals.
Take the impending executive by firing squad of Nidal Hassan, the Fort Hood shooter. Sure, he killed 13 people, but the Left want us to overlook that inconvenient truth (hey, that would be a great name for a book, unless that fuckwit Al Gore got his mitts on it) because Hassan was injured as a result of his killing spree. Now, he’s a paraplegic and the Left are turning him into a martyr for their cause.
Which is, you know, loving criminals.
Although Hassan’s circumstances are different than Pike’s, the Left’s position is the same: we can’t kill them because…well, they’re still trying to figure that part out. But I’m sure that, given sufficient time and consideration, the Left will come up with something by the end of the decade.
They’re still trying to figure out which decade, mind you…
For me, I’m of two minds on the subject. As a Christian, I know it’s God’s job to judge, and I’m smart enough not to get in His way. As a skeptic of government getting things right, I can’t completely go along with the same bunch of asshats who can’t figure out how not to spend us into insurmountable debt until the sun burns out having their fingers on the switch.
But as a human being who pays attention to the world around me, I know there are some deeply evil motherfuckers out there. And keeping these dregs of humanity alive while their victims didn’t get the same consideration has always struck me as supremely unfair. I’ve often said any murderer who doesn’t get the death penalty has effectively beaten the charge, and I still feel that way.
Even though we have clowns to the Left of me and jokers to the Right, I’m still not willing to take the death penalty off the table, but only for those extreme cases where there is no other punishment severe enough to adequately address the crime committed.
Of course, the Left loves to paint the death penalty as racist because of the races of the people on death row. My counter to that is the racial makeup of the people committing the crimes that land them on death row. Seems the FBI has some pretty detailed statistics on the matter. But, the Left believes math is racist, so there’s that bullshit to deal with.
Even if I grant the Left’s position that the criminal justice system is biased against non-whites, there’s a way to avoid it completely: don’t commit violent crimes! This is a fixable issue, kids! And, yes, I understand the racism can reach down to the local police departments, some of which make the white people in court in To Kill A Mockingbird look like a Benetton ad. The point still remains the best way to avoid a racist judicial system is to not get in a position to run afoul of it.
The problem we face with the death penalty is some of us aren’t willing to even consider using it for the worst of the worst. The fact California couldn’t bring themselves to execute Charlie Fucking Manson should disqualify them from any morality discussions. Well, that and the fact they covered for Harvey Weinstein like he had blackmail material on Hollywood.
Regardless, even when we have someone who turned in his membership to the human race decades ago, we can’t seem to bring ourselves to accept his/her resignation and wish them the best of luck in their soon-to-be-truncated future endeavors. This can be boiled down to a belief executing a criminal somehow diminishes our humanity. If we can learn to forgive those who commit the most egregious of crimes, even if it results in the loss of life, we’re lead to believe it shows we are better for not giving into our baser instincts.
And this is what the Left counts on in their anti-death penalty rhetoric.
In the Bizarro World logic the Left uses, the criminals are almost always the victim (except if they’re involved with J6 or conservative causes, then they’re all guilty) and they deserve to be kept alive in case we execute an innocent man/woman. I sympathize with those wronged by the judicial system, but I also recognize the relative infrequency in which an innocent person is erroneously punished. By playing to the fears of excessive punishment of the innocent, we have rendered justice toothless and irrelevant to the guilty.
And you can be damn sure the guilty know that.
That’s how Lindsay Clancy got a mistrial in a case where only the truly delusional believe she shouldn’t be held truly accountable for killing her three kids. And it will happen again and again until we get our heads around the guilt trip we’ve been on for decades about the death penalty.
Even so, we have to be careful not to default to the death penalty for every crime. You shouldn’t be getting it for not rewinding a movie from Blockbuster Video in 1994, but if you shot one up and don’t feel any remorse for it I’m going to have to insist we schedule a meeting with Ol’ Sparky for you. I hear he’s electrifying.
Tag: lindsay clancy
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
If you’re like me (and if you are, I apologize), you’ve been following the Lindsay Clancy shitshow…I mean trial. I touched on it briefly last week, so if you want to read it before getting into this week’s entry, check it out here. If you don’t want to, click on the link anyway because reasons.
Anyway, one of the twists I didn’t see coming was a renewed discussion about the 19th Amendment. The odd thing is members of the Left and the Right are coming out and suggesting it may have been a mistake.
And all it took was a triple murder of children to bring both sides together.
So, let’s dive in!
the 19th Amendment
What the Left thinks it means – an important Constitutional Amendment enshrining the right of women to vote
What the Right thinks it means – one of the biggest mistakes we ever made as a country
What it really means – a Constitutional Amendment that underscores the power women have in government
The 19th Amendment reads as follows:
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Wow. Looks like there was a time when the federal government didn’t need to overexplain something! Color me impressed!
Seriously, the 19th Amendment came about during a time when women were becoming more visible in everyday life and in politics. Although the origins of the women’s rights movement started in 1848 in New York, the 19th Amendment wasn’t ratified until 1920. After centuries of being considered non-factors, women finally had the power to make their voices heard.
And in 2026, many are wishing they would shut up.
I’m kidding, of course. As much as I like to point and laugh at Karens wanting to speak to managers and shake my head as others defend a triple murderer because uterus, I have been blessed to have many strong, intelligent women in my life, not the least of which being my wife.
And, no, she is not standing behind me as I write this. After all, she knows where I sleep.
Just kidding, honey! Love you bunches!
More to the point, not all women are psycho hosebeasts with the morality of Hunter Biden at an all-you-can-snort cocaine party on Epstein Island. For example, I would think Margaret Thatcher would be bitch-slapping the Lindsay Clancy fangirls and telling them in no uncertain terms murdering three kids is bad. Of course, if Thatcher were doing that today, we might have a zombie problem, which is just a bit more important than a triple murderer.
Since 1964, more and more women are voting, outpacing the number of men voting in Presidential elections. Even before then, voting data showed women tended to vote Democrat. With this combination of factors, women became a voting bloc that could no longer be ignored.
And yet, Republicans have for a looooooong time, as shown by the gap between women voting Democrat and women voting Republican consistently being in double digits. That, and the fact Democrats pandered more to women than a nerdy simp trying to get the attention of an attractive woman.
Not that I know anything about that, mind you…
Although this explains why Republicans might want the 19th Amendment to go the way of Jeb Bush’s Presidential aspirations, it doesn’t excuse it in light of current events. With the Left being eternally confused about what a woman is, this is an opportunity for Republicans to reduce that gap if they’re smart.
Unfortunately, that’s a bit of an ask these days. After all, all the Left needs to do to mobilize women is to mention abortion rights and wait for the votes to roll in…oh, wait, that’s what they do when they’re fabricating votes to cheat…I mean win elections. But the game plan is still the same.
1. Invent an emotionally-based threat to women.
2. Create ads that play with women’s emotions.
3. Rely on their allies to amplify the threat to women.
4. Blather.
5. Rinse.
6. Repeat until the election cycle is over.
Let’s just say this tried and true method that gets results doesn’t put women in the best light. Yet, it’s tried and true for a reason: it works. The Left continues to use women for votes and money by exploiting female psychology, which tends to prioritize emotions. Although emotions can play a part in our ideologies, it doesn’t always work out when it comes to electing competent people.
If you doubt me, I have two words: Joe Biden.
But it took a triple murder of children for people on both sides of the aisle to reconsider if women should have the right to vote. Personally, I think that breaking point was when older women started to identify with Taylor Swift’s music, but that’s just me.
What’s also me is a bit of pushback on repealing the 19th Amendment. In spite of the outbreak of winemomitis so prevalent in today’s society, I still think women can make good decisions. The fact I got married shows that!
More to the point, women aren’t purely emotional creatures. They just think differently than men do, which is necessary for both genders (and, yes, still 2 genders, kids) to be better people. If we want to have a better society and government, we need to be better people, and taking a significant chunk out of the voting pool because of the actions and sentiments of some freaks doesn’t achieve that.
There’s also a Leftist workaround already in place to deal with the repeal of the 19th Amendment should it come to pass. All Leftist women have to do is self-identify as men and fellow Leftists in positions of power will let allow it. Except, of course, if you’re a man self-identifying as women to play in the WNBA, that is.
Instead of repealing the 19th Amendment, there has to be another option. And being the idea guy that I am, I think I have one. I call it the “Are You Fucking Stupid?” test.
Prior to getting a ballot, a potential voter, man or woman, must submit their recent social media history to election officials. If a majority of them have to ask if you’re fucking stupid, you don’t get a ballot. I’m not talking about having shitty taste in music, movies, or the like. If your serious posts on issues make you look like an idiot, you clearly lack the intellectual heft necessary to vote.
That eliminates the TikToker vote, and it helps to clean up social media for people who have more than two brain cells to rub together. So, win-win!
In the meantime, I urge anyone who has second thoughts on the 19th Amendment to really think about the implications of such an action. You would be condemning an entire gender to disenfranchisement all because some of their sisters decided to back a triple murderer because fee-fees. That’s not fair, nor is it advisable.
Remember, as the great philosopher LL Cool J so eloquently put it, Mama said knock you out.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
As much as I like to keep my thumb firmly up the ass of politics, social issues, and pop culture (hey, don’t judge me, man), there are times when I notice a convergence of a couple of topics that hasn’t been discussed at all. This requires a keen mind, a calm demeanor, and a way with words.
And since that guy is on vacation right now, it’s up to me.
There are two recent prominent court cases that dominated the public’s attention. The first was the trial of Karmelo Anthony, who was convicted of murdering Austin Metcalf at a track meet in 2025. The other is the ongoing trial (please check local listings for the status of the trial in your area) of Lindsay Clancy, who is accused of killing her three children in 2023. Aside from the murder aspect, these two cases couldn’t be more different.
Until you look at the people following the trials.
And I’m not just talking about some of the people who covered them as journalists. I’m talking about the brainless asshats who invent “facts” to devote their undying support for…the murderers.
Yes, we’ve gone that fucking stupid.
Gad Saad was instrumental in creating the concept of “suicidal empathy” where those who would do us harm rely on our humanity to help them destroy ourselves. I would write about it, but so many others have done a much better job than I ever could. However, using suicidal empathy as a starting point, I think I’ve stumbled upon another equally destructive concept.
homicidal empathy
What the Left thinks it means – We have no fucking clue.
What the Right thinks it means – Mega dittos. We don’t know what he’s talking about either.
What it really means – a psychological need to protect those who victimize others
To show you I’m not talking out of my ass (for once), I’ve been following the Karmelo Anthony trial on Facebook and following the Lindsay Clancy trial online, mainly through YouTube. Not exactly the kind of hard-hitting journalism you’d expect, but this shit’s free and you’re getting what you paid for.
What I’ve found so far is this:
1. There are people online who have emotional attachments to the two central figures because they feel they related to the figures in question.
2. These people will create any scenario in their heads or believe whatever scenario someone else puts forth, regardless of whether it’s factual or logical.
3. Anyone who tries to introduce inconvenient facts and logic are immediately attacked by these people.
4. The attacks from the aforementioned people will be irrelevant to the trial, highly personal, highly emotional, and often full of vulgar language to avoid dealing with the facts.
On a side note, number 4 resembles my single life.
Meanwhile, back that the point that doesn’t require weekly therapy sessions, the pace at which these folks spin narratives is breathtaking. No matter if it’s a line of logic that goes nowhere or if it’s someone else asking a logical question that exposes the claims as more full of shit than a Porta-Potty outside of a Taco Bell in New Dehli, there’s always a response. Usually, a personal insult. And nothing short of God himself coming down and notarizing your statements will sway them, and even then it’s a crapshoot.
That’s because homicidal empathy isn’t about the truth. It’s about taking up for a cause without consideration to the factual underpinnings of the cause. We saw this earlier this year with the Southern Poverty Law Center when Leftists came out in droves to defend it in spite of the fact they were breaking several laws to funnel funds to the very racist groups they said they were fighting. No matter what excuses they came up with to justify the behavior, Leftists still couldn’t grasp the concept that breaking the law has consequences, no matter how noble the cause.
Then again, these are the same people who can’t figure out what a woman is, so I’ll cut them some slack in the intellectual prowess department.
In both the Anthony and Clancy cases, we have laws being broken and clear evidence the perpetrators committed murder. Where homicidal empathy comes into play is the supporters of each murderer seeks to downplay or justify the actions of the murderer by deflection, poisoning the well, and general dumbfuckery. After all, as we all know, murder is perfectly fine if other unrelated factors are evident!
For you Anthony and/or Clancy supporters out there, that was sarcasm.
But here’s something that isn’t sarcasm: you’re supporting a fucking murderer. And I’m not talking in a hyperbolic sense like “Donald Trump has killed 482 bazillion people because of shutting down USAID.” Both Anthony and Clancy are literal murderers who confessed to murdering people. There is no amount of “but Austin Metcalf was racist” or “the husband is a different Zodiac sign” that will change that fact. It’s yours. Own it.
The sad thing is they never will because the narrative will continue to put out new “facts” to support itself, not unlike one of my Irrefutable Facts of Life: The sole purpose of a bureaucracy is to grow itself to the point it becomes impossible to remove. With the Anthony and Clancy supporters, the sole purpose of the narrative is to mitigate the facts of the cases to the point murder is no longer the central concept. It becomes the “yeah, but” defense.
Then, it hit me the kind of tactics these folks use is similar to that of cults. Let’s look at the characteristics of a cult, shall we?
– Absolute authoritarianism without accountability
– Zero tolerance for criticism or questions
– Lack of meaningful financial disclosure regarding the budget
– Unreasonable fears about the outside world that often involve evil conspiracies and persecutions
– A belief that former followers are always wrong for leaving, and there is never a legitimate reason for anyone else to leave
– Abuse of members
– Records, books, articles, or programs documenting the abuses of the leader or group
– Followers feel that they are never able to be “good enough”
– A belief that the leader is right at all times
– A belief that the leader is the exclusive means of knowing “truth” or giving validation
Guess what groups hit the majority of these warning signs. If you said “the Anthony and Clancy supporters” you’d be right. The judges would have also accepted “Hasan Piker fans.”
If that isn’t your cup of Earl Grey, I can also point to the lyrics of Living Colour’s “Cult of Personality.”
I exploit you
Still you love me
I tell you one and one makes three
Guess what, homicidal empathy fans. You’re in a cult. And if you can’t trust a combination of psychologists and Living Colour, who can you trust?
The worst part of homicidal empathy (aside from the whole sticking up for murderers bit) is there is zero return on investment here, and I’m not talking about it in a monetary sense. Instead, consider the personal psychological costs involved with it. Men and women (mostly women I’ve found, unfortunately) are devoting their lives to people who don’t even know they exist, but they are more than willing to use their supporters to garner sympathy. Sure, the Anthony and Clancy supporters can hand wave away such observations by claiming they’re fighting for a higher cause (namely justice), but these cases aren’t the hills you should be dying on, kids.
If you’ll pardon the turn of a phrase, that is.
Even if you don’t, the point remains. Is there racism in the justice system? Absolutely. Do women experience post partum depression after giving birth? No question. Are Karmelo Anthony and Lindsay Clancy the best poster children for these issues? Abso-fucking-ly not. You can address these issues independent of bad people facing the consequences of their actions.
And something tells me a lot of the Anthony and Clancy supporters haven’t done shit but complain. You know, classic slacktivism.
Unfortunately, I don’t think we’ll ever be able to get through those willing to engage in homicidal empathy, but we can watch out for signs we might be going down a similar path. Nobody is worth diminishing yourself to elevate him/her, especially if that person is a piece of shit. Karmelo Anthony and Lindsay Clancy are not role models nor innocent victims. They did the shit they’re accused of doing, and no stretches of imagination that would rival Reed Richards practicing hot yoga will fix that.
Consider the wise words of my grandpa: “Hey you kids! Get off my lawn!”
Profound words indeed.