Although the Left loves to play with words, there are times when they’re played by words. Such is the case with the hot phrase making its way through the Right, “Let’s Go Brandon.” I haven’t seen Leftists this pissed off about three words since President Donald Trump.
I know I’m a little late to the party on this one, but seeing how the Left keeps getting their panties in a twist over it (and that’s not the only thing twisted here), I figured I might as well delve deeper into the phenomenon.
Let’s Go Brandon
What the Left thinks it means – a derogatory term to protest the Biden Administration
What it really means – a semi-organic phrase originating from an ill-advised attempt to protect the Biden Administration that has taken on a life of its own
In Leftist circles, Joe Biden is a popular President, and only a handful of misguided people think otherwise. In the real world, though, he’s only slightly more popular than sexually-transmitted diseases, a Hannah Gadsby stand-up special, and a nude pictorial by Rosie O’Donnell. And that’s even with a press slobbering over him more than the President does on himself.
While the Left struggles with why people aren’t worshiping the ground he walks on, it’s really not that hard to understand. For being in politics for most of my and his adult lives, it’s clear he hasn’t learned much about how to lead. Oh, he’s had leadership opportunities, but he hasn’t picked up on the simplest of basics.
Namely, don’t be a dumbass.
As a result of the President’s inability to master this, along with the ongoing allegations of voter fraud, people started to push back in small, but noticeable ways. Granted, these weren’t as extreme as knitting pussy hats or overtaking portions of Seattle and turning it into Beirut with Starbucks, but the effect was the same: it pissed people off.
And, hypocritically so, making Leftists clutch their metaphorical pearls because…there was vulgarity! The chant of “Fuck Joe Biden” became the go-to for people who didn’t like the President, and the same Leftists who got behind the “Fuck Trump” chants suddenly became Puritans. Or Im-Puritans as the case may be.
Either way, the point was made. Where the twisting of the phrase came into play was during a live interview with NASCAR driver Brandon Brown. Although it was clear the crowd was yelling “Fuck Joe Biden,” the reporter tried to pass it off as the crowd yelling “Let’s Go Brandon.” That one attempt to poorly explain away what was actually being said spread like wildfire on the Right. Everything from flags to hats to t-shirts, including face masks and a #1 song on iTunes, started popping up and spreading across the country.
Hmmm…apparently that small group of naysayers is a lot bigger than the Left believes.
Although there are a lot of reasons the Left hates “Let’s Go Brandon,” one of the less obvious ones is it didn’t come from the Left. The Left’s stock and trade is creating memorable phrases that resonate with potential voters and the party faithful. And let’s be honest, “Build Back Better” doesn’t exactly inspire passion in anyone but the hardcore Bidenites. To have something like “Let’s Go Brandon” catch on means the Left can’t control the narrative.
Which means they have to destroy it.
Recent articles by NPR, the Associated Press, and others attempt to peel the onion and mention the ill-fated turn of a phrase the Right co-opted, but fail to truly understand how and why it’s taken off. Instead, the Left tries to pass it off as vulgarity in lieu of political discourse. (Yeah, like “Fuck Trump” was the height of brilliant repartee.) And to be fair, that’s an accurate assessment, but it skims the surface without ever getting deeper than a mud puddle. So, let me fill in the blanks.
Joe Biden has made some horrible decisions as President that have negatively impacted people across the country. When this happens, people are going to get upset and look for ways to needle the powerful. That’s the way it’s been here since pre-Revolutionary War days, and it’s going to continue for many years to come.
The ultimate slap in the face, though, is the fact it’s protected speech, just like the Left’s tantrums over the past 5 years is. Even when we don’t like it. If the Left decides to go the legislative or regulatory route to stifle “Let’s Go Brandon,” it will only take until the next Republican President for it to backfire. Granted, no one said the Left was any good at long-term consistent thinking, but it’s still something to consider.
Speaking personally, I’m amused by the chant, if only because it pisses off the Left so much. It’s not something I would normally support because their brevity robs the ideas behind them of their power and intellectual heft, but I wholeheartedly support anyone who wants to use it because, well, I’m not a dick. Then again, sometimes the most impactful messages don’t need to be an intellectual masterpiece.
After all, they still sell Hot Pockets off the jingle alone.
Author: Thomas
I'm a writer and a ranger and a young boy bearing arms. And two out of the three don't count.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
At long last, the details of one of the proposed infrastructure bills became public knowledge thanks to the New York Times. Although the details of the expenditures aren’t known yet, some of the details came out with a particular focus on fighting climate change. And a big focus on fighting climate change involves fossil fuels.
No matter where you go, the same people who keep telling us the planet is doomed tell us the way to prevent the inevitable is to do away with fossil fuels and convert to renewable energy. Although I haven’t seen any of the main proponents of renewable energy travel via solar vehicle, it’s worth exploring what the Left thinks of fossil fuels and why they’re so keen on making them as obsolete as the career of Yahoo Serious.
fossil fuels
What the Left thinks it means – sources of energy that are killing the planet with diminishing returns
What it really means – the only energy came in town for now, and possibly ever
The self-professed “Party of Science” has been after fossil fuels for a while now, but it wasn’t always the case. Back in the heady days of the 70s, some climate scientists suggested adding more pollution to the atmosphere to ward of global cooling. As we’ve since figured out, they were wrong, and as a result, the Left doesn’t take those dire predictions seriously or as valid. Instead, they have their own dire predictions to push, namely global warming/climate change/climate catastrophes/whatever they’re calling it this millisecond to generate fear.
And the scientists the Left are relying on for their proof? Turns out they’re wrong, too. Funny how that works out, isn’t it?
Undeterred by the lack of global catastrophes directly linked to fossil fuels, the Left has made it their aim to get us to move away from fossil fuels in the name of protecting the environment. And they’ll fly all over the world and drive in long lines of cars to go to events in large venues using more electricity than Las Vegas during Christmas telling us about the dangers that await us if we don’t stop using fossil fuels.
As you might have guessed, I have more faith in convenience store sushi than the Left’s commitment to fighting climate change.
Aside from the blatant hypocrisy even Ray Charles can see (and he’s dead), the “Party of Science” hasn’t figured out why fossil fuels are still in use today. Not surprisingly, it’s dirt simple: fossil fuels work. No matter how many solar panels you put up, no matter how many Priuses there are on the road, no matter how many windmills you erect, fossil fuels tend to work better than alternative fuels, at least for now. And I say that as someone who has driven through typical Iowa winter conditions with a gas-guzzling SUV passing hybrids stuck in the snow. To be fair, though, the hybrids were traveling up a 0.000000000001 degree incline, so they were really at a disadvantage.
Seriously, though, nobody has been able to figure out a viable alternative to oil, coal, and gas yet. What people have done is build upon the existing framework fossil fuels have built, in some cases literally. Even with these alternatives, fossil fuels are more effective and in some cases better for the environment. (See ethanol for an example of this.)
Put simply, we can’t do away with fossil fuels yet because so much of our economy still runs on it. I’m not just talking about fuel here, kids. Fossil fuels are used to generate electricity, because we kinda like to power our devices and, oh, not freeze ourselves to death in the winter or boil ourselves to death in the summer. Then, there are some of the byproducts of fossil fuels, namely plastics, that would be the metaphorical rochabeau to our economy if the Left gets their wish.
But no one ever accused the Left of knowing anything about economics.
There is one alternate fuel source out there that has shown to work well independent of fossil fuels, but the Left doesn’t like it, so it doesn’t get mentioned. And that alternate fuel is…nuclear power. Granted, the Left’s opinions on nuclear power haven’t changed since Three Mile Island, but it’s important to note two things. One, nuclear power is currently being used in some parts of the world without there being meltdowns on a regular basis. And, two, the main reason the Left doesn’t like nuclear power isn’t because of their commitment to safety, but rather their commitment to sowing fear and providing seemingly the only answers to “solve” the climate problem.
I call this the Oprah Effect. Back in her heyday, Oprah Winfrey seemed to thrive on the idea she could see all the problems we (i.e. suburban white women) face and come up with a ready-made solution that not-so-coincidentally helped her pocketbook and ego. The Left uses the Oprah Effect to great success on climate issues for the same reason Oprah was so successful in peddling her brand of problem-solving.
Most people are uninformed, gullible, and lazy. (But not you, faithful readers.)
Since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, people have sought ways to work smarter, not harder, and have utilized whatever means available to do so. The only problem with that approach is eventually we think we run out of ways to make things better, so we rest on our laurels, which America has done for, oh, seven decades or so. As a result, our interest in thinking has waned like the interest in people watching Hannah Gadsby do “comedy.” After all, thinking is hard, dammit! So why not leave it to the experts?
Five decades of wrong predictions on climate change should be a clue.
And to be honest, none of the people pushing for the elimination of fossil fuels are experts, either. I still think alternatives to fossil fuels are possible, but until they can become viable alternatives, they are just possibilities. We need to work with what we have, and the eeeeeevilllll fossil fuel companies are finding new ways to extend the life of the industry and minimize damage to the environment. You know what the anti-fossil fuel side has done?
Talked a lot.
Oh, and stoked a lot of fear of an ecological disaster coming in the near future without anything like they predict ever happening.
With this kind of uninformed resistance, I think fossil fuels will be around for a while longer.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
To put it mildly, things are bad. And I’m not talking your garden variety finger-cut-while-cutting-lemons kind of bad. I’m talking wiping-your-eyes-while-cutting-habanero-peppers-and-balancing-above-a- pit-of-razor-sharp-knives-during-a-live-Yoko-Ono-concert bad. And yet, we find the stupidest shit to bitch about.
Enter Dave Chappelle. His recent comedy special “The Closer” garnered both positive and negative reviews. Namely, the people who watched it with the understanding that comedy is supposed to be funny loved it, and the reviewers who read the Cliff’s Notes version of the special written by the Unfunny People Against Comedians Union and hated it.
Welcome to Stupid Stuff to Complain About-Ville. Population…too many.
Part of the controversy surrounds Chappelle’s observation there are two genders. And we’re still having this debate in 2021. Regardless, members of the trans community objected to the special, claiming it was transphobic. But, as you might expect, there’s a whole lot to unpack here.
transphobia
What the Left thinks it means – any irrational hatred or fear of transexuals
What it really means – an overused catch-all term for anything the Left doesn’t like when it comes to transexuals
To make sure I was speaking intelligently about the subject matter, I watched “The Closer” in its entirety. (The things I do for you readers…) I have to say it was enjoyable on several levels, not the least of which being its brutal honesty. Everything from COVID-19 to race to, yes, transexuals with no sacred cows spared, just like much of Chappelle’s body of work to date.
So, when trans people and their supporters started to complain about his comedy being transphobic, my first question was, “Have you watched any of his comedy before?” As I’ve confirmed by watching “The Closer” and comparing it to the criticisms, the answer is no. But when has a lack of knowledge prevented the Left from speaking?
Although there are plenty of jokes about the trans community, they aren’t what I would consider jokes at their expense. If anything, “The Closer” is about inclusion by making everyone a possible target for mockery. And for people who throw around the word “context” to excuse their stupid shit, it’s amazing how little Leftists actually understand and apply it appropriately.
And with “The Closer,” actual context matters. If you are looking solely at the targets of the jokes, you come away thinking Chappelle is a transphobe. This position is augmented by the Leftist notion that jokes can be hurtful, along with silence and speaking for that matter. In other words, anything you say or don’t say will be used against you in the court of Leftist popular opinion.
Which is one of the points Chappelle made in this special, and one the Leftists crying “transphobe” continue to miss.
A significant portion of “The Closer” is devoted to the trans community going after Chappelle based on what one inaccurate information source said about him. In encounter after encounter, trans people and their supporters didn’t bother to consider anything but that one source as gospel. If anyone would have a Paul Bunyon-sized axe to grind with the trans community afterwards, it would be Chappelle. However, he flipped the script on his critics by showing an amount of grace they lack.
This is exemplified in the final segment of the show. Chappelle tells the story about a white trans woman who wanted to be a comedian and the first time she opened for Chappelle. Let’s just say it didn’t go well, but in the process Chappelle made a personal connection with the woman and helped her hone her craft. After the first round of “Dave Chappelle is transphobic” comments, Chappelle’s friend took to social media and defended him. Six days later, she committed suicide due to the bullying she received.
From whom, you might ask? Well, it wasn’t MAGA hat wearing Trump supporters. It was…the trans community itself.
Didn’t see that coming, did you?
Actually, if you have paid attention to the trans community, it’s not that hard to believe. I’m reminded of an old saying, “Get off my lawn!” Then, after I’ve realized that saying isn’t applicable, I’m reminded of a different saying, “The personal is political.” Anything that affects us on a personal level can be, and often is, used for political ends. And in this case, trans issues have become political issues, mainly because the Left wants to make them so.
And that’s where I feel the trans community goes off the rails like Joseph Hazelwood working for Amtrak. As personal as the issue is to you, there is a lot of work to do to turn these issues from narrowly political to more universal. And you’re freaking out the natives with the way some members of the trans community act. Furthermore, you’re not helping bridge the tolerance gap by throwing around “transphobia” when it is more of a lack of understanding. Yes, there are some actual people who hate the transgendered, but they’re rarer than the way Dracula likes his meat. (I would have said steaks instead of meat, but we know how he feels about them.)
The point is a lot of the oppression the trans community feels right now is self-inflicted, but the Left doesn’t care about making trans people a welcome part of society. Just the opposite. Leftists need there to be constant strife so their own ends are met. And if you’re still fuzzy about it, here’s the short version: the Left is using the trans community and will continue to do so until it’s no longer beneficial to do so. You know who didn’t do that?
Dave Chappelle.
The worst he did was to poke fun at members of the trans community for acting like judgmental assholes because, well, they were acting like judgmental assholes. If you’re pissed about that, you need to get some perspective. Contrary to Leftist opinion, words are not violence and “The Closer” is some damn good comedy from a master in his craft. And because of the aforementioned judgmental assholes, Dave Chappelle won’t be doing comedy until they realize he’s on their side.
If Mr. Chappelle is reading this, if you wanted to wait this out, I would suggest investing in cryogenic equipment because the trans community attacking you don’t seem to be all that keen on self-awareness.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
The past couple of weeks has been difficult for the Biden Administration. Aside from its usual level of tone-deaf incompetence, its signature infrastructure bill, Build Back Better, has been getting criticized more than Dave Chappelle’s recent Netflix special. But unlike the aforementioned special, the Build Back Better agenda isn’t intentionally funny.
The more that comes out about Build Back Better, the less it seems to get people’s support. Of course, it doesn’t help matters any that information about it comes out in dribs and drabs, all while being promoted as costing nothing. As you might expect, I’m a little skeptical.
And by a little, I mean a lot.
This week, let’s look at the agenda and try to piece together what it is.
Build Back Better
What the Left thinks it means – an important approach to rebuilding our infrastructure, create jobs, and achieve more energy independence
What it really means – a laundry list of programs and expenditures that will do little-to-nothing towards infrastructure
Back in my youth, I loved this time of year because that meant all the national chain department stores would send out their Christmas-themed catalogs. There you could see all sorts of cool toys and gadgets to make children’s Christmas lists a lot easier to make, but more expensive to fulfill. These days, the best we can hope for is a list of things we’re going to be paying for on the federal credit card. With Build Back Better, we are hoping in one hand and shitting in the other and seeing which hand fills up first.
Let’s just say you might want to hold off giving high fives for a while.
Build Back Better is shrouded in mystery, mainly because the Left doesn’t want us to know what’s in it to avoid having to answer questions. Don’t get me wrong, there is some infrastructure in Build Back Better, but so far not a lot of what we know about it would qualify. Instead, much of it is recycled Leftist ideas that didn’t go over well the first time, including what I would call a soft reboot of the Green New Deal (complete with money going to the Socialist Socialite because reasons). And, surprise surprise, there are people out there who want more details before we spend $3.5 trillion.
Like Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema.
Well, the Left hasn’t taken this too well, considering they’re all-in on harassing the Senators and calling for them to be recalled, removed, or otherwise defeated in the next primary. To date, neither Manchin nor Sinema has changed their minds and it’s unclear whether pinning the Left’s failure to make an argument in favor of Build Back Better on them is going to work. I’m gonna go out on a limb and say…it’s not.
In a rare moment of self-awareness, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi admitted Democrats haven’t done a good job in selling the benefits of Build Back Better. Granted, there may not be much there to sell, but I have to give the Speaker credit for acknowledging the lack of persuasion. And for staying sober long enough to do it. Combine this with the “ram it through at all costs” approach used on Sens. Manchin and Sinema, and you have an image problem worse that Jon Gruden right now.
This begs the question of why there’s a problem getting people to support Build Back Better outside of the party faithful. A lot of it goes back a few months to the Left’s “X is infrastructure” approach. Child care, health care, living wages, and so on were thrown into the same bucket and people started to wonder why, including your humble correspondent. It created a lot of jokes outside of the Leftist hivemind, but the fact anything under the sun could be considered infrastructure if you wanted it to be undercut the validity of any infrastructure proposal by cheapening the idea of infrastructure. (And that is how you fit one word into a sentence multiple times without looking like you’re just trying to pad out a weekly blog post about words the Left uses…okay, let’s move on.)
Let’s not overlook the lack of transparency in this situation. Yes, it’s called Build Back Better, but what does that consist of and how is better being determined? Even the Biden Administration can’t come up with concrete answers, and it’s their fucking plan! When the people who came up with the thing can’t tell you what it’s about, you know it’s either horrible or they’re incompetent.
Insert “Why Not Both?” meme here.
Seriously, though, Build Back Better proponents can’t seem to get out of their own ways and level with us. Instead, we’re hearing how it will cost nothing (which it won’t, but try telling Leftists that offsets of costs don’t mean there weren’t any costs in the first place) and how it will make the wealthy pay their fair share (except the top 1% pays around 40% of the federal tax burden as of this missive). These are red-meat issues for Leftists, but they don’t play that well on Main Street. Most people today care about paying their own bills and ignore politics because it’s pointless. Except for a select few of us, that is, who pay attention to the minute details of every soundbite, campaign promise, or proposed spending.
Geez, we desperately need hobbies!
As long as Build Back Better is more high concept and less brass tacks (and more high tax), it’s going to be a hard pass from me. However, in the spirit of bipartisanship, I’ve come up with a new name for it, and the Biden Administration won’t even have to change the abbreviation. I call it Biden’s Big Boondoggle. Catchy, isn’t it?
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
While President Joe Biden’s Build Back Better bill languishes in Congress, Leftists are trying to shame people into supporting it, including members of “The Squad.” For those unfamiliar with them, The Squad is the political equivalent of “The View”: a bunch of uninformed harpies whose voices create more cringe than YouTube. A member of The Squad, Rep. Ilhan Omar, recently tweeted America has a problem with greed.
By the way, this is one reason I don’t have a Twitter account: too many twits.
The Left loves to attack greed, but do they understand what it entails? Let’s just assume not and head right into this week’s Leftist Lexicon.
greed
What the Left thinks it means – unnecessarily hording money so others can’t use it to better society
What it really means – the lust for money, especially money that doesn’t belong to you
Greed is a human emotion everyone has, but the Left has found a way to weaponize it. To the Left, there is a direct line from greed to dag-nasty evil once you connect the dots. The problem is the dots don’t connect nearly as neatly as the Left will have you believe.
Take Amazon founder and executive Jeff Bezos, for example. In spite of his near-perfect record of supporting Leftist causes, he’s still in the crosshairs of the Left because of the money he’s made due to COVID-19. Gee, I wonder how Bezos could have made so much money delivering packages to people stuck inside due to a global pandemic…it’s a mystery!
Granted, the way Amazon treats warehouse workers makes China look good by comparison, which is a valid criticism of the Bezos way, but that’s usually not what the Left talks about first. It’s his money and what he’s done with it, namely going up into space. Shortly after Bezos and fellow rich Leftist Richard Branson took their money and built rockets that took them into space, Leftists went berserk…er. They said the money they (and non-Leftist Elon Musk) spent on what they termed joyrides could have been used for better purposes, such as education and the environment. Heck, they were so serious they made it into a meme! A MEME, PEOPLE!
Here’s the funny thing. Bezos, Branson, and Musk do contribute to society. Bezos alone gave $10 billion to fight climate change. Wait…isn’t climate change something the Left says they care about? Why, yes! Yes, it is! Combine that with the $2 billion and the millions of dollars Branson and Musk have given to numerous charities, respectively. And that’s not even getting into the Warren Buffets and Bill Gateses of the world. And what has the Left contributed?
A meme trying to get us to believe billionaires were bad people because they were greedy for wanting to go into space.
That’s a concept the Left can’t seem to get their heads around: it’s not their money in the first place. It shouldn’t be any of our business how people spend their money so long as it doesn’t infringe on other people’s rights, and I’m going to say taking a craft into space isn’t hurting anybody but NASA and the Left. Not that I advocate either, mind you. It’s a matter of keeping things in perspective, i.e. staying in your lane.
The Left doesn’t recognize that, though, because to them everything is or should be under their control, and I do mean control. If they can figure out a way to create federal control of anything, they will make it happen. Just look at their attempt to federalize fact-checking on Facebook, as helped by a “whistleblower” who just happens to give money to the Socialist Socialite. But I’m sure that was totally a coincidence, though!
The end goal for bringing up greed is to get the Left in control of as much money as possible. Instead of working to, you know, earn it, they try to guilt it into their wallets, and it usually works. That’s why a lot of wealthy people lean Left. Either that, or they’re trying to keep the Left off their backs for a little while. Either way, the Left isn’t satisfied with the money they get from wealthy Leftists. They need to have it all, and will use any means necessary to get it.
Which, oddly yet appropriately enough, is the very definition of greed.
No matter how righteous the Left thinks they are in trying to make things equal…ly bad, the fact remains they epitomize the very thing they claim to be fighting. Aside from the delicious irony and pure comedic gold this brings, there is no up-side to making people feel worse because they have more money than others. Personally, I don’t care if you made your money working in a factory or making TikTok videos because it’s not my purpose to tell you how to make money. If you want my sanction, you’ll have to talk to someone else. (It was part of my wedding vows.)
Besides, what exactly is wrong with being wealthy? The fact someone has more doesn’t mean the world has less. Money isn’t pizza, folks. There’s enough for everyone. Of course, if you made your money harming others, then I have a problem with it. Fortunately, most wealthy people I know (because I hobnob with the elites on weekends) don’t do that. Even the worst among them have done something to earn their fortune, even if it is just being born into a wealthy family. The point is greed is neither good nor evil, per se, because it’s how we use it that makes the difference. If we use greed as a motivator to become the best in an industry, that’s positive. If we use greed to malign others because we’re too busy playing scratch-off tickets to work, that’s negative.
Let’s just say the Left has scratch-off crumbs on them.
Ultimately, though, we shouldn’t let knuckleheads from The Squad use greed as a weapon to support a $3.5 trillion dollar boondoggle. The only thing greater than the Left’s greed is their lack of self-awareness about it.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
To hear Leftists talk, the world is coming to an end. Granted, this is their default position on anything they don’t understand, but this week it’s been an impending government shutdown, and the only solution is to raise the debt ceiling so Congress can spend more money. After all, if we can’t pay our bills, past, present, and future, we’ll go into default and everything will go to Hell! People dying in the streets! Climate change causing floods and famine! Nickelback going on tour!
What is the debt ceiling? It’s not part of a government building, but it is something we need to deal with before it swallows us whole without so much as a courtesy chew.
debt ceiling
What the Left thinks it means – a necessary increase so the country can continue to spend money and provide services
What it really means – a way to enable bad fiscal policy
To put it mildly, the federal government has the spending problems of a shopaholic with an Amex Black card. It continues to spend and spend without consequence, save for the rare occasion when an incumbent gets toppled by an opponent. And, just like the aforementioned shopaholic, we’re buying some really stupid shit. Just look at the proposed $3.5 trillion President Joe Biden wants to spend on stuff like tree equity, making nursing homes more inclusive to LBGTQ folks, and reinventing an environmental service program that failed under FDR because the Socialist Socialite wants it.
If only the government were addicted to shoes instead of boondoggles…
Raising the debt ceiling is extending a line of credit to the federal shopaholic knowing we’ll never pay it back, but will ask to get more down the road. And those who helped us get the national debt higher than Willie Nelson in Colorado on 4/20 are the ones who get to decide whether we get that line of credit. A great gig if you can get it, but not a good way to run a country.
If only we had some guide to help our elected officials commit to spending money on specific things. You know…like a budget? Well, bad news, kids. Congress hasn’t done an actual budget since…2006. That leads to the question of how we kept our doors open without a budget. Thanks to a little thing called a continuing resolution, Congress is able to spend and spend without worrying about being tied down to specific numbers and purposes. Even when Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, we kept funding things under a continuing resolution and asking for raising the debt ceiling when we got close to running out of money. Unfortunately, efforts to create a Congressional budget have failed to date, thus making it easier for politicians to spend without end on whatever caught their attention.
Here’s where things get tricky. At some point, we will run out of money, even with the vast resources the government can draw upon if they want to liquidate them. (Spoiler Alert: they don’t want to liquidate anything.) When we reach that point, raising the debt ceiling will be futile because we won’t have the money to have it raised. And unless we want to be the stereotypical brother-in-law who sleeps on our couch and never looks for a way to pay his share of the household costs, we have to do something major to affect change. Besides, I don’t think any of us has a couch big enough for the country to crash on while they look for jobs and Internet porn.
First off, we need fiscally responsible Republicans to come up with a budget when they get control of Congress again. Then, we need to stick to that budget without calling for raising the debt ceiling, even for things they want us to believe are vital interests. Our primary interest from an economic standpoint is getting our fiscal house in order sooner rather than never.
In fact, let me go a step further here. I think we should make raising the debt ceiling illegal, period. Imagine what that could do to a Congresscritter if he or she has to watch what they propose and keep an eye on how much it’s going to cost. You know, just like the rest of us have to do with our own budgets?
At the very least, we need to stage an intervention. Get the federal government into a room and have taxpayers tell them how it’s hurting us and it needs to get help for its spending addiction. And if we can turn it into a reality show, we might be able to recoup some of the debt on merchandising alone!
The Return of Fuzzy Math
It’s finally here, kids! Democrats have put together a $3.5 trillion infrastructure bill that, according to them, will cost us zero dollars. If you’re like me, and God help you if you are, you’re reaching for your brown BS flag to challenge the math. Now, if we only had a press corps that would do that job for us…oh, well. We can’t expect the media to stop cheerleading for the Biden Administration and start doing their jobs, right?
Anyway, the infrastructure bill is full of Leftist pet projects, including (and I’m not making this up) “tree equity.” The Reader’s Digest Condensed Version of the idea is it’s not fair poor people don’t have trees in their neighborhoods, so the federal government is going to fight the problem by planting trees. A noble idea, to be sure, but I’m not sure if I trust the same government that can’t figure out how to pass an actual budget to plant a flower bed, let alone a tree.
Oh, but don’t worry! All $3.5 trillion is accounted for thanks to tax increases on the wealthiest Americans. That means, according to Leftist logic, it won’t cost us a dime. Wellll…not exactly.
I will admit this next part of this entry is as boring as an Al Gore speech, but it’s important to understanding the situation and the lies surrounding it. I promise not to go into too much detail because, really, there isn’t any need for it. Like your appendix or another “Scary Movie” sequel.
The zero-cost claim is based on a bit of creative bookkeeping on the government’s part. What they do is spend the money over a few years and attempt to “pay it off” through increased income, i.e. taxes. Slap a popular idea on it and everything works out for the best.
Except when it doesn’t, which is most of the time.
A glaring problem with this approach is the fluidity of money. Thanks to market forces, inflation, and confidence in the strength of the dollar, what you buy today may not be able to buy as much tomorrow, and that includes government spending. And when you’re dealing with the kind of numbers we are now, it gets expensive.
Then, there’s a looming tipping point when the takers outpace the givers. For now, we’re on the positive side of that, but we’re a lot closer to the edge than we think. Leftists will reply, “Well, that’s because the wealthy aren’t paying their fair share,” and for once I agree with them. The rich and powerful in America are not paying what they owe to keep this country afloat.
They’re paying much more.
As of this writing, the wealthiest 1% pays around 40% of the tax burden. Although the Left says this is only reasonable given how much money they’re making, the fact we expect such a small percentage of Americans to support close to half of our tax burden is concerning. By the time you get to the top 25%, the tax burden is almost completely paid in full. I don’t know about you, but that seems a bit…unfair.
And the Biden Administration wants the rich to pay more than their fair share so they can pay their fair share?
I’m just as confused as you are.
The other thing to keep in mind regarding government spending is it’s never enough. There will always be some new wrinkle that only the government can screw up…I mean fix. And what’s the best way the Left can come up with to fix problems? That’s right, kids: throw more money at them! I mean, it’s worked with public education, right?
Let’s take the “tree equity” part of the spending bill, for example. During the rollout phase, invariably someone will say “This is great, but what about X?” And, just for the sake of an example, let’s say X is Antarctica. The sensible thing to do is realize trees may not grow there because, well, it’s Antarctica. The Leftist thing to do is create Make Antarctica Green Again and send millions of taxpayer dollars to whatever Leftist think-tank came up with the dumb idea in the first place. And, surprise surprise, it will always find a way to get funded year after year, even after it’s been determined trees don’t grow in Antarctica.
But I’m sure this infrastructure bill will be different…
The biggest underlying flaw with the no-cost idea is it defies common sense. No matter how many offsets you claim will occur, there will still be costs involved. Time, effort, sweat, and, yes, even money go into every endeavor we undertake from putting trees in Antarctica to getting up in the morning. And, yes, I know Leftists are trying to make a distinction between net and gross costs in trying to justify the zero-cost statement, but remember these are the same people who think free college is going to be a thing. Of course, I wonder who’s going to tell college professors they will be working for free…
Regardless, there is a lot of room to doubt the Biden Administration’s claims the proposed infrastructure bill will cost us nothing, mainly because the Left and economic literacy aren’t on speaking terms. Meanwhile, we will be adding more debt to future generations to address long after we’re gone.
But at least we’ll get “tree equity.”
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Being a member of law enforcement at any level isn’t a cakewalk, especially in these politically charged times. This is doubly so for the men and women on the front lines of our southern border, who tend to catch heck for sneezing in the general direction of an illegal immigrant.
This past week, a photo of a Border Patrol agent on horseback apparently whipping an illegal immigrant from Haiti made the rounds, setting off a firestorm of criticism. Even though there were no actual whips in the photo, the Left whipped up resentment towards the Border Patrol. Yes, the same people who want to defund the police, abolish ICE, and say no human is illegal thinks the people enforcing our borders are meanie-heads.
And as we’ll see, it’s no coincidence these issues are connected.
Border Patrol
What the Left thinks it means – the tyrannical arm of the US government, targeting poor defenseless people trying to make a better life in America
What it really means – a group of people trying to hold the line against illegal immigration without much support from politicians
America has been a beacon of hope for many an immigrant for centuries. But as anyone who has ever owned a bug zapper will tell you, a beacon can attract less desirable elements who will use every trick in their arsenals to take advantage of our largesse. Unlike the bug zapper, though, we tend not to electrocute illegal immigrants. Instead, we take them into our country without stopping to think about the consequences.
To try to curtail the criminal element and deter future border jumpers, ICE and the Border Patrol work around the clock trying to get a handle on things. Unfortunately for them, we as a country haven’t gotten a handle on things since the 1980s. Politicians from the Left and the Right have failed to put a dent in the waves of illegal immigrants coming into the country and using our resources. Thanks to current President and hairplug spokesmodel Joe Biden, ICE and the Border Patrol have their short-staffed hands full.
Provided, of course, the Left doesn’t smack their hands for trying to do their jobs. Just look at their “solution” for dealing with the Border Patrol agents who were accused of whipping Haitian immigrants: take their horses away. Thus, making their jobs more difficult. All because the Left jumped to a conclusion Robbie Knievel wouldn’t even try with full medical coverage. But that’s par for the course for the Left in this situation.
See, the Left has a vested interest in keeping a steady stream of illegal immigrants coming into the country like teenagers to a K-Pop concert. This interest takes on multiple forms, but they all wind up fulfilling the Left’s political and social goals, thanks in to figures like Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, Saul Alinsky, and our good friend Uncle George Soros. All four of them have had a pretty strong hand in shaping Leftist ideology for decades, and it doesn’t end well for us. Here is a brief description of what they’ve added to the Leftist hivemind.
Cloward and Piven – developed a strategy to overwhelm the social support system to create more poverty and upset within the country, causing discord and fomenting revolution
Alinsky – the author of Rules for Radicals, which outlines ways for Leftists to make progress on social and political issues
Soros – advocate/creator of the Open Society Institute, which advocates for no borders whatsoever and everyone being a part of one global society, as well as an effort to control state election offices to help Leftist politicians get elected
With Soros and his disciples promoting the idea there shouldn’t be borders, it allows Leftists to promote ideas that will give the green light for illegal immigrants to come here. Once here, the Cloward and Piven strategy kicks in, putting a strain on existing programs through sheer volume. When critics come out against the first two concepts, Alinsky’s rules come into play. The result? More potential Democrat voters, which allows the cycle to continue. It’s brilliant in its deviousness.
And what’s one group of people who can throw a King Kong-sized monkey wrench into all of this? The Border Patrol. If they’re allowed to do their job, it will curtail the number of illegal immigrants coming into the country and getting all the bennies the Left is willing to give them because…reasons. So, instead of figuring out a way to…you know…change the laws on the books, the Left focuses their attention on the ones least capable of fighting back.
Including purposely mischaracterizing a photo to make it look worse than it actually was.
Unfortunately for the Left, the narrative is starting to break down like the Socialist Socialite after losing her battle to defund the Iron Dome in Israel. The primary source (i.e. the photographer who took the picture the Left is using to bash the Border Patrol) is saying the photo is being taken out of context and doesn’t reflect what really happened. Furthermore, the Border Patrol and eagle-eyed horse riders are pointing out the lack of whips in the photo itself. Even so, Twitter Leftists and their governmental counterparts are clinging to the original lie…I mean story. There are a few reasons for this, but one that should be at the top of the list is confirmation bias.
For those of you who have a life, confirmation bias is when a person believes a certain way because it affirms what they already believe. The Left already believes the Border Patrol is a bunch of racist thugs anyway, so it’s not that much of an effort to believe in the narrative in spite of the evidence to the contrary. That, and the fact the Left hate to admit they’re wrong more than The Fonz. Imagine that. A group of dishonest idealogues that already hates law enforcement trying to paint a group of law enforcement agents in a bad light? Who knew???
Well, those of us outside the Leftist hivemind did. While we wait for Jen Psaki to circle back and tell us another lie, keep the Border Patrol in your thoughts and prayers. They need them now more than ever.
Let Them Eat Masks
Since COVID-19 hit, people have been searching for ways to keep themselves safe. I’m still unclear as to how mass amounts of toilet paper were necessary to beat a respiratory affliction, but that’s not important right now. What is important is the use of masks. At least that’s what the Left tells us is important, and we know how trustworthy they can be.
Well, let’s just say the Left isn’t following their own demands of the rest of us. Between the maskless patrons at the Met Gala to the recent Emmy Awards where the only people wearing masks were the hired help, it’s clear we have a two-tier system when it comes to masks: the Leftists, and everyone else. Of course, that’s the way it’s always been.
From the outset of the pandemic, the Left has changed positions more often than John Kerry at an all-you-can-eat buffet. First, it wasn’t a big deal and saying the coronavirus came from China was racist. Then, the coronavirus was deadlier than the bubonic plague, thus requiring people to be masked at all times and for businesses to shut down completely. Then, they started bowing down to the golden calf they call science (while ignoring science that contradicts their mandates). As inconsistent as the Left has been, there is one consistent point on which they have never wavered.
They’re better than us, so the rules don’t apply to them.
Need proof? The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health justified the lack of masks among the “important people” by stating they were exempt because…they were part of “film, television, and music productions.” Oh, but don’t worry! These groups made “additional safety modifications” to prevent the spread of COVID-19, so it’s totes legit!
Chris Rock was unavailable for comment as he is recovering from COVID-19 as of the date of this writing.
And let’s not forget the Left’s feargasm over the COVID-19 variants, which can infect even the vaccinated if what we’re seeing so far is accurate. But apparently COVID-19 doesn’t strike certain people, say…oh I don’t know…rich white Leftists? Who knew?
The truth is the Left is playing a dangerous game by believing they are safe. Even if you follow the science 100% of the time, you can’t control others, no matter how much the Left tries. Man is an egotistical creature, and those in the entertainment industry are more than a little egotistical. Not being seen at an awards ceremony could be devastating to a career because it would mean you aren’t being seen or heard. Outside of Hollyweird, Leftists are just as egotistical. Just look at how they virtue signal when they get the “Fauci Ouchie” and tell everyone they’ve been vaccinated. It’s not necessarily because they want to be protected, but more often than not, it’s because they want to be perceived as protected and, thus, get praise for doing it.
Talk about getting a participation trophy!
Where the danger comes into play stems from the feeling of invulnerability that goes hand-in-hand with ego. If you feel like you’re incapable of being harmed, you get sloppy and make mistakes. I’m not talking about “oops, I forgot my phone at home” mistakes. I’m talking “oops, I accidentally caused a nuclear meltdown in Chernobyl” mistakes. If the Delta variant is as contagious and asymptomatic as believed, we can’t afford to have people making the latter kind of mistakes if we want to get a handle on COVID-19 sometime in the near future.
Provided, of course, the Left wants to get a handle on COVID-19. Since the outbreak began, the Left has made headway towards government control of more of our everyday lives. It started with mask mandates and is moving towards vaccine passports to conduct even the simplest of public transactions. If you were wondering what creeping totalitarianism looks like, this is it, kids. We haven’t gotten to Australia levels yet, but if the Left has their druthers, we might be heading in that direction sooner than we think.
Put simply, the Left has a vested interest in keeping COVID-19 around for as long as possible because they think/know it’s a weapon to be used against any and all of their enemies, including me and you. And they will continue to flaunt their privilege going maskless while demanding everyone who aren’t them wear as many masks as St. Anthony of Fauci (praise be his name) tells us to wear. But once that gets too burdensome for enough people, there will be a backlash the Left haven’t fathomed yet.
George Santayana once said, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Wait, that was my high school history teacher threatening me with summer school unless I got my grade up. Either way, the Left might want to read up on the French Revolution. Let’s just say Marie Antoinette had a better grasp on the pulse of the population than the Left does.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
There are some weeks when your humble correspondent struggles to find an appropriate Lexicon entry based on the events of the day. Other times the Topics Gods shower me with topics.
Let’s just say I hit the motherload of motherloads this week. From the Socialist Socialite wearing an expensive dress with “Tax the Rich” on it while attending an event catered to the wealthy to the FBI being shown to be the Keystone Kops with federal funding, there was no lack of content. But I’m going to focus on a new Leftist turn of a phrase that came up during a recent confirmation hearing.
President Joe Biden nominated Jennifer Sung for a position on the 9th Circuit Court, and during the hearing she was questioned about a letter from Yale Law School students and alumni that she signed regarding then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh that said he was “intellectually and morally bankrupt” and that “people will die” (a direct quote from the letter) because of his stances on abortion and gay rights. Sure, she’s a nutter, but on the bright side the 9th Circuit Court is going to easily retain its title of Worst Circuit Court EVER.
In attempting to defend her position, Sung used the term “rhetorical advocacy.” Leftists glommed onto this, accusing anyone who found it nonsensical of being too dumb to figure out what it means. Unfortunately for them, I’m a word guy, so I will take a crack at it.
rhetorical advocacy
What the Left thinks it means – supporting a position in a general, high-level way
What it really means – a stupid way for a Leftist to get out of a public statement
The year was 2018, and then-President Donald Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh for the open seat on the US Supreme Court. At that point, the Left lost their collectivist hivemind because Kavanaugh was…a conservative! Before you could get Christine Blasey Ford on an airplane, the Left went to town trying to find a way to take down Kavanaugh.
Enter Ms. Sung and the aforementioned letter. At the time, the letter didn’t make the news because it didn’t meet the Left’s definition of news. To them, Kavanaugh being “intellectually and morally bankrupt” was an article of faith and, thus, didn’t need to be questioned. The funny thing? If Kavanaugh were a Leftist, that bankruptcy would be a resume enhancer.
Three years later, Ms. Sung’s signature is coming back to haunt her own judicial nomination. Even if you buy the idea of rhetorical advocacy, the problem of whether the words themselves were hyperbole comes into play. Granted, I haven’t been spending the past 3 years keeping track of the number of deaths directly related to Kavanaugh’s position on social issues, I’m going to go out on a limb and say the number is in the neighborhood of, oh, zero.
As the late Rush Limbaugh said, “Words mean things.” If Ms. Sung were concerned about the language used in the letter, she had a personal obligation not to sign the letter. Yet, she did because she never thought it would come to light. Oops.
Rhetorical advocacy is a ten-cent word that sounds impressive, but really isn’t. Once we break down the parts of the phrase, we can see what I mean.
Rhetorical involves the use of language, written or spoken, to convey an idea. This Leftist Lexicon post is an example of what I mean. Maybe not a good example, but an example all the same. Advocacy involves the support of an idea or cause through thoughts, words, and deeds. Put the two words together and you get…a redundancy. Advocacy uses rhetoric, and rhetoric can be used to advocate for a desired outcome. When you put it in the context of the letter Ms. Sung signed, the two terms are interchangeable.
This leads to the question of why the Left has adopted this meaningless term while mocking those who don’t think it’s all that great. Fortunately, there’s a simple answer: it’s to give them cover for their bullshit. Remember, Leftists love to play word games to make themselves sound smarter than they actually are. By throwing together the two words in question, it makes the result sound high-minded and intellectual. As we’ve seen, it’s neither, and it’s not that effective when it comes to providing cover.
I have a simple philosophy when dealing with people: take them at their word until they give me reason to doubt it. Although I disagree with Ms. Sung’s conclusions regarding Justice Kavanaugh, the fact she’s shying away from the words she signed off on now that the letter has come to light tells me she’s not willing to own up to them. Cowardice in the face of potential career advancement is no virtue, no matter what fancy-sounding words you use to soften the blow. I would have rather had her say, “I signed that letter because I agreed with the sentiments within it” because it would have been honest. Absolutely wrong, but honest.
Putting all that aside, the fact the Left is attacking those of us who think “rhetorical advocacy” is a bunch of bullshit is a sign they have no valid argument for the letter, nor Ms. Sung’s nomination. Who would want a judge on any level of the judiciary that can’t stand behind a statement without parsing it through an ideological lens? Any verdict offered by such a judge would be suspect and grounds for an immediate appeal to a higher court.
Which, if you think about it, makes her perfect for the 9th Circuit Court.