Tag: Politics

Part 3 of 3 Columns on the Aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s Murder (posted 9/17/25)

I think I may have found the smartest Democrat in congress.

I know, that sounds like the set-up for a cruel, list-making joke.  E.g. let’s identify the most impressive leftist SCOTUS member, the most mentally-healthy Squad Member, the most attractive Antifa Member. 

So sure, the competition is not exactly stiff.  But my candidate is Ro Khanna.  Because on Tuesday, on CNN, he said, “Every Democrat was horrified by the assassination of Charlie Kirk.” 

I didn’t say Ro was the most honest Democrat.  (The candidates for that one could fit into a phone booth!)  I said he was the smartest Democrat.  Because he has the sense to know what your average third-grader should know: if you’re a politician who wants to win elections, you’re supposed to at least SAY that you’re horrified by the assassination of a good man from your political opposition!

But I think that even as he was saying that, Ro realized that he was in trouble, since for the last week all PWFEs (People With Functioning Eyes) have watched literally thousands of Democrats all over the country ghoulishly celebrating Charlie’s murder.  So “all Democrats are horrified” wasn’t going to fly.

He amended the thought two sentences later, saying, “That has been what every elected Democrat has said.”  That was a little better – again, most minimally competent politicians know enough to hide their evil glee from the public – but it was still, sadly, a lie.

Because disgusting Ilhan Omar trashed Charlie during an interview with the equally disgusting Mehdi Hasan the day after Charlie’s murder, and Grandma Squanto Warren (#wemustneverstopmockingher), J(um)B(o) Pritzker (#putdownthatoversizedturkeyleg) and many other elected Dems pivoted within seconds from Charlie’s murder to blaming Trump’s rhetoric.  Which is not something that anyone truly horrified by a murder would do.

When Ro was ratioed into next week, and buried with thousands of clips and examples of Dems cheering Charlie’s death, he finally had to retreat to saying that “every elected Dem I talked to” was horrified by the assassination. 

Okay, Ro, we get it.  You talked to yourself in the green room mirror at CNN before going out to sell that line.  Nice try, anyway.

Since we’re cautious optimists around here, I’ve got a short list of some good news that I see coming out of this heartbreakingly awful story:

1. There is now a huge new spotlight on Charlie Kirk’s work. And that necessarily means more people following in his footsteps and joining his cause. (Witness the 54,000 new applications for Turning Point membership or chapters.  54,000!)  Because any normal person with an unclouded mind (regardless of political priors) who watches any number of randomly chosen videos of Charlie’s speeches and debates will see a lot to admire, as well as realizing that the gloating leftist mobs have been lying about him.

2. There is also now a huge new spotlight on the left, and everywhere that spotlight moves, it reveals a bunch of sick, hateful humans scattering like cockroaches at being exposed.  (No offense to cockroaches, who are just as God made them, and haven’t intentionally shriveled their souls by choosing a path of gleeful leftist hatred, like certain teachers, “journalists” and elected officials I could name.)

3. An ancillary benefit of all of the malevolent lefties exposing themselves through their own social media ghoulishness is that waves of them are being fired.  And that doesn’t just make me giddily happy – though it certainly does that! – it also improves every school, organization and workplace out of which their sorry asses have been kicked. 

Think about that.  Every school, every hospital, every newspaper that is no longer employing those ghouls has now increased its collective IQ, mental health, workplace quality of life, and ability to serve its students or customers. 

4. Another ancillary benefit is that the remaining employed lefties have learned that it’s not the Biden years anymore, when they could behave horribly without consequences, and every normal person has now been emboldened to push back on those lefties if they start acting like idiots in the future.

5. The exposure to Charlie’s wholesomeness and the left’s creepiness is prompting many people to leave the left and move at least tentatively toward conservatism.  More importantly, IMHO, many are also coming to Christ, or at least moving in that direction. (Seeing a good Christian man martyred by evil goblins can do that.)  

Okay, I’d planned to refute the leftists’ specific attacks on Charlie’s work, and to analyze four leftists who behaved in representatively bad ways this past week, but I’m going to call a mid-column audible instead. 

I’ll save those ideas for a column tomorrow and one on Friday, for the rare quintfecta of a 5-column week.  (Yes, I think I just made that word up.  And yes, it’s spectacular.)

Because I want to discuss a topic that CO raised, to a spirited response, yesterday: Pam Bondi’s announcement that the Trump administration will be going hard after hate speech after Charlie’s murder.  

I agree with most responders that Bondi didn’t phrase the point well by relying too much on the problematic term “hate speech.”  But I also think she was smart to respond shortly afterwards, and clarify that she was talking about going after speech that involves incitement to violence and threats, which is already illegal, and widely accepted as such.

So, a self-inflicted wound, but a very minor one, and quickly cleaned up.

I think we conservatives should push back hard against hate speech laws for the same reason we should do so against hate crime laws: because both of them sound good initially, but they are far too subjective, and give far too much power to government bureaucrats. 

It sounds good to say that you’re going to enhance criminal sentences if you kill someone because of their race, gender, sexual preference or religion, because we don’t like racism, sexism, etc.  But that has 3 main flaws, IMHO.

First, we often have to guess at people’s motives for their crimes.  (Criminals will quickly learn to claim that they killed for whichever motive will draw the least severe sentence.)  Second, how important is motive, really?  Am I any less dead if I’m a white guy killed by a black guy, or vice versa?  Or a woman killed for being female vs. a man killed for being male?

But most importantly, hate crime laws punish people differently based on whether they committed the identical crime for government-approved motives – I killed you to rob you, or because you stole from me, or because I was drunk and just lost 5 large betting on the Bears – or government-disapproved motives – I killed you because of your skin color, or genitalia. 

And I don’t think the government should have that kind of power.  After our experience over the last decade or so, do any of us trust judges or the legal system as much as we used to? 

Everyone knows that in a deep blue city or state, hate crime enhancements go lopsidedly in one direction.  A far-left judge or jury will look into the heart of a white murderer of a black person and see racism, when they won’t see racism in a black killer of a white person – even when the white killer has no documented history of racism, and the black killer is on video muttering “cracker” and “white devil” while stabbing his white victim.    

Listen to many leftists – and academics – of any race, and they’ll tell you that it’s not even POSSIBLE for a black person to be racist against whites!   Does that sound like a recipe for an unbiased application of hate crime enhancements?

Hate speech is even more problematic, since it necessarily clashes with fundamental free speech rights.  Hate speech is nearly always in the eye of the beholder, and inevitably comes down to “speech that I hate.”  Especially when the totalitarian left and its voracious desire to control everybody is involved. 

When “words are violence,” and silence is also violence, the leftist speech police has total control.  That’s why they redefine words, or drain them of all meaning.  Violent Jew-haters will call Jewish conservatives “Nazis.”  Angry imbeciles will call supporters of free speech, free markets and smaller government “fascists.” 

Bigots will call people who want to judge people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin “racists.”

Science-denying narcissists will call medical mutilations intended to deny your actual gender “gender-affirming care.” 

Labeling speech you don’t like “hate speech” is a power game used as a cudgel by people who couldn’t persuade people without coercion, and couldn’t win a debate to save their lives.

That’s why they hated Charlie so much.  He was smart, and well-informed, and had common sense, reason, and benevolence on his side.  Whereas they are dimwitted, uninformed and malevolent, and reality is squarely against them. 

In that situation, what’s a loser a**hole to do, but pick up a gun?  (I mean, besides run for office as a Democrat?)

Or as somebody on X said last week, “They don’t kill you because you’re a Nazi.  They call you a Nazi so they can kill you.”  

Hamas (and Trantifa) delenda est!

Part 2 of 3 Columns on the Aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s Murder (posted 9/16/25)

Thank you all so much for your many thoughtful responses to my last several columns.  I appreciate the cathartic release (and salutary effects on my blood pressure and mental outlook) of being able to write here, and get all of this angst out of my head and off of my chest!     

That being said, this might be another rare 5-column week, because each time I sit down with my thoughts, I find my fingers flying over the keyboard like Stephen King on crack.  (Only without the malevolent political derangement that talented but hate-benighted writer has been spewing lately.) 

One other point before I get started.  Though I have an appreciation for a sparingly used swear word in my writing, I try to keep that to a minimum.  When I’m drafting something and the emotions are strong, I’ll write an unexpurgated version, and then go back and edit most of that stuff out.  (I’m like a rapper, with a clean and dirty version of every song.  Except that instead of writing awful, tuneless crap, I produce sparkling gems of English prose.  Also, I never use the “n” word, even in a rough draft!  Because: narwhal, please!) 

But since I learned of Charlie’s murder, I am wearing out the “f” key on my computer!  I’ve always liked Gutfeld’s bit, where he says a funny tongue-in-cheek sexist line, then instantly defuses it with a graphic that drops, accompanied by a bass voice saying, “A sexist would SAYYY!”

I need one of those for half of my first-draft thoughts: “An angry right-winger would SAYYY!”

Anyway, when I left off yesterday, I’d outlined the violent, hateful response from the Left to the death of their four primary martyrs in recent years, when three of the four of them were career criminals, and all of them were killed because of their own violent actions while committing new crimes. 

Now compare the reaction of the right to the wicked murder of Charlie Kirk.  For the last five days, there has been a gigantic, nation-wide emotional response.  Only it hasn’t involved an orgy of violence, or night after night of rioting and looting and burning down whole city blocks.  Nobody in any city has spent a single dollar on plywood to board up their windows. 

We righties haven’t put on all black, and armed ourselves, and attacked the headquarters of the DNC, or the offices of CNN and MSNBC, or the offices or homes of Democrat politicians.

We haven’t painted slogans on our armor and public buildings saying “ALAB” (All Leftists Are B*stards), or “Kill the Commies!”  We haven’t blocked interstates, or set cars on fire, or gone to hotbeds of leftism like Berkeley and broken into campus buildings.  Many of us own guns, yet none of us have shot a single leftist.

Our response hasn’t been “mostly peaceful.”  (Left-wing media speak for “horrifically violent, but in ways we approve.”) 

It has been “actually, literally peaceful.”  As in, “Pax Christi,” (the peace of Christ).

In churches and on campuses, in parks and at state houses, we met in our handfuls and hundreds and thousands, and we prayed, and sang hymns, and remembered a good man, cruelly taken by an evil one.  In Madison Square Park, several hundred of us waved America flags, and sang Amazing Grace. 

We held up signs and made memorials of candles and roses in London, and at the American embassy in Berlin, and in Sydney, Australia, and at the Reagan Library in California.  Thousands of Koreans marched through the streets of Seoul, waving American and South Korean flags and chanting, “We are Charlie Kirk!”

In Scottsdale, where Charlie lived, and in Utah, where he died, we held prayer vigils, and said the rosary.  Small remembrances popped up all over the country, from Maine to Florida to Oregon, in big cities and small towns.

And everywhere, there were crosses and American flags and pictures of Charlie and hand-written signs covered with Bible verses and quotes from Charlie and expressions of love and sorrow. 

The political gulf is obvious.  The left (not all of them, but many) riots, and burns, and steals, and destroys.

We pray, and mourn, and celebrate a life well-lived, and control our righteous anger, and successfully fight to keep it from spilling out, and taking an eye for an eye. 

They have violence, and we have vigils.  They burn the American flag, and we wave it, and fly it at half-mast.  Take away the details of this particular assassination, and I still know which side I want to be on.

I haven’t had a chance to respond to your comments from yesterday (because I’ve been writing like a maniac), but I did want to agree with but also challenge Tari Trowbridge’s point, when she said that the left doesn’t have a corner on fringe radicals.  I’ve said elsewhere that I don’t accept any Manichaean argument that we’re 100% pure and they’re 100% evil.

But I would push back a bit on the idea that the right “has its share of murderers,” if by “our share” anyone would suggest that it’s a roughly proportional, 50/50 breakdown.  (And I don’t think Tari was suggesting that.)  And I would also require more evidence from the MSM when they immediately label some killers as conservative or MAGA, simply because their targets were Democrats or leftists.

Tari mentioned the guy who killed the Dem pols in MN as a right-wing example, but as I said last week, I don’t think that example holds.  Yes, that killer was a registered Republican, and yes, he murdered three Democrats.  But he was nuts, and had been appointed to a committee by the Wolz administration, and specifically said that he was killing those people to help Democrats Klobuchar and Wolz.

Others have mentioned the guy who tried to kill PA Dem Josh Shapiro by setting his house on fire.  And yes, though that guy had been a political independent until 2024, he did try to convince family members to vote for Trump last year.

On the other hand, he was diagnosed as bipolar and schizophrenic, with a long history of criminal behavior and mental illness, and he was off his meds.  And investigators found that he had targeted Shapiro based on “perceived injustices toward the people of Palestine.” 

Quick political quiz: a perp targets a Jewish politician because he sides with Hamas over Israel.  Which side of the political divide do you think THAT would-be killer belongs to? 

If you said anything other than “the Left,” you have been disqualified, and must depart the field with your head hanging in shame.  

Having said that, I’ll still grant Tari’s general point, that there are bad actors on both sides.  (All of us are fallen.  The battleline between good and evil goes through every human heart.)  I hadn’t thought about the mass murder by bomber Tim McVeigh, who was more libertarian/government-hating, but still clearly “on the right,” and I know that a few abortion doctors have been killed by right-wingers over the years.

But here are the salient points:      

1. Most high-profile or mass killers are at least partially mentally ill, and to the extent that they evince any political ideas at all, it’s often hard to tell what portion of their motivations involved politics.  (Son of Sam killed because his neighbor’s dog told him to.  Some killers attack because they think Trump or Biden are sending them instructions through the fillings in their teeth.)

2. If we could analyze and classify every killing in which the primary motivations were political (with additional secondary or tertiary motivations that might involve mental illness, childhood trauma, etc.), I’m confident that among those primarily-political crimes, the Left ones would lopsidedly outnumber the Right ones.

3.  And even in the context of mental-illness-driven murders, one of the most prominent of those motivating conditions in recent years involves trans/gender dysmorphia.  Which the first four versions of the DSM (Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) all classified as a mental disorder, and which the fifth and latest version – in an obvious attempt to trim its sails for political and not medical/psychiatric reasons – still classifies as a “mental health diagnosis” for which psychiatric/medical treatment is often indicated.  And ALL of those attacks that I’m aware of have been committed by leftists.

That’s tragically true of Charlie’s killer: literally the last question he ever took involved transgender killers.  It was asked by someone clearly implying that the number of trans killers had been exaggerated by the Right for political gain.

Annnnnddddd… then a hateful, leftist antifa fan who was banging his “trans” roommate murdered Charlie Kirk before he could answer.

So “F” you guys!  F you hard, and F you long.  And F the perverted little furry-cosplaying freak you rode in on. 

(An angry right-winger would SAYYY!) 

But the most important thing about the differences between these killers is that the leftist ones are using the same talking points and citing the same hateful complaints that are espoused by millions of mainstream Democrats, including those in positions of power.

Yes, some (maybe even many) elected Dems have condemned Charlie’s murder.  As I said last week, I pray that for their souls’ sake, they are sincere.  But it’s also true that NOT offering at least a rote “condolences” message would be an act of political suicide in all but the deepest of blue districts.

Even so, thousands and thousands (probably tens or hundreds of thousands!) of otherwise normal-seeming Dems and leftists in responsible positions have gone full-Satan or Satan-adjacent about this.  School teachers, doctors, college profs and Deans, congresscreeps, “journalists” etc. have not been able to at least pretend to be human beings in the wake of Charlie’s murder.

Should I, as a Christian, revel in their firings and arrests?  Probably not. 

Should I be drinking celebratory shots of bourbon, and considering buying some champagne, to celebrate each new high-profile defenestration of a hateful goblin who’s crying over a cardboard box of his/her possessions on a Tiktok video after she/he/it has been fired?   Definitely not.

Am I doing so anyway?

Abso-freakin’-LUTELY!  (An angry right-winger would saayyy!) 

Should I be taunting those freaks, thusly:

“You lost your job (not your life) because you couldn’t control yourself enough to refrain from vomiting the vicious hatred from your black little cinder of a heart onto public websites and social media. 

Charlie lost his life (not just his job) because he tried to debate and reason with you.

So cry me a river, buttercup!”

Yes, I will someday regret the feelings that are roiling in my posts this week.  And someday I’ll repent, and I’ll get back to trying to be better, and to love my enemies, and to try to forgive them even though they DO know what they do.

But to paraphrase the king from Lord of the Rings, when orc asses had to be kicked, “A day may come when the courage of conservatives fails, when we forsake our friends and forgive their murders.   But it is not THIS day!”

Okay, maybe I got a little carried away, or the Knob Creek got the better of me.

Let’s see if I can do better tomorrow, when I try to find a few silver linings in this story, and look at a few representative lefties and see what we can learn from their reactions

Hamas (and trantifa) delenda est!

Part 1 of 3 Columns on the Aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s Murder (posted 9/15/25)

I know: I’ve got to get over Charlie Kirk’s assassination.  But please bear with me, because that story is haunting me, and I can’t stop thinking about it just yet.    

(As the Book says, “To everything there is a season, and a time for every purpose under heaven.”  And for me, this is still the season for mourning, and for railing against the evil a-hole who murdered Charlie Kirk, and those who celebrated his murder.)

I’ve already got enough drafted for several more columns, so I’ll make this Part 1 of 3.  And sure, once I’ve done a little more praying and confessing, and I edit out of all of the “F” bombs and the physically impossible sexual acts that I’ve invited the Charlie-haters to do to themselves, that’ll cut the rough draft by a good 500 words or so.  So I’ve got that going for me.

Anyway, I’m going to focus mostly on the Left, and their reaction to Charlie’s murder, and at least partial culpability for it.  But I can’t help talking about Charlie just a little more, too.

Over the weekend I was watching some of his public speeches, and I landed on an excerpt from his recent debate at Oxford.  The details aren’t important, other than that his responses were thoughtful and smart, as usual.  But I caught my breath when the debate was interrupted with a plug that Charlie gave for a book by Todd Nettleton (which I am now going to get and read) called “When Faith is Forbidden: 40 Days on the Frontlines with Persecuted Christians.”

What stopped me, and landed like a physical blow, was when Charlie read the name of the organization that Nettleton leads: The Voice of the Martyrs.

And now Charlie is one.  And I am still so pissed.  

Then, just last night, I came across a full video of that Oxford debate.  (I’d recommend watching it if you haven’t seen it, though doing so might make you even angrier about the mind and spirit that we lost last Wednesday.)  Remember: Charlie had a high school diploma, and decided to forgo a college education in favor of creating one of the most important political organizations in the world instead. 

But he also asked some wise mentors for a reading list of the great works, and over the next 13 years – while he was doing the work that 10 average men might be able to do in a lifetime – he read voraciously, and educated himself on the Western canon.     

The debate took place in front of one of the oldest and most august debating societies in what used to be called Christendom, and it was broken into two parts.  For around an hour, Charlie responded to challenging questions on very controversial topics, from birthright citizenship and mass deportations to racism in the US justice system and free speech restrictions in the UK.  After that, he did a Q&A debate with a series of six Oxford debaters for forty-five minutes.

 And that self-taught American high school graduate coolly, respectfully and politely wiped the floor with the most expensively-educated alleged brainiacs in the Mother Country.

USA! USA! USA!

Actually, they weren’t all hyper combative, and the give and take was respectful on both sides.  But as a teacher of argumentative and persuasive writing and debate, it was a pleasure to watch Charlie think on his feet, and deftly construct and refute arguments with unflappable good humor.

One particular opponent of the six in that debate was less impressive, and he is actually back in the news now.  But I want to save that story for part 2 or 3, so that this one doesn’t get too long.   

In my column on Friday I said that the mainstream right doesn’t encourage, sanction and justify violence like the mainstream left does.  But for this entire weekend, I repeatedly thought about an equally important fact: we also don’t react to violence like they do.  And they should be damned grateful for that!

In Charlie Kirk, the malevolent left has created a martyr, as they almost did – twice! – with our president.  And as they did with a number of the aforementioned murdered Christian school kids, and Jews in several cities.  They murdered an unknown healthcare company CEO for the crime of running a company in a field of which the left disapproves.  They’ve attacked and assaulted and shot too many cops, border patrol and ICE agents to count, all for the “crime” of enforcing our nation’s laws.

Now please get out your notebook and your number 2 pencil (yes, I’m old) and make a list of similar conservative atrocities committed against commensurate leftist targets. 

Include all of the times when righties shot up a rainbow church while non-binary warlocks were teaching the kiddies inside such lefty hymns as, “Stalin loves me, this I know, ‘Cause Das Kapital tells me so,” and “What a friend we have in Gaia, all our sins and griefs to weaponize.”  And all the times when GOP assassins shot Democrat presidents and influencers.  And all the times when conservatives shot NPR executives in the back like micro-phallic loser cowards.   

I’ll make myself a cup of coffee while I wait for you to complete your list.

What’s that?  I don’t even have time to make a cup of instant coffee, because there have been no similar right-wing murders of similar left-wing targets?

Huh.  What do you know about that?   

But it’s not just that we don’t react to our opponents’ violence the way that leftists react to right-wing violence – which, inconveniently for them is exceedingly rare.  We also don’t react to our political opponents’ mere EXISTENCE the way that the left does.

Consider this: most conservatives can give you a long list of leftists whom we believe are terrible people who have done terrible damage to our country.  For example, I think that Joe Biden was an egregious grifter of a president who got 13 good American soldiers killed in the incompetent withdrawal from Afghanistan, enriched himself and his family by using his addict son as a bagman for bribes from Chicom mass murderers and corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs, and is a cadaverous creeper around young girls.  (And also, just plain cadaverous.  Not a joke.  I’m being serious.)

I think Obama is a narcissistic whitey-hater who poisoned American race relations and doubled our national debt to no good end.  I think Bill Clinton is a sleazebag who raped Juanita Broaddrick and left no female bottom within arm’s length ungroped for his entire adult life.  I think Hillary Clinton is worse than her terrible husband, and that the most useful public service Que Mala Harris ever did was that thing with Willie Brown.

I think George Soros’ original name was George Sauron, and I wouldn’t give you a plug nickel for every Democrat in the House and Senate, except for the hulking, man-child weirdo John Fetterman.  (And I still think he’s better suited to don some fake plastic bolts in his neck and scare trick-or-treaters at Halloween than to be a US Senator.) 

I could go on a lot longer.  All conservatives could.  But have you noticed that none of us have tried to kill any of those people? 

Donald Trump is intermittently a great president, and an irritating jackass.  But the Left calls him Hitler, tried to jail him for life, and tried to assassinate him twice.  Most conservatives think the last four Democrat presidents (at least!) range from “horrible” to “also horrible,” and yet none of us have tried to jail, bankrupt or kill any of them. 

We watch their SCOTUS judges and can’t believe their non-responsive, a-constitutional ramblings.  Sotomayor looks like a mediocre, partisan hack, and Ketanji Jackson – who somehow sounds like she’s got advanced CTE despite having never played a down of football in her life – makes Sotomayor look like Maimonides.

And yet our leaders have never stood outside the Supreme Court and screamed that they will reap the whirlwind, and won’t know what hit them if they don’t rule our way.  And we’ve never inspired an armed right-winger to travel cross-country to Kagan or Sotomayor’s house (I assume that Ketanji lives in a van, down by the river) on a mission to kill one of them.   

You can also see the vast gulf between the parties by the quality of their “martyrs.”    

Trayvon Martin was a ne’er-do-well kid who was justifiably shot in self-defense, while in the process of bashing George Zimmerman’s skull into a concrete sidewalk.  Zimmerman was called a “white Hispanic” – a genus which had never before existed, until the Left needed a way to blame whitey for a false racial crime committed by a Hispanic guy.  And Obama said that “Trayvon could have been my son.”  (If you were the kind of parent who raised the kind of son who went around committing attempted homicide, I guess?)

Michael Brown was on film committing a strong-arm robbery against a small Indian convenience store worker shortly before he attacked and beat a cop, fracturing his orbital bone and trying to get his gun before he was justifiably shot.  Brown’s friend Dorian Johnson lied that Brown had been shot while holding his hands up and not resisting.

(You may have seen the story that Dorian Johnson got shot to death last week, allegedly by a girlfriend he was beating at the time.  Unexpectedly!)

George Floyd was a junkie and career criminal who once put a gun against a pregnant woman’s belly during a robbery.  When he was committing another crime and the police were called, he died of an overdose that was wrongly attributed to a white cop’s restraint of him, despite the coroner’s report saying that the restraint didn’t kill Floyd. 

Jordan Neely was a homeless black guy and violent recidivist criminal with a record as long as JB Pritzker’s grocery list (#putdownthatoversizedturkeyleg), when he threatened and menaced a bunch of subway riders in NYC.  When a Marine put him in a choke hold to protect the civilians and Neely died, corrupt leftist DA Alvin Bragg charged the Marine with manslaughter, and put him through a criminal trial that ended when even a lefty New York jury came back with a verdict of, “You’ve got to be sh*tting me!”

Each of those four criminals, despite dying in the act of committing yet another crime, have all been elevated to the Mount Rushmore of Leftist Martyrs. 

“Hands up, Don’t Shoot” became a lucrative, fraudulent nationwide money grab, and racial arsonists like BLM, Al Sharpton and most of the black caucus have made hay out of portraying Neely as a harmless Michael Jackson impersonator and Michael Brown as a “gentle giant.”  Pathetic pandering leftist politicians put on dashikis and bowed on one knee to honor Saint Floyd, the Patron Saint of Opioids. 

And the Left rioted and justified widespread, continuous, lawless destruction in the name of their Four Horsemen of the Race-pocalypse.

Tomorrow, I’ll compare the Right’s reaction to Charlie Kirk’s murder, and examine the media’s orgy of rake-stomping self-beclowning reactions in the aftermath.

Spoiler alert: we can never hate the media enough!

Hamas delenda est!

Some Thoughts on the Depravity of the Left After an Assassination (posted 9/12/25)

I’m still under a dark cloud after Charlie Kirk’s murder, but the aftermath of that heinous act has thrown into stark relief the radical differences between the left and right, writ large. 

I don’t want to do a simplistic, Manichaean “they’re all terrible and we’re all great” thing.  Primarily because it’s never true.  All of us are fallen and broken in some way, and there are good and bad actors on both sides.  

It’s also useful to remember the line from Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn – a great man who knew more about the evils of totalitarian leftism than any of us – to wit, “The battleline between good and evil runs through the heart of every man.”

But that truth doesn’t excuse or prevent us from trying to honestly judge the varying degrees of evil or corruption in competing groups or ideologies.  And I think it’s just demonstrably true that the left has a real problem with its own base, in the form of a sick propensity to embrace and justify political violence.

Consider the most significant recent examples of serious violence that were politically motivated.  There have been three mass movements of organized, long-lasting political rioting in the last 5 years, all propagated by those on the left: the BLM riots, the Antifa riots, and the recent anti-ICE riots in LA and several other cities.  The first two continued for months, causing billions of dollars of damage, killing dozens of people and injuring thousands more, in cities all over the country.   

When it comes to individual attacks, we’ve got the shooting attack on the GOP softball practice that nearly killed Steve Scalise; two assassination attempts on Trump in the span of a few months; the attempted burning to death of Jews in Boulder, and the murder of the young Jewish couple in DC; the mass shootings of Christian school children in Nashville and again in Minneapolis; the murder of the health insurance CEO by back-shooting coward Luigi Mangioni; and now the assassination of Charlie Kirk. 

What counter-balancing examples are there from the political right?  When it comes to group violence, I can think of only two possibilities: the white nationalist rally in Charlottesville, and January 6th.  One person was killed in Charlottesville, and the only one killed on January 6th was a Trump supporter.  Both were events lasting no more than a few hours, carried out by several hundred people who acted violently – as compared to the many hundreds of thousands in the organized mobs of violent leftist rioters who wreaked havoc for literally months, and all over the country.

When it comes to individual attacks, the only ones I’m aware of were the shooting of Gabby Giffords, the hammer attack on Paul Pelosi, and the three Democrat office holders recently murdered in Minnesota.  And none of those turned out to be committed by right wingers for recognizable political motivations. 

Gifford’s shooter had no discernable or rational political beliefs and was mentally ill, believing among other things that “the government was controlling people’s minds by controlling their grammar,” that the Mayan calendar apocalypse was imminent.  Pelosi’s attacker was a schizophrenic, intermittently homeless, commune-dwelling hippy. 

And after some excitement in Democrat circles because the Minnesota Democrat killer appeared at first to be a Trump supporter, it turned out he was a whacko who killed the three pols because he thought it would help Amy Klobuchar and Tim Wolz. 

In fact, the white supremacists at Charlotte were also not affiliated with any mainstream conservative group or school of thought.  Trump denounced them at the time and since, saying they should be “condemned completely,” and no white supremacists hold any office or sway in GOP circles, in congress or any other national office.     

(I know: many Democrats scream about white supremacists throughout the GOP.  But they are either lying, delusional, or both.  Because when you examine their claims, it turns out that in their world, “white supremacist” means anyone who opposes racial discrimination of any kind, and supports the constitution, merit-based hiring, hard-work, punctuality, and every other good thing under the sun.)    

In fact, the closest you can get to any political violence from the right that had any support from any mainstream Republican or conservative groups was arguably that committed on January 6th.  And initially, the violent minority among the J6ers were almost universally condemned by every corner of the conservative world.

That only changed after the Democrats went after all of them so viciously, imposing a double standard so blatantly unfair that by the time Trump was re-elected, most Republicans agreed with his decision to pardon them.  (Even then, there was at least a strong plurality of opposition to pardoning the small number of January 6th protestors who had been violent.)  After watching Democrats let hundreds of thousands of violent thugs, rioters and looters in BLM and Antifa go without so much as a slap on the wrist, we conservatives were no longer willing to tolerate the wildly disproportionate punishment of non-violent J6ers who peacefully walked through the Capitol and then went home.   

Again, I would challenge my leftist friends to cite any examples of representative conservatives, motivated by and espousing mainstream conservative beliefs, who have committed acts of political violence.  To the extent that they can point to anyone, they’d have to dig up some far-fringe sliver of whackos with no serious connection to any legitimate, influential conservative candidate or group.

Compare that to the leftist practitioners of political violence listed above.  BLM and Antifa might not speak for ALL Democrats, but they certainly speak for the majority of the most energetic Democrat base.  The central views which can be found in any of their manifestos, speeches, banners or chanted slogans – the condemnation of free-market capitalism, of America as irredeemably racist, and of the “evil” rich, along with disdain for straight people and white people and the police – have been commonplace in the last half-dozen DNC platforms and Democrat presidential candidacies.

Steve Scalise’s shooter was a mainstream Bernie bro and campaign volunteer.  The Muslim Jew-murderers in Boulder and DC (and elsewhere) are no more anti-Semitic than the jihad enthusiasts in the Squad.  Trust-fund coward Mangioni is a folk hero to bloodthirsty, dimwit leftist fangirls (of both sexes) throughout the Democrat party and blogosphere. 

And the transgender venom spouted by the murderers of Christian kids in Nashville and Minnesota – and, if early reports are right, by the killer of Charlie Kirk – could be lifted directly from the malicious, pseudoscientific babblings of the “57 genders” mainstream of the Democrat party. 

And this isn’t new.  The totalitarian Left has always justified political violence.  Marx’s obsession with revolution was never about peaceful, democratic change.  Lenin is often credited with the cold-hearted cliché about needing to break a lot of eggs to make an omelet (though it may have come from that earlier proto-Leninist, Robespierre).  Stalin dismissively called the murder of a million people a mere “statistic,” and Mao happily noted that “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”

Today many senior Dem politicians were smart enough to condemn Charlie Kirk’s murder, and I hope that for the sake of their souls, they were sincere.  But we also saw an outpouring of vile celebration over this good man’s death from Stalin’s heirs, eagerly pursuing the bloody family business.  If the Democrat party wants to avoid disaster, it needs to do something about the poisonous progeny it has allowed to spawn.             

I think it’s a good sign that a smattering of leftist hate-mongers have lost their jobs today because of their wicked tweets, posts and videos.  MSNBC political analyst Matthew Dowd (and boy, does that guy put the “anal” in “analyst) lost his job, along with his audience of literally dozens.  So did a couple of creepy academics, and an even creepier “transgender” comic creator lost his new series.     

On the other hand, the cesspool of Bluesky is full of vitriol, and Democrats in congress wouldn’t even allow a moment of prayer in the House when Kirk’s death was announced.  Evil blimp Pritzker (#putdownthegiantturkeyleg) and phony squaw Warren (#wemustneverstopmockingher) both rejected the idea that they should tone down their vile rhetoric, and said that Trump is the problem.

That’s right.  The people who have called all conservatives “Nazis, fascists and existential threats to democracy” non-stop for years can’t see why that might have inspired some of their more unstable coreligionists to act as if those slanderous lies are true.  And they’re simultaneously offended because Trump shoots his mouth off about Rosie O’Donnell being fat, and calls lunatics and illegals “lunatics” and “illegals.”  

Ugh.  At times like these I feel a kinship with H.L. Mencken, when he said, “Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats.” 

But even momentarily indulging in that fantasy would be betraying my faith, and the cause that Charlie Kirk died for.  While his foes spouted hatred and justified violence, Charlie did what old-school liberals always said they wanted: he engaged in spirited debate.  He gave as good as he got when confronted by trolls and bad-faith homunculi, but he was even-handed and told the truth to those who would hear it.

He always made a point of allowing people who disagreed with him to come to the front of the line – as Ben Shapiro and many other conservatives routinely do. And I think it’s telling that I can’t think of any leftist “intellectual” or influencer who does the same.  They prefer stacked partisan audiences, classrooms where they have power over cowed students, and the ability to cancel anyone who defeats them in a fair argument. 

I’ve read a few Christian commentators over this last, sad 36 hours, pointing out that for the faithful, death is not the end, nor should it be sad.   

But then I think of the famous, shortest verse in the Bible, “Jesus wept.”  Most of us know that one if we know any, and it is a favorite of lazy students who were assigned to memorize a Bible verse.  (I respectfully plead the Fifth on this point.)

But many don’t remember the context.  It appears in the book of John, and His reaction is caused by the death of his friend Lazarus.  He weeps, and the next verse says, “Behold, how He loved him.”  

Even though most of us never met Charlie Kirk, that’s how we feel now, and it’s right that we should.  Let those whose poisonous politics are shriveling their souls wallow in their hatred; we shouldn’t lower ourselves to their level, and their misery is its own punishment.

Regular readers will remember that I discussed one of my favorite Shakespeare sonnets (#73) last month.  It’s a somber meditation on death, by an old man facing the end of life.  The speaker sees in his own frail body, “bare ruin’d choirs, where late the sweet birds sang.” 

Though the context of a dying old man couldn’t be more different from Charlie being cut down in the prime of life, the final couplet could have been written about what just happened on a beautiful, early fall day in Utah:

“This thou perceiv’st, which makes thy love more strong,

To love that well which thou must leave ere long.”   

Charlie is definitely gone too soon.  However, since the news broke, it’s become clear that he inspired so many young people. 

We can take comfort in the prospect of a thousand Charlie Kirks stepping up and continuing the work that he had started. And in the words often read in Advent services: “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness shall not overcome it.”  

But even so, it is heartbreaking to be talking about Charlie Kirk in the past tense.   

Charlie Kirk is Gone, and Our Nation is Worse For It (posted 9/10/25)

Yesterday afternoon I was noodling around with some snarky thoughts on today’s politics for my Friday column, when the news hit that Charlie Kirk had been shot, and then that he had died.    

Like most conservatives, I followed him often over the last several years, and admired his energy and his committed leadership.  He was a solid debater, by turns generous and pointed; he was combative without being hateful, and matched his responses to the good faith (or lack thereof) of his opponents.

A self-educated and hard-working college dropout, he routinely bested his “educated” interlocuters with a combination of good humor and well-chosen counters to the logical fallacies that leftists routinely tried to use against him. 

It’s so sad to see him stolen from us so soon, and right now I’m more angry than anything.  Already a lot of the usual leftist suspects are gloating about and celebrating his murder, while continuing to think of themselves as the good guys in our political debates.  The same creeps who call us Nazis and implicitly justify the violent attacks by their leftist co-religionists – on Steve Scalise, on Trump, on Jews in Boulder and DC, on the Christian school kids in Nashville and Minneapolis, and now on Charlie – have the gall to blame Charlie’s non-violent rhetoric for his murderer’s cowardly act. 

As I write this there is no info yet on Charlie’s killer, but if he turns out to be the kind of hateful,  leftist narcissist we’d most expect, I hope good guys with guns can run him down quickly.  And I hope that they shoot him a lot, and that he dies painfully.  But not too quickly.

I’ll repent for these thoughts later.  But the best I can do right now is to try to find some slight silver lining in this dark cloud of a tragic killing.    

When Rush Limbaugh died in February of 2021, I was glad that he had had the chance to see Trump elected the first time, and to get a Presidential Medal of Freedom from him at Trump’s last SOTU.  But it had to be a bitter pill for him to see Trump lose in 2020, and to see Trump and the GOP at their lowest point, in the wake of January sixth, shortly before Rush died.

By contrast, I’m really glad that Charlie got to see his hard work come to fruition when Trump won in November.  I just re-watched the video of him on election night, surrounded by the conservative young men and women he’d helped inspire and lead.

At a little after midnight, after months of hard work and hours of frantic coverage and endless reading of tea leaves and exit polls, the early returns had begun to look better and better for Trump.  When the news came in that Pennsylvania, and thus the election, had been called for Trump, Charlie got quiet.  With tears of joy in his eyes and his pretty wife hugging him, he took it all in, while the other guys were buzzing and chattering all around him. 

When one of them noticed that Charlie had become speechless for once, he laughingly called for him to say something.  At that moment, all Charlie could get out was, “I am just humbled by God.”  

A few minutes later he said, “I want you to remember that we did not earn this, that this is God’s mercy on our country.” 

I never met him, of course, but that’s how I’m going to remember Charlie Kirk.  Over the last months I’ve had cause to contemplate the many ways that death can come for us – from Alzheimer’s in old age to a brain tumor out of the blue; from a sudden heart attack to a long, debilitating illness. 

And although 31 is way too soon, and though Charlie leaves a young wife and two children under 3, he died in honest service to God, a good cause, and a great country.  Painful though it is, there are many worse ways to die than that.

Our nation owes him a debt, and to uphold his widow and his children.    

Rest in peace, Charlie Kirk.   

A Few Thoughts on What Motivates the Dems (posted 9/3/25)

As you read this, I’m once again on my way up to Tennessee and then to Illinois.  This time, I’ll be seeing mom and sis in TN on the way up and back as always, but I’ll also be attending my first high school reunion ever, up in Illinois. 

This is our 45th year reunion, and I figured I better get up there and see as many people as I can while there are still this many of us left!  I’ll also hang with the cousins for a day or two afterward.

So I won’t have a column on Friday, and probably not on Monday either.

Today I’m bringing you an idea that I’ve just consciously realized, though I think I’ve had it in the back of my head for a while now.  But so far, I think I had mistaken the Democrats’ second most prominent reason for opposing Trump.

Two columns ago, I wondered in writing why more Dems don’t just admit when one Trump decision or policy actually works, if for no other reason than to look reasonable, and to keep their powder dry for a time when one of Trump’s more controversial policies is vulnerable to some strategic criticism. 

I think we can all agree that the first and main reason that explains their resistance to his every move – from mob protests, to stalling tactics in Congress, to illegal local court rulings – is their Stage-4 Metastatic Trump Derangement Syndrome.  As much as they hate conservatism and the GOP, they hate Trump with the burning fury of a thousand suns.

He’s their Great Orange Whale, and they will pursue him with an obsessive fury that cannot be assuaged.  Ahab’s famous last words, as he realizes that his hunt has become suicidal – “From hell’s heart, I stab at thee; for hate’s sake, I spit my last breath at thee.” – are directed at Moby Dick. 

But do those words not sound as if they could come from the mouths of any of dozens of d*cks in the Democrat party?  (And I’m not just talking about Dick “nobody ever calls him Richard” Durbin and Richard “everyone secretly calls him Dick” Blumenthal.) 

I’ve previously thought that the Democrats’ second reason for opposing Trump at every turn was the one they have shouted from the rooftops: they believe that all of his policies are so wrong-headed and certain to end in failure, and they are doing everything they can to prevent the damaging outcome of those policies. 

I still think that some Dems believe that.  But I used to think that nearly ALL Dems believed it, either because they don’t know any better, or because they’ve been seduced or brainwashed by the pleasures and self-satisfaction of believing yourself to be one of the good guys, on the right side of history, fighting against dark forces. 

But I now think that the elites and the smartest people in the Democrat party and legacy media are opposing Trump for the opposite reason. 

They are not trying to stop him because of how disastrous his policies will be; they are trying to stop him because of how successful his policies will be, if he is allowed to carry them out. 

I guess that should have been obvious, because as conservatives, the common sense behind conservative policies seems obvious. 

If you lower tax rates and allow people to keep more of what they earn, they’ll work harder and earn more, and pay more taxes.  (Duh!) If you harshly punish crime you’ll get less of it, and if you don’t you’ll get more of it.  (Duh!)  Men can’t become women, and women can’t become men, and people who come here illegally are illegals.  (Duh X 3!)

The Dems have worked very hard at pushing their party line that all of our ideas are untrue, to the point that many of their foot soldiers believe it, despite all evidence to the contrary.  But their party leaders have to know better at this point.  Because they’ve been proved wrong too many times, and it’s become a pattern that the professional politicians amongst them cannot be unaware of. 

Dems screamed all through 2024 that the border crisis – after denying that it existed for the previous three years, when all PWFE (People With Functioning Eyes) knew that it existed – could not be fixed, and the border not secured, without “comprehensive immigration reform,” a massive, complicated set of laws and regulations that would take many months to create and debate and pass, and many more months to implement.

Annnndddd…Trump closed the border in 27 minutes, and it worked like a charm.  

The same thing has happened with crime.  The left said that if we could defund the police and allow “the people” to police themselves, the result would be Edenic.  So they gave over Seattle and Portland to CHAZ and CHOP and The People’s Republic of Meth, and got chaos, violence and filth. 

Some radical lefties protested Trump’s moving the National Guard into DC, claiming that it would exacerbate tensions and lead to increased violence there.

Annnnddddd…NOPE!

Also, Dems – and a few oddball conservatives (or ex-conservatives?) like Tucker Carlson –warned that if Trump tried to take out the Iranian nuke facilities he’d be launching WWIII, that Russia/China/India and the rest of the BRICS nations (whoever they are) would align against us and plunge the region into violent chaos, killing millions, including the US troops that would have to be on the ground to try to stop the slaughter.

Annnndddd… Trump took out the nuke facilities with one strike, following on 11 days of previous Israeli strikes that took out Iranian air defenses, surface nuke facilities, and every Iranian military leader above the rank of Cannon Fodder, First Class.

Thus tempting me to seek a patent on a line of t-shirts (playing off the Israeli victory in the Six-Day War) featuring Trump’s famous mugshot over the words, “12 Days, B*tch!”

The four long years of Biden and the last 7 months of Trump II have shown that the Dems’ most powerful foe isn’t Trump, or the GOP.  It’s reality.  Because their plans keep running into Reality, and so far, Reality is undefeated.

The “Inflation Reduction Act” spiked the rate of inflation.  The campaign against Trump’s re-election based on “defending democracy” was crushed by democracy, in the form of the popular vote.  After accepting tent cities and filth in LA for years, Ken-Doll Newsom showed that it could all be easily cleaned up, when he cleaned it up in a few days before the ChiCom big wigs came for a visit.  

Annnddd…then it returned to an intractable problem again, once the commies left.

Trump showed that he can clean up DC, and that he could close the border, and that he could take out the Iranian nuke threat with one stroke.  By using DOGE-like efforts and cutting many billions of DEI and other wasteful spending, he is proving that nobody outside of USAID and the many hundreds of leftist NGOs they’ve been feeding will miss them.  Closing down the Department of Education will save us billions and cost our children’s actual education nothing.

Not all of Trump’s actions will be successful, of course.  And not every Democrat plan is doomed to fail. 

But as conservatives, Reality provides a nice tailwind for us, helping us along.  For the Dems, it’s a ferocious headwind to struggle against, forcing all of them to bend forward until they’re almost crawling, and threatening to toss them tumbling backwards, arse over teakettle. 

All of them except for JB Pritzker. 

Because if I can take a page from the Democrats’ hysterical handbook of smears, that Hippopomatic Hitler is huge!

Hamas delenda est!

My Strategy For Not Letting Politics Turn You Into an Idiot (posted 8/28/25)

In the comments to my Wednesday column, David Michael DeLoach wondered whether, when I mentioned that “an extended family member [of mine] is a manager of a Cracker Barrel,” I may have been talking about JB Pritzker.  Even though I probably wouldn’t admit it if the Round Mound of Unsound Governance were related to me, I can promise that he isn’t.

But the idea did cause me to wonder what that might be like.  The first thing I thought of was a hypothetical Thanksgiving if Uncle Pritzker – D(irigible) came over for dinner.  I can picture how it would start: I bow my head to say grace.  “Lord, we thank you for this—”

And the prayer is interrupted by a horrific, cacophonous chomping/gnashing/slobbering/crunching sound that drives us all to instinctively crouch beneath the table, before we open our eyes and slowly peek out.

Annnndddd…there’s a stripped-clean turkey carcass that looks like a school of piranhas just swam over it and JB’s chair is empty.  And probably broken into kindling. 

And, scene.

Okay, having got that out of the way…

Regular readers often tell me that I’m a role model for them.  Well, maybe not “often.” 

Okay, one reader said that once.  He said that whenever he’s faced with a choice, he asks, “WWMD?” (What would Martacus do?) and then acts accordingly.   And who am I to contradict his wise plan?

So as a public service, I will now explain how I think we should behave when we’re confronted with bonehead mistakes by politicians on our side of the aisle.  And it’s a pretty simple plan:

Admit it.  Don’t lie about it, or try to spin it.  Call it a mistake, explain your reasoning, and then do whatever you can to persuade people to agree with you, and to persuade the politician to reverse course. 

Don’t be a spoiled narcissist and stomp away, pouting that your guy has betrayed you, and if you ever vote again, it won’t be for him!

After that, recognize that no politician will please you 100% of the time, and consider rating your guy with a batting average.  If he’s hitting over .500, that’s good.  Anything over .700 is great, and the best you’re likely to get in this fallen world.

Then move on with your life.

I’ll give you an example. I am a dedicated conservative, and pretty much no politician with a chance of winning national office is conservative enough for me.  So I’m generally hoping for the best, but expecting to be disappointed fairly often, without that thought crushing me.  (I might call this being “cautiously optimistic.”)

Right now I’d say that Trump is hitting around .750, and I’m loving a lot of what’s happening.  Closing down the border in 20 minutes, ramping up deportation efforts through various means (raids prioritizing the worst of the worst, encouraging self-deportation through the app and even cash payments, etc.), the BBB tax breaks, cracking down on antisemitism on campuses, cutting USAID and the Department of Education and PBS/NPR, some DOGE cuts, taking out Iran’s nuke facilities etc. and etc.

But he’s not a consistent and disciplined conservative, so he’s done things I don’t like.  I don’t like the “no taxes on tips” – not because I don’t like tax cuts, but because I don’t like the government picking winning and losers, and giving bennies to some blue collar workers (wait staff) over others (cooks, bus boys, etc.).  Just lower taxes across the board, and let the free market work.  

I don’t like the feds taking stakes in private companies (Intel, Nvidia, etc.), for the same reason.

I think his tariffs have been more chaotic and confusing than they’ve needed to be, and I don’t understand imposing them on our allies as much (or sometimes more than) on our enemies.

Speaking of the Chicoms, I also don’t like inexplicably playing nice with them, as when he has allowed them to keep TikTok going (breaking an earlier promise), and especially agreeing to allow 600,000 Chinese students to take up slots in our universities and gather intelligence for a brutal communist dictatorship. 

And as positive as Trump’s governing results have been, I think he’s giving up 10-15 points in approval – which becomes political capital in future battles – as a penalty for acting more like a jackass than he needs to.    

Still, all things considered, he’s doing a really good job, and considering the hellish possible Hillary and Que Mala administrations that he’s saved us from, he’s by far the best president since Reagan, IMHO.       

See?  Was that so hard?  I know that parts of it probably bugged some of you, but we’re all fine.  I might even be wrong about some of it.  (Spoiler alert: nope!)

Now let’s look at the other side of the aisle, to the smoking, clattering, rattling wreck that is the national Democrat party and their MSM remoras.  How have those elite Dems been reacting to Trump’s second term so far?  Are they admitting the mistakes their side has made, or some of the good moves that Trump has made, and doing a little self-reflection?  Are they trying to call balls and strikes, and trying not to look like they’ve gone bat-guano crazy?

Hoo-boy, they are NOT! 

Start with the border.  The Dems are obviously on the losing end of that issue, but they can’t just admit that Trump was right to close the border.  And when he deports a high-profile bad actor like Kilmar, the Dems can’t just say, “Okay, he’s a bum, but a lot of the illegals are good people just trying to make better lives for themselves.”

Nope, they’ve got to claim he’s an unjustly victimized Maryland father.  And when it comes out that his wife told the cops that he was beating her – twice! – they say, “Don’t believe all women!”  And when he has common MS-13 tattoos, and when video surfaces of him smuggling half a dozen Mexicans cross-country in another gang-member’s car? 

The Dems plug their ears and close their eyes and chant, “Mary-land fa-ther, Mary-land fa-ther” over and over again.

Or consider crime.  When Trump goes into DC and crime immediately drops, the Dems can’t just say, “Thanks for the help, and we now realize that we need to do more, so we’ve got it from here.”

Nope, they’ve got to scream about orange fascism, and show the country that they’d rather let their black constituents die than let them be protected by the Apricot Adolf.  Ken-Doll Newsom tried to troll Trump, pointing out cities in Red States with higher murder rates per capita than LA.  Annnnddd… all of those cities have been governed entirely by Democrats for decades.  D’oh!

When a smarter Democrat like (don’t laugh) Joe Scarborough tried to keep Chicago’s awful mayor “Let’s Go” Brandon Johnson from making the same mistake of denying his obvious crime problem, Johnson was too dimwitted to take the lifeline.

Scarborough first asked him if an extra 5,000 cops on the beat would help, but Johnson rambled about how money for more housing and education would help.  Joe tried again, suggesting that more cops would be useful, but Johnson Que-Mala-ed off into some word salad about how the question is too complex and multifaceted, and root causes, and infrastructure…

To his credit, Joe said, “That’s not what I asked,” and begged the dope to just say that more cops could be part of the solution.  But Let’s-Go was still muttering his previous answer. “…and systemic racism, and Jim Crow, and unequally distributed resources…”

When Joe finally threw up his hands and gave up, Johnson then had his bodyguards pop some smoke outside the studio, so that he could run serpentine to his limo amid chattering small arms fire, while he called back over his shoulder, “We don’t want Trump’s KKK storm troopers here, we’re doing fine!”    

The lefties have been doing the same thing about redistricting.  Rather than just admitting that they’ve gerrymandered in all the blue states but that it’s sleazy and everyone should stop it, they have to pretend that the GOP move to do it in red states is an unprecedent assault on democracy. 

David Brooks, the formerly reasonable person who sold his soul to become the token “conservative” at the NYT compared Texas redistricting to the use of mustard gas in war!  And he couldn’t even leave it at that, saying “I fully grant you that Trump started it,” when he knows perfectly well that the largest blue states are more lopsidedly gerrymandered than the red states will be after they redistrict.

Finally, the tragic shooting in Minneapolis, which is a story we’ve seen way too often: mentally unstable damned soul commits mass killing atrocity.

Decent people would feel the grief and hold their tongues and support the victims in any way they could.  Stupid politicians would jump in and start assigning blame without knowing the facts.  Evil morons would apply their political litmus test, playing the story up if the killer could be identified with their opponents, or trying to bury it if he’s associated with their side, and lying about the details either way. 

Does anyone have to guess which way the Dems and the MSM (but I repeat myself) played the Minneapolis story? 

Even after so many such stories have blown up in their faces in the past, the Dems can’t resist jumping on the rake again.

Mayor Jacob Frey – who you may remember as Mayor Wussy McPussington from several years ago, when he was surrendering his city to BLM rioters –sneered at those offering “thoughts and prayers,” and condemning anyone who noticed that the killer identified his own “trans” identity as one source of his misery as transphobic bigots.

A soporific NPR host, after an interview in which a Minneapolis official correctly called the male killer “he,” corrected the “error,” saying that we don’t know the killer’s identity or how “they” identify.”  Later on, the New York Times cleared up the confusion, calling the male killer “her.”  Because: journalism!

Talented writer/moron Stephen King – perhaps thinking that since inanimate objects in his fiction (e.g. the car Christine) kill people, inanimate guns must also kill people in the real world – shared his wisdom about the culprit.  “Whether he was transgender is beside the point.  The point is he had a gun.” 

(Um, do I have to admonish you about misgendering the obviously female killer, Stephen?  Shame on you!)

A gun “expert” on CNN agreed with King that semi-automatic weapons are the problem.  Then he immediately proved that he doesn’t know the most basic facts about guns, by saying that “these things [semi-auto weapons] can shoot dozens of bullets in just one trigger pull.”  (Of course, FULLY automatic weapons do that.  And in this context, they are the opposite of SEMI-automatic weapons, you numbskull.)  

Perhaps the best example of leftist lying about this newest story came from ABC News reporter Aaron Katersky who said that “the name of Donald Trump” was written on his guns.  Could this finally be the elusive, murderous Trump supporter whom the legacy media has been waiting for, lo these many years?

Nope!  It turns out the phrases, “Kill Donald Trump” and “Kill Trump Now!” appeared on the killer’s guns. 

If I didn’t know the killer is already dead, I’d phone in a tip to the cops that they might need to see if Tim Wolz, Gavin Newsom or most of the Democrat members of congress can account for their whereabouts at the time of the shooting. 

Because that sounds like something straight out of the DNC.  

Hamas delenda est!

Illnesses Aren’t Usually Funny… But TDS Is (posted 8/25/25)

When you think of illnesses, you don’t usually think “humorous,” because most diseases are obviously the farthest thing from funny.  That being said, it’s a very human thing to find humor – usually dark humor – in all contexts, including those involving sickness and even death.

There are holocaust jokes, and ebola jokes.  The late great Sam Kinison brought the house down with a bit about a crime wave carried out by gay necrophiliac rapists.  (That one’s not for the squeamish.)  Two of the Monty Python guys’ funniest bits were about amputation (the knight who loses one limb after another, but is undaunted, calling each horrific wound “just a scratch”) and death (the sketch about the parrot that John Cleese smacks against the pet store counter, pointing out that it’s “gone to join the choir invisible”). 

So call me adorable but warped if you must – and I’ll be perfectly happy if I had you at just “adorable” – but I find a few illnesses inherently funny.     

One of them is Tourette’s.  Don’t get me wrong, I know that must be an agonizing condition to have, and God bless all of those who do. 

But from the outside, it can be pretty funny, and so odd.  I know that it is largely characterized by tics and nonsense sounds, but when it involves swearing or insulting comments shouted out randomly?   That would be a young boy’s dream condition, and I’m surprised that more of them don’t try to get phony diagnoses, just so they can snap at their teachers or peers.  “Bite me!  Friend off! Schiff for brains!” 

Tourette’s must not have been widely publicized in the 1970s, because if it had been, one of my friends or I would definitely have been the first diagnosed case in central Illinois, and junior high legends in our own time!      

And what about the odd perversity that in a condition that involves shouting out a rapid string of words, why are those never positive, uplifting words?  No sufferer ever snaps, “Have-a-nice-day!” or “God-bless-us-everyone!”  It’s always, “Suck-it-Trebek!” or words to that effect.

There’s an even more rare condition in which someone who suffers a head injury suddenly begins to speak with a foreign accent.  I’m not making that up.  Some British lady gets hit by a cricket bat and suddenly sounds like Ghandi.  Or maybe Grandma Squanto Warren falls over that desk during a congressional vote and pops up speaking fluent Apache.  #Nda’íí’ nídéé’ nitsí’í’ nídéé’.

(Which is Apache for, “#Youmustneverstopmockingme”) (Because: research!)

Better yet, a Simpson-adjacent hillbilly in Appalachia takes a fastball to the noggin and starts speaking in a BBC/King’s English accent.  Which would be hilarious, I don’t care who you are.  Picture Henry Higgins doing Richard Burton as Hamlet saying something like, “Y’all’re fixin’ to get your butts whipped if I have to stop this car!”     

But by far the most entertaining mental condition in America today is Trump Derangement Syndrome.  

Sure, it’s a national irritant, and has brought a lot of heat and absolutely no light into our body politic.  But Man oh Manischewitz, has it brought some top-shelf comedy onto the national stage!

When Trump was inaugurated in 2017, thousands of red-faced, blue-haired women in female genitalia hats screamed like a chorus of tone-deaf banshees throughout the ceremony, and they’ve been on the TDS Crazy Train ever since.  Some have gone on a “sex strike,” vowing not to share their bodily charms with anyone who won’t denounce Trump and all his works.

(By the way, I think I can speak for all of the straight males in Christendom when I say, “Please accept the thanks of a grateful nation, ladies.”)

And the “males” – I use the word loosely – have been as bad as the females.  A bunch of D-list celebrity Dem guys came out as “White Dudes for Kamala,” thus unleashing an epidemic of beta-male-induced feminine dryness that troubled gynecologists from coast to coast.

More recently, one sad fellow dressed like a non-binary golfer pictured himself as a brave non-conformist standing in front of a Chicom tank in Tiananmen Square…but he was just a doofus throwing his footlong sandwich at a federal agent. 

And the “assault with a deli weapon” jokes wrote themselves.  (Apparently the TDS-afflicted sandwich chucker was unaware that all law enforcement officers are equipped with hoagy-proof vests for just such an occasion.) 

(Rumors that J(um)-B(o) Pritzker tried to enlist in ICE when he found out that officers routinely have sandwiches tossed at them have not been confirmed.)  

When Trump engineered half a dozen cease fires and peace treaties, and tried to stop the war in Ukraine, a bunch of fossilized hippie peaceniks hit the streets behind walkers adorned with such pacifistic sentiments as, “We demand more Ukrainians be fed into the Russian meatgrinder!” and “Give war a chance!” while their tin-eared compatriots warbled, “War! (huh), what is it good for?  Absolutely many things! (Say it again.)”  

When Trump eliminated taxes on tips, TDS-suffering advocates for blue-collar wage slaves tweeted, “Tax the Working Class!”  and “Pay Your Fair Share, Hourly Workers!” 

When Trump took out the nuclear facilities of the homophobic weird-beards running Iran, gay leftist activist groups marched around the White House with signs reading, “We support the Mullahs!” and “Throw us off of Roofs!” while wearing t-shirts proclaiming, “Queers for Stoning Gays in Palestine!”

When Trump’s crackdown on crime in DC resulted in the confiscation of dozens of illegal guns, leftist gun-control fanatics marched on the capitol, chanting through bullhorns, “You can have our criminals’ guns when you can pry them from their cold, dead hands!” and “Charlton Heston is our president!”

If Trump gets interest rates down to 2%, they’ll cry, “Savers devastated by low returns on CDs!”

If he cures cancer, they’ll form the NAACT (National Association for the Advancement of Cancer Tumors), and trademark the chant, “What do we want?  Metastasis!  When do we want it? NOW!”

These people can’t be reasoned with.  But they can be opposed.  And they can sure as hell be laughed at.

Speaking of being laughed at, I thought that maybe Joy Reid – the most whitey-hating racist east of the Pecos – had disappeared from the earth after even MSNBC said she was too nutty for them.  But no.  She turned up on the podcast of somebody named Wajahat Ali, just to remind us how nice it is when she’s not here.

(If you’re wondering what Wajahat Ali is known for, other than having a first name that sounds like the cough of a dying man, your guess is as good as mine.)     

Reid launched into another of her classic racist rants, this time covering topics such as how white folks “made this country into a slave hell,” and how they “can’t originally invent anything, more than they were ever able to invent good music.  We black folks gave y’all country music, hip hop, R&B, jazz, rock and roll, they couldn’t even invent that.”

It’s tough to tell whether those thoughts are more stupid, or more evil.

They are definitely stupid.  Because Reid spewed that garbage about whites not inventing anything into a microphone and a camera, and it was viewed on the internet…all 3 of which were invented by whitey.  And because all significant social developments – whether bad or good – are inevitably the product of interactions among many ethnic groups and cultures. 

Slavery, for example, originated when human society originated, and it was omnipresent in every powerful civilization in Asia, Europe, the Americas and Africa.  The slave trade in the modern era involved Africans enslaving other Africans, and selling some of them to Europeans who took them mostly to the Americas, and more of them to Arabs who took them mostly to the Middle East.

It’s true that most slave owners in America – they were called “Democrats” – were white.  But at the outbreak of the Civil War, 10,000 black slaves were owned by black masters, a fact that would curl the culturally-appropriated blonde hair on Joy Reid’s empty head, if she were to learn it.  (Ironically for a person named “Reid,” she doesn’t seem to read a lot.)

The same cultural mixing is present in positive cultural phenomena, such as Reid’s example of music, especially when she talks about country music.  Yes, the banjo was an African instrument, but the guitar was invented in Spain, the violin in Italy, the harmonica in China, the accordion in Germany.  The yodel came from Alpine regions of Europe, and most early country music originated in folk songs in England, Scotland and Ireland, transplanted here by Scots-Irish hillbillies.

But in addition to the lying stupidity of Reid’s argument, her racial cheerleading is evil right down to the bone.  Because every group obviously has good and bad in them.  If white people want to take racial pride in Shakespeare, Adam Smith, and Ronald Reagan, they also have to be saddled with Hitler, Ted Bundy and Jim Acosta. 

Smart black people don’t want to claim Idi Amin or Al Sharpton, but they want to claim Thomas Sowell and Clarence Thomas.  Dumb black people want to claim Sharpton and Obama, but don’t want to claim Sowell or Thomas.

And NOBODY wants to claim Jussie Smollett, Whoopi Goldberg or Joy Reid. 

But if I were going to play the ethno-centric cheerleading game – which, again, is stupid – I’d point to something that the Joy-less one somehow forgot in her illiterate screed about music: classical. 

Classical is as white as hip hop is black, for example.  (It’s not as white as Liz Warren, but almost.  #neverstop) So if we were forced to pick teams in a racialist music draft, we’d happily take Beethoven, Mozart and Bach, and Joy could have Megan Thee Stallion, Cardi B and Lizzo.         

Sure, “Baby Got Back” is fun, and “WAP” is a timeless treasure. 

But if I’m betting on what’s going to stand the test of time, I’ll take “Jesu Joy of Man’s Desiring” and “Ode to Joy,” and give her the points. 

After all, nobody has ever written – or will ever write – an “Ode to Joy Reid.”

Hamas delenda est!

When it Comes to Crime, Many Democrat Chickens are Coming Home to Roost (posted 8/22/25)

I’ve been writing about crime a lot lately. 

And I’m not done, because as I’ve said in earlier columns, crime – what causes it, how to punish it, how we should balance the rights of criminals vs. law-abiding citizens – is one of several key issues (along with taxation and how the courts should view the Constitution, maybe?) that most clearly distinguishes conservatives from liberals.

While I think there are weighty, even philosophical issues at stake re: crime – to what extent does free will play a role when people are brought up in a debased criminal environment; in what circumstances can rehabilitation work for some criminals – the vast majority of crime raises much more basic questions.

Questions like, “How stupid is the average criminal?”  (Spoiler alert: Very, very stupid. Thankfully.)  or “Why are nationally elected politicians, and especially Democrats, so comically inept at it?” 

Taking the first question first, I can usually get some much-needed comic relief from the hilariously pathetic bungling of most criminals. 

If you’re a regular reader, you’ll remember stories about dip-Schiffs who crawl under a car on a sloping driveway and use a rusty, wobbly bottle-jack to lift it so they can steal its catalytic converter…only for it to fall on them and crush their dumb arses.

Unexpectedly!

Or the stories about rappers who confess to their crimes in their terrible “music” videos, or post social media pictures of them flashing a stolen pistol with a clearly visible serial number on it.

Or the story about the rapper 4XTRA, who recorded a video flaunting his possession of illegal M1000 fireworks, and shortly after a brilliant monologue about his plans for them – “You think I won’t blow schiff up wit’ dese, my narwhal?  Don’t friend with me, Imma blow a motherfriendin’ narwhal UP!” – that crazy narwhal blew two of his mother-friending fingers off. 

(I’d say, “Cue the sad trombone,” but no rappers play the trombone.  And I don’t think you can make a sad record-scratching sound on a turntable.)

In the movies, criminals are slick professionals.  They create elaborate distractions to draw away the police, and devise multiple pre-planned escape routes.  They wear disguises, and stash different clothing near the crime scene to change into.  They have multiple sets of identification papers in various aliases, and they stay off law enforcement’s radar.

In real life, criminals get prison tattoos that advertise their gang affiliations and their past crimes, so that cops can recognize them from a block away.  (“I’m a Gangster Disciple and I’ve killed 9 people, all of whose gang names I’ve inked on my body.”)  Even before they go to prison, they get a prominent tattoo on their face or neck, so that if they’re ever in a line-up – spoiler alert: they will be! – they can be easily identified.

And it’s always something memorable, like “Born to Lose,” or “No Regerts!”

Movie criminals drive non-descript panel vans with a magnetic business sign and multiple sets of plates that can be quickly switched out, or else fast cars that they drive up a ramp into the back of a semi-truck, or a hidden garage within a mile of the scene of the crime. 

Real criminals drive 100 pounds of meth and six illegals from the Texas border to New York in a car with two mis-matched doors, one working headlight and two broken taillights.  And a gaudy adhesive memorial stretching across the rear window that says, “RIP Chuy!  MS-13 Forever!”  And they don’t have insurance or registration, but they do have an expired Guatemalan driver’s license. 

And they speed and change lanes without signaling for the entire trip.

And their car is full of pot smoke, as if it were 1981 and they were Kilmar and Chong.  Or possibly Cheech and Kilmar.

Sure, those mouth-breathing low-life criminals provide us some easy laughs.  But what about the high-level masterminds, those who reach the peak of their profession, and should therefore have their criminal act together?

Nope!  I give you three quick examples: New York Attorney General Letitia James, Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, and CA Senator Adam Schiff.

On the surface, Tish James might appear to be fairly smart.  She has three degrees, including a Master’s from Columbia and a JD, and she managed to get herself elected to multiple public offices, culminating in the top enforcer spot in New York state. 

Alas, degrees are often not worth the paper they’re printed on, and the majority of voters in New York state are imbeciles.  And Tish James is as dumb as a bag of hammers. 

Because she publicly went after Donald Trump on flimsy charges that he had committed mortgage fraud.  Other than wrongly listing a NYC penthouse of his as having 30,000 square feet when it was only 11,000 – an easily proven error on his part – her whole case came down to his valuation of Mar-A-Lago.  He said it was worth a ton of money, and Tish said it was worth $28 dollars and an expired bus pass. 

Yes, she managed to get a verdict against him from a transparently corrupt far-left judge, and a judgement for half a billion dollars, which was just thrown out by an appeals court as ridiculously excessive.  The judgment itself will almost certainly be overturned too, because James’ valuation of Mar-A-Lago was laughably low; Deutsche Bank assessed Trump’s properties and net worth to be sufficient collateral for his loan; and he paid that loan back with interest. 

But all of that is beside the point, because James made one of the most crucial blunders of morons: she falsely accused someone of doing what she was actually doing herself. 

She claimed that Trump was able to get lower interest rates on his loans by lying about the property he was borrowing against.  But she has a long history of doing exactly that, involving several mortgage applications and mortgages on which she perjured herself to receive preferable interest rates.  Most brazenly, in August 2023 – when she was going after Trump – she lied on a mortgage application in Virginia, claiming that house as her principal residence when it was not, and when NY law required her to live in NY to be AG.

Lisa Cook made the same corrupt move.  In the summer of 2021 she bought a home in Michigan by swearing on mortgage documents that it was her principal residence.   Two weeks later, she bought a condo in Atlanta, claiming that IT was her principal residence.  Unless it turns out that she has a third “principal residence” somewhere else, it looks like the Michigan place is her actual residence, since she is renting out her Atlanta condo. 

Again, the brazen stupidity of her fraud is hard to understand.  She’s a governor of the powerful Federal Reserve, which is charged with setting national interest rates that control mortgage rates, and she committed mortgage fraud?! 

A masked crack head who robs a convenience store and then immediately removes his mask in front of a security camera is not acting any dumber than a mortgage regulator cheating on her mortgages!   

Even better was her response when called on it.  Here’s what an honest and innocent person would say:

“These charges are false.  I did not lie on any mortgages, ever.  I’m immediately releasing both of the mortgages and applications in question, and they prove that I didn’t claim both properties as my principal residence, which would be fraud.  I demand an apology.”

Here’s her statement:

“I have no intention of being bullied to step down from my position because of some questions raised in a tweet.  I take any legitimate inquiries about my financial background seriously and am compiling accurate information to address them.”

Really, Lisa?  You’re “compiling accurate information?”  That shouldn’t be hard, since all you’d have to do is hold up the second mortgage and application, and point to the many spots in the documents where you identified the Atlanta condo as NOT your principal residence, but a rental or a second home. 

What’s that?  That’s not what the documents show? 

Keep compiling, sweetheart.

Finally we come to Adam Schiff, one of the sleaziest corrupticrats in Washington, DC. 

Schiff did manage to avoid the temptation to get a tattoo of his nickname (“Pencil Neck”) inked onto…well, his pencil neck.  But sadly, he was unable to resist the siren song of fraudulently obtained lower interest rates, just like Cook and James.

In 2003 Schiff bought a house in Maryland that he declared as his principal residence.  In 2009, he bought a condo in CA, which he identified as his principal residence, and for which he took a homestead exemption on his CA state taxes.  In 2020, after falsely claiming two principal residences for over a decade, he finally declared his Maryland house as his second residence. 

Last month, a Fannie Mae financial crimes investigation concluded that Schiff had engaged in “a sustained pattern of possible occupancy misrepresentation” on five Fannie Mae loans over the years. 

I don’t know what that “possible” is doing in there, because you can’t have two “principal residences,” and he clearly claimed that he did. 

To top it off, the DOJ has now found that he’s been paying a 3% interest rate on both properties, well below any legitimate second home mortgage rate at any time when he financed or refinanced both properties. 

Did I mention that he also failed to disclose his mortgages on required annual financial disclosure forms until 2011?  Or that he’s now accused of wire fraud, mail fraud, bank fraud and making false statements to financial institutions? 

If I did, it’s only because it’s hard to make all of those points when you’re giggling uncontrollably. 

Looking back, Tish James ran for AG on a repeated promise to get Trump, and when she’d gotten her corrupt judgment against him, she gloated about how she was looking forward to foreclosing on Trump Tower and Mar-A-Lago and everything else Trump owns.  And with the possible exception of James, nobody cut more ethical corners in pursuit of Trump than Schiff did.

I guess it’s true what they say – it’s always the ones you most suspect. 

Ironically, the one truthful thing that Pencil Neck and Tish James said over the last several years – and they said it a lot! – might now be coming back to haunt them:

“No one is above the law!” 

In the words of Nelson Muntz…

HA HA!

Hamas delenda est!

Red and Blue See Crime & Punishment Very Differently (posted 8/18/25)

In recent decades, attitudes toward crime from the right and the left have diverged, not because the GOP has moved a lot, but because the Dems have raced to their extreme left.

Conservatives have always been enthusiastic about law and order, and prone to more vigorous law enforcement, and it’s no coincidence that red states are the ones who allow the death penalty.  The attitude of many conservatives has been parodied as, “If you kill someone in a red state, we’ll kill you back.”

And most of us don’t mind that jibe one bit.

While old-school Dems also wanted to live in crime-free communities, their approach to the justice system was heavy on the rehabilitation and light on the punishment.  They had some good points, and for prisoners who were willing to make changes in their lives and rehabilitate themselves, some good came out of that approach.  But nobody can say the results weren’t mixed, at best.

However, conservatives’ attitudes toward law enforcement have also been complicated, due to our instinctive skepticism about the encroachments of the power-hungry State.  Tensions were brought to the fore during covid, when conservatives in blue states had repeated and increasingly contentious run-ins with states who quickly instituted draconian restrictions, and then held onto them like grim Pelosi.

Sorry, that’s “grim death.”

Most blue states imposed mandatory lock-downs, mandatory school and business closings, mandatory masking, and Rube Goldberg rules about everything.  You had to wear a mask on a plane, but the airline served snacks…which you could eat by lowering your mask…but only for long enough to stuff some snacks into your mouth.   After which you should yank your mask back up, so you could aspirate a mouthful of peanuts and choke your way to a covid-less death.  Hooray for science!

You had to stay 6 feet apart, and could only occupy some buildings at 25% capacity – two numbers that were plucked out of thin air, and meant nothing.

California filled skate parks with sand…because young kids who were at no risk from the virus needed to be prevented from getting fresh air and exercise, lest they be slain by the virus that was no threat to them in the first place. 

California also arrested a guy who was paddle boarding.  Alone.  In the ocean.

So normally pro-law-enforcement conservatives became scofflaws during Covid.  Most of them will explain the contrast by drawing a distinction between laws – which we support pretty enthusiastically – and regulations – some of which are reasonable…but not many.

Traditional Democrats/leftists have usually been much more fond of regulations in general – they love to tell you what kinds of toilets or light bulbs or cars you may buy, and (recently) that you ladies must allow a creepy dude to watch you shower, while he levitates a towel in front of him without the use of his hands.

And you are legally required to call him “Crystal.” 

What has changed lately is that what had been the extreme fringe of the left has wrested away control of the Democrat party.  They have not just energetically piled into the lefty clown car, they’re now driving it!  

Consider the dramatic changes in just the last several decades.  In the early 1990s, Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously coined the phrase “defining deviancy down,” by which he meant permissively normalizing bad behaviors.  Some of those were social – removing the stigma from out-of-wedlock births, allowing “social promotion” of under-performing students in schools – but many involved the greater acceptance of criminal behavior.

Think about that.  Not that long ago – not in Pilgrim America, or Victorian England, but when Kurt Cobain was still alive! – one of the most influential Dems could write an essay calling for more stringent enforcement of traditional social and legal norms, and get a respectful hearing and a lot of support from elected and influential lefties all over the country.

Today, that world seems as dead and gone as Julius Caesar, or Joe Biden.

The dominant far-left – the group who cheers on the murder of a CEO by a trust-fund coward, who will elect Commie Mamdani in NYC, and who has stage-four TDS – has lost its ethical moorings when it comes to crime.  They’ll ignore and deny that crime is happening, and dare you to disagree.

Baltimore and New York City are as safe as Pennsylvania Dutch country during Amish-Fest.  Publicly defecating meth-enthusiasts in San Francisco are “outdoorsmen.”  Shambling armies of mentally ill addicts living in filthy tents all over LA and Seattle and Portland are “urban campers.”  Brother’s-widow-jumping addict Hunter Biden is “the smartest person I know.”    

Nearly a century ago, four gunmen killed seven rival gangsters in Chicago in the still-infamous “St. Valentine’s Day Massacre.”  Today, seven Chicagoans are killed every other weekend, and it barely makes the papers.  And if you do notice it, Mayor Brandon will call you a racist.

Even worse, lefty pols and media actively excuse the most brutal acts if they’re perpetrated by one of their pet victim groups.  The half-dozen black criminals who beat and stomped three defenseless middle-aged white folks in Cincinnati were defended by a black elected official on racial solidarity grounds, and by a black police official because the video you watched “lacked context.”

There is a silver lining in this mess, though, because the legacy media’s ridiculous crime coverage is giving them even more opportunities to discredit themselves.  They’ve already greatly decreased their ability to harm their enemies and help their friends.  Accusations of racism used to end careers; now they elicit mostly eye rolls.  Reports that some leftist project is succeeding or some rightist action is bringing about the apocalypse are both greeted with instinctive skepticism or outright disbelief.

And the Left’s doubling down on crime is putting them even more behind the 8-ball.  Trump’s move into DC has maneuvered them into insisting that DC is super safe, and the residents there resent law enforcement coming in and ham-handedly arresting all of the violent criminals who weren’t really there, and confiscating all the illegally-owned guns that don’t exist.  Or something. 

The infamous covid-era “mostly peaceful protests” (spoken by a leftist reporter in front of a block full of burning buildings) has now got two new contenders in dishonest cluelessness.  The first was CNN empty head Erin Burnett’s idiotic description of the whacko who killed three people in NYC a couple of weeks ago: “male, mustache, sunglasses, possibly white.”

Burnett immediately became a laughingstock, because viewers could see a picture in real time of the killer walking into the building while carrying a rifle.  Burnett was referencing that picture, and she got the male, facial hair, and sunglasses parts right.  

But that guy was as white as Liz Warren is Cherokee.  (#wemustneverstopmockingher) 

The sunglasses hid his eyes – which in subsequently released pics had an Asian look to them – but he was clearly black, and it wasn’t a close call.  He had a short Afro, and he looked like if John Shaft and Billy Dee Williams had had a baby. 

By the way, this just in from Cincinnati: Seven people have been arrested in the beatings, and they include a Montianez, a Jermaine, a Dekyra, a Dominique, and an Aisha. 

Or, as Erin Burnett would put it, “they’re all possibly white.” 

The second contender in the leftist cover-up sweepstakes comes to us from New Jersey, courtesy of a “journalist” named Dana DiFilippo.  Dana was covering the story of an illegal alien named Raul Luna-Perez, who was picked up for DWI three times in four months.  The third time, he caused a wreck that killed a woman and her daughter.

So Perez is an illegal who could have been detained and deported just for that.  And he should have been arrested, detained, convicted and eventually deported for either of his first two DWIs.  But it’s a blue state, so he was able to go for the drunk driving hat-trick, and kill two innocent people.  But at least he was jailed and held for trial and eventual deportation then, right?

Have you not been paying attention?  Blue state.  Leftist judge. 

So he was released pending his trial. (Fortunately, Biden and Que Mala lost last November, so he was quickly picked up by ICE, and is no longer on our streets.)

So how did Dana cover this story?  First, she called Perez an “undocumented immigrant.” Because of course she did. 

Then she said that he was “at the center of an immigration fight between Trump and NJ’s Governor.”  Nice use of the passive voice there.  He’s not an illegal immigrant serial drunk-driving killer.  He’s just caught up in a fight between Bad Orange Man and NJ governor of indeterminate political persuasion.

But the part of her one-paragraph post that caused Dana to quickly delete her entire X account and flee into the night came next, when she claimed that Perez “had a largely clean driving record, despite prior DUI arrests.” 

Let that sink in.

Wouldn’t Dana make a great defense lawyer? 

“Your Honor, members of the jury, my client Mr. Bundy has met literally THOUSANDS of women in his lifetime, and he’s accused of murdering no more than a few dozen of them, tops.  I’d call that a largely clean dating record. I rest my case.”

Ugh.  We don’t hate the media enough, people.

But we’re getting there.            

Hamas delenda est!