U.S.

U.S.: Where American antics meet satirical spirit! Journey through our U.S. section for a star-spangled satire parade, where we celebrate the quirks from sea to shining sea. From political follies in Washington to the unique flavors of each state, we put the ‘united’ in ‘United States of Laughter.’ Ideal for patriots and parody enthusiasts who like their apple pie served with a side of irony. Caution: May induce laughter louder than Fourth of July fireworks!

  • |

    Crooked Ballots and Other Fan-Fiction Elections

    ByHolden McGroin

    Trump’s whole election-integrity hobby is calling mail-in voting “so crooked” and “corrupt,” like the only way to count votes is to cast the envelope as the crime scene. Then “THE TRUTH” swoops in with the boring plot: mail-in voting is a legitimate method used by legitimate voters to cast legitimate ballots—and yes, the fraud story they’re yelling about is “tiny” in federal elections.

    That’s the real scandal: the panic needs a recurring villain because losing cleanly won’t feed the group chat. So the script turns a normal ballot process into an always-on fan-fiction season—new episode, same premise—until everybody stops arguing evidence and starts arguing feelings.

  • |

    SCOTUS Says: Reporter Gets to Wait (But the Fines Keep Charging)

    ByMike Rotch

    Nothing says “we respect the time it takes to get it right” like the Supreme Court denying a reporter’s emergency request to pause the next step—then vacating the Chief Justice’s temporary handling order—so the fight continues but the consequences are still scheduled to keep showing up. It’s like the court is running a customer-service line where the hold music never stops, even when they tell you, “Your call is important to us.”

    Here’s the sequence that makes my paperwork-with-teeth itch: the Court denied Catherine Herridge’s emergency stay, and then, in a separate misc. order, it vacated the Chief Justice’s earlier temporary order for how the matter was being handled. In plain terms, the Court adjusted the “temporary” part—without delivering the “emergency” part. The reporting around the decision frames it the same way: enforcement and/or sanction mechanics keep moving unless a stay is actually granted.

    And that’s the contradiction right there. If the whole point of judicial process is that time is sometimes needed to do things carefully, why does “time is needed” only apply to the step you’re asking to be paused—while the enforcement/surcharge timeline keeps running on a daily basis like it’s got a union contract? I’m not asking for magic. I’m asking why the system can’t stop the meter when the meter is the one doing the harm during the waiting period.

    This is the kind of due process theater that looks great in a robe and feels awful in a mailbox. In public, the Court can say “wait for review,” and the building can continue to sound dignified. In reality, ordinary people don’t experience “review” as a pause—they experience it as an accumulating bill, every day the calendar is allowed to be the enforcement strategy.

    So the vibe check is: take your time—just don’t expect the consequences to. SCOTUS basically handed down a procedural reminder that the pause button only works for the optics, not for the clock. And if that’s the plan, at least be honest about what’s being processed: not justice, but the next day of the charge.

    Sources

  • |

    Releases ≠ Crossings: Border “Zero” via Definition Hopping

    ByHugh Jass

    When the headline starts with “Not one illegal alien was able to get into our country,” it’s running a paperwork shell game: it treats “release” like “crossing,” so the conclusion looks spotless even though the process is doing separate, bureaucratic things. Definition hopping turns a messy border into a clean story—if you never change the form.

    The “truth” version stamps the logic as “That is an exaggeration.” It points out that CBP says encountered migrants weren’t released into the country, then admits that some people still evaded arrest at the border—and, crucially, that a “zero-gotaway day” had not happened yet. Bottom line: NO RELEASES ≠ NO CROSSINGS.

  • |

    Step 2 Isn’t Accountability—Settling With Your Own DOJ

    ByHarlan Quill

    I like my institutions how I like my library cards: issued by someone who doesn’t also get to decide whether you owe them. Step 2, “settle with your own DOJ,” is what accountability looks like when the judge turns into the billing department—stamping “apology” like it’s evidence, then calling the settlement the same thing as justice. That’s not process; that’s self-approval dressed in legal stationery.

    Because the incentive math is brutally simple: if the same office both marks the rules and signs off on the outcome, the goal stops being consequences and becomes paperwork that closes fast. You don’t get an outside check—you get internal QA, PR language, and a neat little folder labeled “resolution.” And when the referee works for you, the game is already over.

  • |

    The Crown Ought To Take Over The Voting (No Representation At All)

    ByJustin Jest

    A crowned authority strolls into the “colonial self-government is our right” pageant and points at the voting hall like it’s a private club. The room keeps waving “liberty” and chanting “representation,” but the speech bubble keeps insisting the Crown ought to take over the voting—because consent is just a costume, and command is the job.

    And that’s why the slogan reversal hits: if you need the Crown to manage voting, then “representation” wasn’t the goal. “No taxation without representation?” Sure—how about no representation at all, as long as the Crown holds the keys, runs the process, and collects the participation fee while everyone pretends they got a say.

  • |

    Vote No, Take the Photo, Claim the Bridge Credit

    ByHarlan Quill

    In the bipartisan-infrastructure-law universe, Rep. Pete Stauber plays the oldest card in the accountability deck: he votes no, then takes the photo. The concrete doesn’t pause. The ribbon doesn’t stall. Only the credit gets rebranded, one camera-ready appearance at a time.

    And here’s the logistics-based library-card math: “opposition” doesn’t stop the checks—it just changes who gets to smile on the final paperwork. So the public infrastructure still arrives, but the messaging crew treats the ribbon-cutting like a performance review: score higher if the caption looks good, even if the policy vote didn’t.

  • |

    SSA Deletes the Wrong Death, Forgets the Why

    ByHugh Jass

    I’m Hugh Jass, serious investigative reporter with absurd gravitas, and I have bad news and good news—both in the same envelope. The SSA “deletes the wrong death,” the beneficiary gets unfrozen, and everyone claps because the calendar finally stops yelling. Then the contradiction kicks in—because the system often deletes the outcome without keeping the reason, so the Evidence Screen (EVID) doesn’t explain itself. The document coughed; Exhibit A had a pulse; the fix still can’t prove how it learned.

    A reader seeing the article title will immediately understand why this article accompanies the piece because the phrase “deletes the wrong death” points to the correction, while “forgets the why” points to the missing documentation that makes the correction un-auditable.

    In an OIG review of incorrect-death corrections in a sample spanning Jan. 2020 through Dec. 2024, SSA corrected cases at a fairly healthy clip: 54% of the time, technicians made changes in line with policy. So the part that “works” definitely works. The part that doesn’t is the part that lets anyone else verify what happened next time.

    Here’s where the haunted paperwork starts: for 45% of the cases where the record was corrected, the technician didn’t document the reason the death was recorded/removed on EVID. Worse, in 61 of 78 cases within the review sample, there wasn’t even an EVID entry present—meaning the system’s own evidence door is left wide open, and then everyone acts surprised when accountability walks right through.

    And because government fixes love a sequel, the OIG also noted payment follow-through problems. In at least two cases, payment records weren’t updated to reinstate benefits for beneficiaries whose incorrect-death status had been corrected. That’s not a philosophical glitch—it’s the difference between “we changed the record” and “we fixed the life attached to it.”

    So yes: the SSA can correct an incorrect death posting. But if the “why” doesn’t live in EVID, the agency can’t show its work, future mistakes can’t be filtered, and the public is left with a transcript edit where the exhibits are missing. If you’re alive but the government’s records say you aren’t, you don’t just deserve a correction—you deserve receipts that stay filed after the clerical smoke clears.

  • |

    BREAKING: The Fourth Amendment Needs a Warrant (and the Internet Immediately Starts Yelling Inaccurately)

    ByHolden McGroin

    The algorithm wore a trench coat and slipped into the group chat with one scary sentence: “warrant/probable-cause style justification.” Immediately everyone installed a software update with two buttons—“SAFE FOREVER” on the left and “MEH, THEY STILL GOT YOU” on the right—and neither one matched what the Court actually did. Which, honestly, is how you can tell it wasn’t a legal system making people mad; it was the mood machine.

    In Chatrie v. United States (June 29, 2026), the Supreme Court treated access to cellphone geofence location history as a Fourth Amendment search. That matters because “Fourth Amendment search” is the Court’s way of saying the government doesn’t get to grab people’s location past history on vibes alone. The majority logic requires constitutional justification—warrant-like scrutiny—before location-history gets pulled into an investigation.

    Here’s where the contradiction audit kicks in. One headline-taking tribe turned that “needs constitutional justification” into an instant privacy apocalypse off-switch: case closed, they can’t track you anymore, go back to your brunch. Another tribe reacted by flipping the same sentence into a different prophecy: “nothing changed,” because paperwork always drifts, and the world is already doomed anyway. Both groups are performing the same error—taking a specific legal rule and translating it into a yes/no worldview setting.

    And the panic boutique loves this conversion rate. When you flatten “search + constitutional justification” into either “safe forever” or “they still got you,” you stop people from asking the one question that actually keeps you free: what process is required for this specific kind of location-history access? In other words, the real surveillance isn’t just the government’s—it’s the platforms’ ability to keep turning legal nuance into an anxiety scoreboard.

    The practical payoff is simple: the internet didn’t get a new privacy right, and it didn’t get a new surveillance guarantee. It got a new misunderstanding. Rights arrive with standards and conditions, not push notifications. So if your group chat insists the Supreme Court delivered a total apocalypse toggle either way, maybe don’t argue the legal holding—just follow the thread but check the knot, because that knot is misinformation wearing a confidence suit.

  • |

    Kill the Solution, Then Blame the Crisis: “Block the Fix, Blame the Problem”

    ByMoses Pray

    Here’s the public arithmetic: “BLOCK THE FIX. BLAME THE PROBLEM.” Then, in the very next breath, “THEN CALLED FOR MORE BORDER PATROL AGENTS ANYWAY.” The meme puts it on Trump’s shoulders, but the moral math is bigger than one name: if you’re blocking the compromise and selling the mess as proof, you’re not fixing anything—you’re cashing in on panic.

    You can’t kill the solution, watch the crisis keep circling the drain, and then ask for a bigger bucket while claiming you’re the only one who cares. Mercy isn’t a prop, and safety isn’t a talking point. Public dignity means funding what works first—then standing there like an adult, not like a blame-shifting salesman with a press conference voice.

  • |

    TRUTH BECOMES WHATEVER HE SAYS TODAY: Yesterday’s Lies Become Today’s Talking Points

    ByHolden McGroin

    I read this like a corporate policy manual for reality, and the contradiction is the product: memory is “flexible,” contradiction is “patriotism,” and truth is whatever Trump says today. Follow the thread but check the knot—because the knot isn’t facts, it’s the social consequence of remembering out loud.

    The panic machine doesn’t need everyone to agree on one thing forever; it only needs you to refresh fast enough that “wrong yesterday” can be rebranded as “right today” before you get punished for noticing. That’s why normal people get dragged into the group chat: accountability starts to feel like treason, and confusion becomes the fee you pay to stay loyal on schedule.

End of content

End of content