Mark Chaffee

Purveyor of whimsical quips and vagarious anecdotes.

[Mark Chaffee @MeMamboDog]

@OsheaJacksonJr Legend

[Mark Chaffee @MeMamboDog]

@TodayinHistory Legend

[Mark Chaffee @MeMamboDog]

imagine wall street but on eth. mind blown. 🤯 wall st 2.0 by @myetherwallet

the future is here: https://t.co/EB5JinKcHD

[Mark Chaffee @MeMamboDog]

Well stated – very cogent.

[Yogi @Houseofyogi]

No Kings explained for people who think they're fighting fascism.

You're standing in a crowd on Saturday. You look around and think yeah. No Kings. This is what democracy looks like.

Bro.

You're holding a sign made by a communist billionaire who lives in Shanghai.

You live in a constitutional republic.

Elections. Term limits. A free press that spent four years calling the president a fascist without one journalist being arrested.

The modern left's definition of fascism:

You love your country? Fascist.

You want to enforce the border? Racist.

You think parents should raise their kids? Bigot.

You want to know who's voting in your elections? Jim Crow.

Being patriotic is fascism to the modern left.

But every country has borders and enforces them. 176 countries require ID to vote. That's the definition of a country.

But the Democratic establishment told you otherwise. And you believed them.

Congress has a 15% approval rating. 80% of Americans disapprove. 97% of incumbents got re-elected.

Chuck Schumer. 46 years. Longer than Stalin.

Steny Hoyer. 45 years. Longer than Mao.

Mitch McConnell. 42 years. 5x more than Napoleon.

Nancy Pelosi. 39 years. Longer than Henry VIII.

Maxine Waters. 35 years. Longer than Mussolini.

Bernie Sanders. 35 years. Triple Hitler's entire reign.

Trump. 5 years and 3 months. Won the popular vote and the electoral vote.

But Trump is the king. Okay buddy.

You don't hate kings. You hate kings that aren't yours.
And Saturday they had you in the streets carrying their water.

The Democratic Party installed a president without letting you vote. Biden quit on a Sunday. By Tuesday your queen was crowned.

No primary. No debate. No ballot. First time since 1968.

Three days before your march every Senate Democrat voted against photo ID to vote.

During COVID you carried a vaccine card everywhere like a hall pass from the government just to eat at a restaurant.

But getting a birth certificate or waiting two hours at the DMV to prove you're a citizen before you vote? That's oppression.

The Democratic Party is pro illegal immigration.

Counts non-citizens in the Census. Census determines congressional seats. More non-citizens means more seats means more power. No voter ID means no way to check.

That's how you keep power without wearing a crown.

Biden built a censorship machine.

Pressured Facebook to suppress true information and admitted it in writing. Censored scientists. Censored doctors. Censored JOKES. The Biden White House told Facebook to remove "humor and satire."

They literally went after people for making fun of them. UK does it better tho...

Everything they censored turned out to be right. They just outsourced the silencing to Silicon Valley.

And it doesn't stop at speech.

The extreme left justifies taking children from families.

Six thousand schools rewrite children's identities without telling parents. And the State has the right to intervene.

The Hitler Youth did this. Mao's Red Guards did this. The Soviets built statues of a child who reported his own father.

Same playbook.

During Covid, your bakery got shut down. Church closed. You couldn't hold your dying mother's hand at the hospital.

But thousands packed together during BLM to burn Minneapolis and THAT was essential civic engagement. Obviously.

$2 billion in damage. 25 dead. 2,000 cops injured. 20 states burning. VP Kamala promoted a bail fund for the rioters. No investigation. No hearings.

January 6. One building. Few hours. 1,000 prosecuted. Two years of televised hearings.

Kings decide which violence counts. The left decided.

Charlie Kirk spent his life walking onto campuses asking for honest debate. He was assassinated.

CSIS terrorism database. 2025 is the first year in 30 years that left-wing attacks outnumber right-wing. Yet no one brings this up.

75% of liberal students say preventing a speaker from talking is justified. 27% say violence is acceptable.

Liberals who went to Trump rallies: "I never felt unsafe." "The experience changed me."

Conservatives who show up on liberal campuses get screamed at, blocked, and assassinated.

One side talks. The other side screams.

The Party for Socialism and Liberation marched with you Saturday.

Their stated purpose in their own words: "Revolution." Not reform. Marxism.

The system that killed a hundred million people last century. They had you holding their signs while they said it out loud.

500 groups. $3 billion in revenue. Pre-printed signs. The signs were ready before you were angry.

The money leads to Neville Roy Singham. Billionaire in Shanghai. Attends CCP workshops. Funnels millions through shell companies at UPS mailboxes. Three Congressional committees have subpoenaed him as a suspected CCP foreign agent.

You thought you were fighting for democracy. You were carrying water for Beijing.

"Liberals are leaving the First Amendment behind." Spoken by the ACLU lawyer who defended Nazis in court because it was their constitutional right.

Bill Clinton put 100,000 cops on the street. Reformed welfare. Said illegal immigration is wrong to a standing ovation. Told America the era of big government is over.

Today his own party would call him a fascist.

The 1990s Democrat defended free speech for Nazis. Yours censors doctors for telling the truth.

The 1990s Democrat held open primaries. Yours installed a nominee without a vote.

The 1990s Democrat trusted parents. Yours takes their children.

Historians measure fascism across eight traits. Here's who checks the boxes in 2026:

Censorship of political opposition. Democrats.

Contempt for democratic process. Democrats.

Tolerance of political violence. Democrats.

State ideology forced on families. Democrats.

Corporate-state fusion. Democrats.

Scapegoating and manufactured enemies. Both sides.

Cult of personality. Both sides.

Ultranationalism. Republicans.

Five for the left. One for the right. Two shared.

You marched against kings on Saturday.

You marched FOR kings.

You just didn't know which was which.

Stop being gaslit.

I hope you understand what's at stake.

[Mark Chaffee @MeMamboDog]

@RayBake @SenTedBuddNC I got a win for what?

[Mark Chaffee @MeMamboDog]

@RayBake @SenTedBuddNC Correct, but that’s not what you said which is why I asked. The SAVE act doesn’t make it impossible for a married woman to prove her last name, it just requires it.

[Mark Chaffee @MeMamboDog]

@RayBake @SenTedBuddNC How does the SAVE Act make it impossible for married women to prove their last name?

[Mark Chaffee @MeMamboDog]

@dustin_davis_ @RyanAFournier Now THAT is funny!

[Mark Chaffee @MeMamboDog]

@HustleBitch_ Apparently, her “Google Machine” is broken because it took much more effort to post this video than it would have to look up the answer.

[Mark Chaffee @MeMamboDog]

@milesdeutscher https://t.co/CfPDnE1ZyY

[Matt Shumer @mattshumer_]

https://t.co/ivXRKXJvQg

[Mark Chaffee @MeMamboDog]

@Playteaux1 Yum!

[Mark Chaffee @MeMamboDog]

The whole "no one is illegal on stolen land" has always confounded me. First, it is a complete non sequitur – the conclusion doesn't logically follow from the premise.

Even if one accepts that much of the U.S. occupies land unjustly taken from Indigenous nations, it does not automatically follow that the current sovereign government lacks authority to set and enforce border and immigration rules. Historical injustice does not legally or practically nullify present-day jurisdiction or the ability to define legal entry and residency. Past wrongs can coexist with the reality that nations still maintain borders and immigration systems.

If "stolen land" delegitimizes any government's right to control who enters, then virtually every country on Earth would lose that right. Most land everywhere has a history of conquest, migration, displacement, or violence (including pre-colonial Indigenous territories that changed hands through warfare among tribes, the Aztec empire, etc.).

The phrase works well as moral rhetoric that calls attention to colonialism and selective outrage in immigration debates, but it is logically weak as a direct rebuttal to the idea of enforcing existing immigration statutes. It tends to substitute historical grievance and emotional appeal for a clear answer to questions such as: "Who gets to decide membership in the current political community, and by what process?"

[Mark Chaffee @MeMamboDog]

The whole "no one is illegal on stolen land" has always confounded me. First, it is a complete non sequitur – the conclusion doesn't logically follow from the premise.

Even if one accepts that much of the U.S. occupies land unjustly taken from Indigenous nations, it does not automatically follow that the current sovereign government lacks authority to set and enforce border and immigration rules. Historical injustice does not legally or practically nullify present-day jurisdiction or the ability to define legal entry and residency. Past wrongs can coexist with the reality that nations still maintain borders and immigration systems.

If "stolen land" delegitimizes any government's right to control who enters, then virtually every country on Earth would lose that right. Most land everywhere has a history of conquest, migration, displacement, or violence (including pre-colonial Indigenous territories that changed hands through warfare among tribes, the Aztec empire, etc.).

In short, the phrase works well as moral rhetoric that calls attention to colonialism and selective outrage in immigration debates, but it is logically weak as a direct rebuttal to the idea of enforcing existing immigration statutes. It tends to substitute historical grievance and emotional appeal for a clear answer to questions such as: "Who gets to decide membership in the current political community, and by what process?"

[Mark Chaffee @MeMamboDog]

The whole "no one is illegal on stolen land" has always confounded me. First, it is a complete non sequitur – the conclusion doesn't logically follow from the premise.

Even if one accepts that much of the U.S. occupies land unjustly taken from Indigenous nations, it does not automatically follow that the current sovereign government lacks authority to set and enforce border and immigration rules. Historical injustice does not legally or practically nullify present-day jurisdiction or the ability to define legal entry and residency. Past wrongs can coexist with the reality that nations still maintain borders and immigration systems.

If "stolen land" delegitimizes any government's right to control who enters, then virtually every country on Earth would lose that right. Most land everywhere has a history of conquest, migration, displacement, or violence (including pre-colonial Indigenous territories that changed hands through warfare among tribes, the Aztec empire, etc.).

In short, the phrase works well as moral rhetoric that calls attention to colonialism and selective outrage in immigration debates, but it is logically weak as a direct rebuttal to the idea of enforcing existing immigration statutes. It tends to substitute historical grievance and emotional appeal for a clear answer to questions such as: "Who gets to decide membership in the current political community, and by what process?"

[Mark Chaffee @MeMamboDog]

The whole "no one is illegal on stolen land" has always confounded me. First, it is a complete non sequitur – the conclusion doesn't logically follow from the premise.

Even if one accepts that much of the U.S. occupies land unjustly taken from Indigenous nations, it does not automatically follow that the current sovereign government lacks authority to set and enforce border and immigration rules. Historical injustice does not legally or practically nullify present-day jurisdiction or the ability to define legal entry and residency. Past wrongs can coexist with the reality that nations still maintain borders and immigration systems.

If "stolen land" delegitimizes any government's right to control who enters, then virtually every country on Earth would lose that right. Most land everywhere has a history of conquest, migration, displacement, or violence (including pre-colonial Indigenous territories that changed hands through warfare among tribes, the Aztec empire, etc.).

In short, the phrase works well as moral rhetoric that calls attention to colonialism and selective outrage in immigration debates, but it is logically weak as a direct rebuttal to the idea of enforcing existing immigration statutes. It tends to substitute historical grievance and emotional appeal for a clear answer to questions such as: "Who gets to decide membership in the current political community, and by what process?"

[Mark Chaffee @MeMamboDog]

The whole "no one is illegal on stolen land" has always confounded me. First, it is a complete non sequitur – the conclusion doesn't logically follow from the premise.

Even if one accepts that much of the U.S. occupies land unjustly taken from Indigenous nations, it does not automatically follow that the current sovereign government lacks authority to set and enforce border and immigration rules. Historical injustice does not legally or practically nullify present-day jurisdiction or the ability to define legal entry and residency. Past wrongs can coexist with the reality that nations still maintain borders and immigration systems.

If "stolen land" delegitimizes any government's right to control who enters, then virtually every country on Earth would lose that right. Most land everywhere has a history of conquest, migration, displacement, or violence (including pre-colonial Indigenous territories that changed hands through warfare among tribes, the Aztec empire, etc.).

Sure, the phrase works well as moral rhetoric that calls attention to colonialism and selective outrage in immigration debates, but it is logically weak as a direct rebuttal to the idea of enforcing existing immigration statutes. It tends to substitute historical grievance and emotional appeal for a clear answer to questions such as: "Who gets to decide membership in the current political community, and by what process?"

[Mark Chaffee @MeMamboDog]

The whole "no one is illegal on stolen land" has always confounded me. First, it is a complete non sequitur – the conclusion doesn't logically follow from the premise.

Even if one accepts that much of the U.S. occupies land unjustly taken from Indigenous nations, it does not automatically follow that the current sovereign government lacks authority to set and enforce border and immigration rules. Historical injustice does not legally or practically nullify present-day jurisdiction or the ability to define legal entry and residency. Past wrongs can coexist with the reality that nations still maintain borders and immigration systems.

If "stolen land" delegitimizes any government's right to control who enters, then virtually every country on Earth would lose that right. Most land everywhere has a history of conquest, migration, displacement, or violence (including pre-colonial Indigenous territories that changed hands through warfare among tribes, the Aztec empire, etc.).

In short, the phrase works well as moral rhetoric that calls attention to colonialism and selective outrage in immigration debates, but it is logically weak as a direct rebuttal to the idea of enforcing existing immigration statutes. It tends to substitute historical grievance and emotional appeal for a clear answer to questions such as: "Who gets to decide membership in the current political community, and by what process?"

[Mark Chaffee @MeMamboDog]

@ShibaInuHodler Interesting sociological experiment. I’ve been hodling, so I’ll bite with this account to see what happens: 0xEb0b261FDB682EcCd07a592a2d8429231211696A

[Mark Chaffee @MeMamboDog]

Congrats Jaimie! You worked your butt off for this - I’m so proud of you! #DeVryProud

[Mark Chaffee @MeMamboDog]

@tchaffs It's how I roll.