Guerrillas in the Midst

132 Views

If you’ve taken a look at the political climate lately, you know it’s uglier than Rosie O’Donnell’s leaked nudes. We’ve gotten to the point where expressing an opposing opinion on any topic can be a dangerous proposition with what political opponents are advocating and/or condoning. We’re not talking about tearing down yard signs or TPing a house. We’re talking doxing, death threats, and even physical violence. Put another way, we’ve entered the period of guerrilla politics.

To be fair, politics isn’t a subject for the weak at heart, but in the past there was always an underlying assumption the two sides only wanted the best for the country, just differed on the way to get there, and could respect the other side’s position even if it countered their own. It’s safe to say that assumption is no longer in play, as political operatives are more concerned with otherizing their opponents than finding common ground.

Although both sides participate in guerrilla politics from time to time, the Left has mastered it. Take Joaquin Castro’s recent decision to post the names and workplaces of businessowners who donated to President Donald Trump on Twitter. Yes, this information was public knowledge as required by election law, but Castro’s purpose for posting it had only a little do to with informing the public of where businessowners stood on the President. The intent was to call out these people for “supporting a racist” (in Castro’s opinion) and trying to shame these people into rethinking their support.

After a few death threats, cases of mistaken identity, and bad news coverage, Castro’s idea backfired on him, making him look like he deserved to be one of the back of the pack contenders for the 2020 Democrat nomination for President. Good thing for him he was already there or it might have been even more embarrassing. Even though the information is public, it was combined with an unspoken accusation: the people and businesses on this list are racists because they support Donald Trump, who is a racist. If the Left would have stopped with a boycott of these establishments, that’s one thing, but it didn’t stop there. The minute death threats started to be uttered, the minute the employees of these establishments started fearing for their lives, that’s when it went from being acceptable to unacceptable behavior.

Of course, try telling Castro and the Left that. They are all about “name and shame” when it comes to Trump supporters. Of course, when it’s Antifa, name and shame goes the way of Castro’s chances of seeing the inside of the White House on anything but a guided tour. As much of a double standard this appears to be, it’s not quite one because being a Trump supporter in and of itself isn’t illegal, but assault is. But if the Left gets their way, being a Trump supporter would be grounds for expulsion from society. And soon, their sights may be on anyone else who disagrees with them, all in the name of ideological purity.

This kind of thinking is folly at best, dangerous at worse. The natural instinct is to give as good as we receive, but that’s not going to work here. In its current state, the Left is wiling to do anything to ruin people who don’t tow the line. If they can’t intimidate you emotionally, they’ll do it physically. They are acting out of pure emotion, which means they may not respond to reason. That limits what we can do in response. If we push back, it escalates the situation and forces the Left to push back harder. If we don’t say or do anything, the Left wins by default and they continue to run roughshod. There has to be something in between these two undesirable results.

And there is, but it will require a little bit of strategic thinking. Comedian Dennis Miller came up with a solution in 2014: keep your politics close to your vest, especially these days. Don’t engage the Left, don’t stick your neck out in political discussions unless you’re ready to deal with the worst possible responses, and think about what you say and do on social media, in public, and in private discussions. But there are two things you can do that will strike a blow for freedom.

Vote, and encourage others to vote.

Until the Left figures out how to spy on how you vote (and don’t take this as a challenge, Leftists), you still retain the privacy at the polling place. When it’s you and your ballot, you still have the power to think for yourselves and act in whatever way you feel will make the country better. Even if you don’t agree with Trump, this constant bullying by the Left won’t get better until they realize the power they think they hold is through force and not persuasion or reason. They are motivated by greed, hatred, envy, and any number of other negative emotions that will lead either to another not-so-civil war or to them eventually burning themselves out. The former will be a bloody end that will not be a happy ending for this country. The latter is the long game, but it is the one that will ensure we can still hold onto the tatters our country has become and maybe, just maybe, we can mend it.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

133 Views

To put it mildly, the Left hates President Donald Trump with the fire of a thousand suns. To be fair, they also hate non-GMO free products with the same fire, so it’s not that big of a deal. However, among political figures, Trump is number one, with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell coming in at number two. Whether it’s blocking House bills that have more riders than a horse at a kid’s party working straight commission or filling judicial posts, the hatred towards McConnell is visceral and real.

Recently, Leftists have decided to try to go after McConnell after the recent mass shootings in El Paso and Dayton. Some have congregated outside of his house and shouted vulgar and violent comments (all in the name of stopping gun violence, of course). Others, like Tim Ryan (one of the clowns in the current 2020 Democrat Presidential clown car…yeah, I don’t know who he is either), are organizing a march from Ohio to Kentucky to protest McConnell’s reluctance to pass House bills designed to make gun laws tougher.

Before the aforementioned horse gets exhausted, let’s take a look at Senator McConnell.

Mitch McConnell

What the Left thinks it means – the epitome of Republican/fascist evil and inaction, a Russian asset who refused to hold Donald Trump accountable

What it really means – the personification of karma

When I first started paying attention to McConnell, I have to say I wasn’t impressed. Based on what I saw of his actions on behalf of his ideology, it seemed he would dive to the left faster than Rickey Henderson trying to avoid a pickoff attempt at first base. As time went on, however, he’s proven himself to be a long range strategist and a thorn in the Left’s side because he plays by the rules they set up.

Remember Merrick Garland? Using a Senate tradition going back decades, McConnell said the Senate would not take up his nomination to the Supreme Court in 2016 because it was an election year. From then on, McConnell was in the Leftist crosshairs. From that point on, McConnell did little to endear himself to the Left, including reprimanding Senator Elizabeth “Chief Running Mouth” Warren after she violated Senate rules by attacking the character of a fellow Senator at a confirmation hearing. Nevertheless, she persisted to make an ass of herself, but that’s a story for another time.

Then, there was the use of the “nuclear option” that former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid used to try to fill judicial vacancies during President Barack Obama’s tenure. McConnell advised it would backfire on the Left, and once the Senate went back into Republican hands, it did. And the Left got mad…der.

I think that’s one of the main drivers behind the Left’s hatred of McConnell: he’s holding the Left to their words and actions, which exposes their short-sightedness and hypocrisy. It’s not hard to do, but high profile Republicans who do it are few and far between. And McConnell is the king of comebacks. Over the past 2 years, McConnell has been given any number of nicknames (Cocaine Mitch, The Grim Reaper of the Senate, Moscow Mitch), all of which designed to denigrate him, but his team and him roll with the punches using the one thing Leftists can’t stand when responding to their rhetoric.

Humor.

Although Leftists claim they have a better sense of humor than the Right, they don’t take it very well when their ideas get mocked. (And apparently they’ve never seen Amy Schumer’s recent stand-up specials, which were as well-received as a pig roast in Tel Aviv during Hanukkah). Leftists count on an emotional response to their rhetoric, but they don’t expect that response to be laughter. To put it another way, they can dish it out, but they can’t take it. Using a little mental and comedic jujitsu, McConnell has been able to not just get legislative and judicial victories, but drive Leftists crazy…well, crazier at least, in the process. So, win-win.

This is not to say McConnell is perfect, but to deny his effectiveness as a leader is folly. Where past Republican leaders were wishy-washy and willing to meet the Left halfway on issues (while never getting the same consideration from the Left, by the way), McConnell at least has some idea of how to draw a line in the sand and stick to it. Whether it’s advancing President Trump’s agenda or stymieing the Left’s agenda, he has learned the value of strategizing towards achieving a goal and finding the best possible path to make it a reality.

Mitch McConnell’s job description is a lot like hot dogs: you don’t want to know how you get to the end result. That, and both go really well with mustard, ketchup, and relish. The results are what matter most, along with Leftists’ heads exploding along the way. For that, Cocaine Mitch and his Mitchettes deserve our respect and support.


More Shootings, Less Security

144 Views

Over the weekend, we heard of two mass shootings, one in El Paso and the other in Dayton, and people on both sides of the gun control issue are up in arms, if you’ll pardon the expression. And even if you don’t pardon it, I’m using it, so there. Pro-gun control advocates scream about needing tougher gun laws, up to and including confiscation. Pro-gun advocates scream about the Second Amendment and Leftists wanting to take away their guns.

And neither side is looking to change a thing.

To be quite clear on this, I am a Second Amendment supporter even though I don’t own nor should I own firearms. I do not advocate violence under most cases, and I definitely condemn any and all mass shootings. The fact I have to make this statement in the first place is indicative of the stupidity of the current political environment where an absence to condemn is “evidence” of support. But that’s neither here nor there.

There is something that has connected the clear majority of mass shootings over the past few years, but very few people have recognized it. Contrary to current sentiments, they weren’t all white nationalists, Republicans, Democrats, Leftists, Islamists, atheists, and most of the other descriptors being thrown about like candy at a parade. The connection is obvious, even stated, but not even considered when devising “solutions.”

The clear majority of recent mass shooters obtained their guns legally.

Think about that for a moment. The shooters all beat the system government put in place to protect us. And no one else sees this?

Right now, we have tens of thousands of gun laws on the books at every level from city to federal, so any gun owner who wants to legally own a gun have to run a gauntlet of regulations, background checks, and monetary investments just to get the government’s blessing. And yet, in spite of (or perhaps because of) this, people who perhaps shouldn’t be able to get own guns are getting and using them for nefarious purposes. And that’s not even taking into consideration those who circumvent the system altogether and obtain their guns illegally. For now, though, let’s deal with the legal path because that’s where the failure is more evident.

After so many recent public failures, one would think the first place people would look for answers is the system responsible for the failures. That’s where people familiar with the private sector (i.e. not Congresscritters) or common sense (i.e. not Congresscritters) would start, but that doesn’t work for pro-gun control folks. The system isn’t the problem; it’s the lax gun laws! And the solution? More gun laws! In other words, strengthening the system that continues to fail with deadly results.

The irony is the pro-gun control side says we can’t keep doing things the way we have been while being absolutely inflexible when it comes to what needs to be done. They aren’t willing to look at the system they’ve created and promoted as the solution to the gun violence problem as the problem that adds to the gun violence problem they’re allegedly trying to resolve. When you dig down into gun control, you see a lot of ideas, but not a lot of depth to them. It’s mainly catchy slogans, like “sensible gun control” with only occasional references to actual confiscation or making it harder/more expensive to get bullets or some other nonsensical options.

On the other side of the equation, anti-gun control folks don’t do the movement any favors by becoming live action examples of the caricatures gun control folks paint of all gun owners. Just because you can pack heat in public doesn’t mean it’s appropriate in every situation. Yes, I know shootings are happening in unlikely places, but most of the time you won’t need to draw and fire. And as much complaining as you do about what the hoops you have to jump through in order to get a firearm legally, I would think you would be the first ones to look at the system and want to do something about it.

Unfortunately, neither side wants to address the system. Gun control advocates want to keep their power and gun advocates want to keep their bone of contention against gun control. And of these two groups, I have more faith in the latter group to come to its senses sooner than the former. However, I will be glad to be proven wrong.

So, who wants to be the first person in power willing to take on the failed system in place? The lives you save from pushing for reform in this area will be more than worth the heat you’ll take by those who will reject it. 

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

137 Views

I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating. I refuse to get on Twitter, mainly because there are too many twits out there. However, it cannot be denied it has revolutionized activism. Now, instead of going out and marching for a cause, you can just type up a hashtag and people know what kind of person you are. It’s the digital equivalent of the ribbons celebrities wear or used to wear to awards ceremonies to show they cared about a particular cause.

This week we saw the emergence of another hashtag ribbon: #WhitePeopleAgainstRacism. The Left has jumped all over this as a means to try to show President Donald Trump they won’t stand for his evil racist no-good policies, like…well…okay, so they’re still working on inventing these reasons. In the meantime, the hashtag will have to do because, dammit, they CARE!

See what I mean about too many twits?

On the plus side, though, we have a new addition to the Leftist Lexicon.

#WhitePeopleAgainstRacism

What the Left thinks it means – a hashtag designed to show the world they, and in particular whites,  don’t condone racism

What it really means – a way for Leftists to show the world they’re better people and, in doing so, failing miserably

Don’t get me wrong here. I am a white person against racism, and I agree with the basic sentiment. Being a racist is pretty much a non-starter for most professions outside of the Ku Klux Klan or Congressmember, but the sentiment goes a lot deeper than the surface. When you take a look at what the Left considers racism, the simple statement gets murky.

The Left’s definition of racism is race plus power. That way, a white man who called a black man the n-word is racist, but a black man who calls a white man the h-word (Honkey) isn’t because the white man has power over the black man. But it’s not just overt racism, folks. It’s any structure that holds whites to a different standard than people of color. To oversimplify while retaining the core of the idea, anything and everything can be racist at some point when it involves white people.

However, this isn’t the dictionary definition of racism (though I’m sure some Leftists are already hard at work trying to get their definition into the actual lexicon of the English language, if they haven’t succeeded yet). The definition of racism I use is being hateful towards someone due solely to their race. That’s it. And for most of my adult life, it’s worked out pretty well. The difference between the Left’s definition and my definition is it eliminates a crutch for the Left. If they admit racism isn’t about power or power structures, it opens up the meaning to include everyone, not just whites. And it’s hard to keep promoting victimhood for people of color if they have to admit they have the power to choose not to be racist.

This can be seen in a recent controversy over West Baltimore. President Trump tweeted out how bad conditions were in West Baltimore and calling out Representative Elijah Cummings for a lack of leadership in his home district, and the Left started calling him racist for the first time in, oh, a microsecond. Now, here’s the funny part. There was another gentleman who expressed similar concerns about the conditions in West Baltimore who isn’t being called out as a racist. His name?

Bernie Sanders.

While Bernie and his Bernouts are trying to spin the narrative to avoid comparisons to Trump’s tweet, it’s hard to separate the two, especially considering they expressed the same idea: West Baltimore sucks. Now, before the Left starts accusing me of “whataboutism,” let me point out both Bernie and Trump are exactly right. West Baltimore makes Chernobyl circa 1987 look like Club Med. And also let me point out that pointing that out isn’t racist; it’s a harsh and rat-filled reality.

Of course, the Left can’t seem to keep its own story straight when it comes to race. Remember when Leftists defended the idea of people like Shaun King and Rachel Dolezal being “trans-racial”? Or when they advanced the idea race is a social construct? If you don’t, be glad. It’s so mind-bendingly insane, yet it might explain how these same Leftists thinks West Baltimore is under attack by Trump pointing out how it’s being run by Leftists as well as, well, anything else they run.

And while we’re on the subject of mind-bending insanity, let’s look at how the Left applies its own standards as they pertain to whites. When white guys like your humble correspondent try to voice opinions about the state of black families, Leftists tell us we should stay quiet because we’re not black. So, who is behind the #WhitePeopleAgainstRacism hashtag? If it’s a white person, shouldn’t he or she be told to be quiet because they’re not a person of color? If it’s a person of color, wouldn’t the assumption white people would need to denounce racism be racist itself? After all, the basis for this assumption is whites are inherently racist because of the color of their skins…which meets the literal definition of racism. Not to mention, the idea people of color lacking the agency to be racist is racist in and of itself because it denigrates and denies the power people of color have.

See what I mean about Leftist ideas on this subject being mind-bendingly insane?

The further away we get from Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream in years, the further away we seem to get from realizing that dream. It’s gotten to the point the dream has become a twisted nightmare version where instead of looking at the content of one’s character instead of the color of one’s skin, Leftists are focused solely on the skin color and don’t give a rat’s ass about character. (Sorry, Baltimore, but I had to mention rats.)

Here’s the thing, though. Being against racism, whether you’re white or not, is pretty much our default setting in 2019 with relatively few exceptions. So, saying you’re against racism is like saying you’re against kicking puppies; it’s unremarkable to the point of being mundane. But it makes for some great virtue signaling. Only in a Leftist’s hivemind could something so utterly meaningless become a badge of honor. Then again, these are the same folks who believe everyone should get a participation trophy so nobody’s feelings get hurt, so there’s that.

In the meantime, if you feel you have to announce you’re against racism, seek professional help. You’re clearly not well enough to function as an adult and might need some supervision.



Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

193 Views

With all the discussion of tolerance and the number of genders (Spoiler Alert: still 2), there is a relatively new phenomenon: preferred pronouns. Thanks to Chief Running Mouth, Elizabeth Warren, putting her preferred pronouns on her Twitter profile, the Left had a collective joygasm. Finally, the Democrats were talking about a subject that matters to approximately 0.0000000325% of the population!

What started out as a way for people online to describe what they consider themselves (while at the same time increasing the number of times lesser used letters like X, Y, and Z appear in words) has turned into a social and judicial issue due in no small part to the Left’s use of identity politics. As a result, we now have yet another way to enter the twisted, mixed-up world of Leftist thought.

preferred pronouns

What the Left thinks it means – a way for people to express their sexual preferences and identity, an important statement about one’s self

What it really means – creating more division using stupid means

I’ve often said the Left uses language to control the narrative, but in this case, they’ve invented their own language reminiscent of feminists of the 1990s purposely misspelling words so they didn’t have to use the word “man.” Thanks to websites like Reddit, though, the preferred pronoun movement took off like a rocket. At first, it was pretty harmless, but now it’s gotten downright litigious.

In some states and countries, it is now illegal to use the wrong pronouns if a person tells you what he/she/it prefers you use. And people are okay with this? Unfortunately, the answer is yes because in their minds “misgendering” someone by not using preferred pronouns should be illegal. Even if it’s a 6’4” 280 pound linebacker born Hunk Slabchest whose preferred pronouns are zee/zyr (and, yes, these are actual preferred pronouns, ladies and gentlemen), if Hunk asks you to use them and you fail to, there are now legal punishments. Granted, the people who feel this way tend to overlap with the “words are violence” crowd, so it shouldn’t come as a surprise that they managed to find a way to make pronouns punishable by the Pronoun Police.

Yeah, maybe I’d take this personal pronoun business a little more seriously if their advocates could spell. And, yes, I’ve seen how you spell in your Tweets. Maybe work on mastering actual pronouns before you tackle the preferred ones, okay?

At the heart of the personal pronoun issue is a need for sexual individuality, which isn’t bad in and of itself. When it gets to the level we’ve reached, though, it goes into the land of delusion and scientific illiteracy. Biology, physiology, anatomy, and other life sciences have shown time and time again there are two genders, male and female. It doesn’t matter what you think or how you feel, that’s pretty much a done deal. You are either male or female at the genetic level. Period. Just because you don’t identify as a member of one of the two genders doesn’t mean you’re not one of them.

This is where preferred pronouns undercut science. By allowing the idea of multiple genders outside of the male/female dynamic, any variation on a theme can be seen as a legitimate gender, thus increasing the number of possible preferred pronouns and creating more potential for misunderstandings, division, and even legal penalties. On the plus side, it also creates the potential for a lot of mockery, but overall it’s not a great idea.

There’s also the potential for psychological damage. Just because you want to be called zyr doesn’t require the world to cater to your will, and those who think it should aren’t helping. They are creating an environment where your feelings trump fact, and that isn’t healthy for anyone, especially not the little zyr they’re coddling. Once you allow yourself to define your own reality irrespective of the reality around you, you have bought into the delusion, and it becomes harder to ween yourself off of it.

The main problem I have with preferred pronouns is one of respect. The people who want us to use them expect us to respect their wishes, but they don’t offer respect in return. If you tell me your personal pronouns and I slip up, forget, or just don’t care to use them, it shouldn’t result in legal action against me. That’s more heavy-handed than Iron Man giving you a high five while holding onto a bar of gold, and probably a lot less painful. I live by a simple philosophy: I will show you the respect you show me until something happens to change that dynamic. If you insist I use your pronouns but you don’t give me time for a learning curve, that’s not respect; that’s dominance in search of deferential coercion. Put in Leftist terms, it’s your privilege and agency attempting to subdue mine.

Guess how likely I will be to use your preferred pronouns in that scenario.

Look, if your entire identity is wrapped up in whether people use the right two or three letter combination to describe you, there is a lot more wrong with you than the whole preferred pronoun thing. If you want to be unique and stand out, focus on what makes you special and share that. Don’t create a weird combination of letters that won’t get counted when used in Words With Friends because it’s a false sense of identity. You are actively self-segregating, which means fewer and fewer people may want to try to get to know you. Eventually, you will become the individual you always wanted to be and you will be lonelier for it.

And A Child Shall Lead. Be Afraid.

140 Views

Every so often, an idea will come to a person and it shapes his or her life forever. This is how great inventions, philosophies, and new types of porn get developed. But sometimes the idea leads to darker discoveries, such as cults, violent revolution, and new types of porn.

I had one of these ideas recently, and it doesn’t bode well for the world. The current political landscape is more tattered than pair of cutoffs in a CAT 5 hurricane near a knife factory. People are sniping at each other online and attacking each other in public over differences of opinion. Any middle ground is most likely found at the bottom of a deep chasm between the two sides of an argument.

I got into an online discussion (and by discussion I mean one-sided shouting match with yours truly being the recipient) about Megan Rapinoe and her letting the American flag fall to the ground. I stated my objection to Ms. Rapinoe on this basis and Leftists on the thread thought I was advocating kicking a puppy for fun and profit. Through use of logical fallacies, projecting what they thought I was saying and what my ideological bent was, and a combination of public shaming, vulgarity, and insults, I eventually gave up trying to use reason because it didn’t work the first few times I tried it while correcting and pointing out their logical and factual errors.

Then, it occurred to me the chasm between the Leftists on the thread and me had nothing to do with Left vs. Right, Democrat vs. Republican, Liberals vs. Conservatives, or even Right vs. Wrong. It’s turned into children vs. adults.

The news is full of stories that bear out this observation. Take the recent controversy over Erica Thomas, a Georgia State representative who got chewed out at a Publix grocery store for taking 15 items into the 10 Items or Less lane. (Yes, grammar fans, I know it should be 10 Items or Fewer, but work with me here.) Afterwards, Thomas went to Twitter (the home of online twits) and accused the man who called her out on her lack of grocery etiquette of being racist. She would have gotten away with it, too, if it hadn’t been for those pesky kids…or the guy who Thomas called a racist appearing at a press conference Thomas called to talk about the incident. Since then, Thomas has backtracked, doubled down on her original statements, got the police involved, and watched as her public status took a nosedive faster than a Eric Swalwell’s Presidential hopes.

Now, we can debate the importance of what prompted the verbal altercation until the cows come home, but the larger point is Thomas felt she could get away with it because of who she is. And hopefully soon who she was after she resigns by choice or by demand.

What does this have to do with children vs. adults exactly? Maturity. As immature as it is to verbally accost someone in a supermarket over the number of items in a cart or basket, it’s just as immature to assume you have the authority to do it because you want to do it. Children are some of the most ego-centric people in society (second only to Congresscritters). Everything they do is designed to advance their own self-interest, and when they are denied what they want, their natural instinct is to get emotional and/or make excuses for their behavior.

Remind you of anyone you know, Ms. Thomas?

If this were an isolated incident, we might be okay, but it’s not. If you look around at the stories big and small, I’ll bet you can find more than a few instances of the adults vs. children mindset. Prepubescent drag queens, the Fight for $15 movement, Antifa and its media supporters, Megan Rapinoe and the American flag, Colin Kaepernick and the Betsy Ross Nikes, boycotts of conservative (or seemingly conservative) businesses for not towing the Leftist line, deplatforming speakers, doxing known opponents to Leftist causes, people confronting conservative members of Congress and the Trump Administration, and many, many more, all of which boils down to adults vs. children.

So, how do we fix this? I’m not sure we can anymore. We may have passed the point of no return, thus guaranteeing this is a one-way trip. The best advice I can give is to act like adults, regardless of where you fall on the ideological spectrum, because the appeal of being free from responsibility while maintaining an unwavering belief that our word and feelings are law is very strong. Like the Leftists in the online discussion about Megan Rapinoe, the children need to gang up on you so you relent, but that doesn’t mean you have to, especially when it’s something that is clearly wrong. No matter how often they badger you or tell you that you’re wrong, know that they are trying to appeal to your need to be part of a group, to be accepted. Trust me, being accepted into some groups is worse than being alone.

In the meantime, we have to be careful because we’re not dealing with rational, mature people most of the time. We are dealing with people whose entire worldviews are predicated on the notion that all men and women are created equally inferior to them, and they will get nasty. They need you to take the bait so they can drag you down to their level where they have the home field advantage. But not every battle needs to be waged online, in public, or in private. Just know the children are running the asylum right now, so we need to be careful. There is a reason so many Leftists were shocked at the 2016 Presidential election, and it’s because there were a lot of Trump supporters who silently listened to the rhetoric and decided to pull the lever for Donald Trump. And with the Left acting more and more childish by the day, 2020 is starting to shape up to be another pity party for the Left.

Robert Mueller, Redefined

144 Views

Today, the House Judiciary Committee had former Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller up to Capitol Hill to testify about his investigation into whether President Donald Trump obstructed justice. At least, that’s what it was billed as, but in actuality it was closer to a live action recreation of the Hindenburg, but without the humor.

During the testimony, we saw a different side of Mueller. What was once the beacon of truth, justice, and the American Way was seen as weak, incompetent, and otherwise spent after 2-plus years of investigating the same issue and coming up as close to empty as you can get without delving into Rep. Ted Lieu’s self-awareness territory. Although both sides are doing their best to spin the testimony in a way that exonerates/condemns the President, I saw something else.

I saw someone used by the Left for their own benefit without concern about the implications.

For those of you jumping to the conclusion I’m about to go off on a long diatribe about Mueller’s honor and service to this country as a means to defend him, relax for a minute. My internal jury is still out on whether he’s as honorable as advertised or if he was in on the Trump-Russia delusion from the jump. What I do know is he isn’t the confident man we saw early on in this bad political telenovela. Today, we saw him, human and flawed.

Leftists are notorious for latching onto a personality that can be used for partisan purposes, using said personality, and then dropping him or her when the political benefits have run their course. Remember Cindy Sheehan? She was the David Hogg of the first George W. Bush term. You couldn’t swing a dead cat (and, really, why would you) without hearing about her. Then, as soon as she challenged Nancy Pelosi for her House seat, Sheehan became persona non grata. The same can be said of Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson (husband of the aforementioned CIA Barbie), James and Susan MacDougal, Walter Mondale, and countless others.

And I get the feeling Mueller is the latest addition to that list.

The Left used him in a two-fold manner. First, they relied on his military career and past to try to diffuse any criticisms about his duties as Special Prosecutor. They also pointed out he was a Republican, which means as much to me as what color hair he had as a boy. Through these tactics, the Left set up what they consider to be a perfect shield against criticism. However, it’s not. It’s actually a logical fallacy called Appeal to Authority, which, in short, is when someone tries to refute a point by pointing at someone’s stature, regardless of whether it has any bearing on the subject at hand. (See global climate change for a great example of this.) It’s great that Mueller served in the Marine Corps and spent years serving the country, but neither one disqualifies him from criticism when he did a bad job. Judging from his performance on Capitol Hill today, Mueller should be ready to get an earful.

Through the Appeal to Authority, Leftists elevated Mueller to god level and knew he would find something on which to charge President Trump. When the Mueller Report was about to come out and it didn’t appear as though it was going to net anything juicy, the Left downgraded their expectations to retain their adoration, which lead to today’s disastrous hearing that did more damage to the Left and Mueller than it did to the Trump Administration.

Soon, the Left will use Mueller in a second manner, that of a scapegoat. In a Leftist’s mind, nothing is ever his or her fault. It’s always the work of some devious forces working against him/her. The focus of the seemingly failed Trump impeachment is bound to switch from Nancy Pelosi and the House Democrats to Mueller, if for no other reason than because he failed to get Trump impeached. And that’s a failure the Left cannot let stand under any circumstances.

If you’re reading this, Mr. Mueller, know the long knives may be coming out for you very soon from people who held you in high esteem until you couldn’t deliver on their partisan fantasies. It’s nothing personal against you…okay, they’ll make it personal because you hurt their feelings by not finding anything for which to charge their Public Enemy #1. And the sad part is you were either an unwitting dupe or a willing participant, neither of which will help you escape this trap of your own making, at least in part.

And that may be the most puzzling part of all this. If you were an unwitting dupe, how can we trust your judgment and findings in light of this? (And from where I sit, your testimony today did you no favors in trying to dissuade people from seeing you as a dupe.) And if you were a willing participant, you lied or let others lie on your behalf by omission, which taints the results of your investigation and ruins your credibility even worse than your testimony today did. In either case, you might want to lie low as soon as you can and hope someone else ruins his or her credibility with all the grace of a belly flop into a hotel pool at spring break.

But don’t worry. With all the clowns in Washington DC who ran this Impeachment-Palooza dud, I’m sure someone will supplant you in no time!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

119 Views

Sometimes politics make for strange bedfellows, and other times it makes for “no duh” bedfellows. The Left’s Congressional Freshman phenoms fall into the latter group. Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressley and their supporters are calling themselves “The Squad.” Although they came from different backgrounds, they are united by their politics, positions, and drive to make the country more progressive.

What makes these four women and their followers so special? I’ve been trying to figure that out since the Left made them their de facto leaders/golden children/rock stars. Are they the next generation of leaders or the political equivalent of Pogs? Let’s find out!

The Squad

What the Left thinks it means – four strong female Congresswomen who represent the future and care about the important issues of the day

What it really means – the personification of identity politics

I have a confession to make. I actually do know why The Squad is being held up as the Great Not-White-At-All Hope, and it has nothing to do with what they do or have done. Their appeal to the Left is literally skin deep. The fact they’re women and progressive only adds to their appeal to many. And the fact they’re all vocal opponents to President Donald Trump makes them the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Which begs the question of how great an invention sliced bread is, but that’s the blog post for another time.

As someone who looks for results rather than hype, I did some digging to see what The Squad has accomplished. In terms of legislative accomplishments, let’s just say I tied them and I wasn’t even trying. Outside of the political realm, they’ve created a great brand that people can identify with, especially on social media. Of course, social media isn’t the real world, so their accomplishments are pretty much the same as mine: being opinionated in cyberspace. The differences, though, are I don’t try to pass stupid legislation while I do it and I’m not wasting taxpayer money to do it. Taxpayer time, yes, but not taxpayer money.

The Squad has also been thorns in the side of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (which makes me laugh because of what her party has done to bring about The Squad and how they repay her with openly suggesting she’s a racist). The same Leftists who propped up Pelosi are now ready to throw her under The Squad bus because…she’s not as progressive as The Squad is! (Quick investment tip: buy a LOT of shares in Orville Redenbacher.) Although this kind of behavior is red meat…sorry, white tofu to the Left, it isn’t working very well with the rest of the population. I can’t account for all of them, but from what I’ve read at least half of The Squad are seeing approval ratings lower than the President’s. Not nationally, mind you. In their own districts.

Granted, The Squad may be in districts safely in Leftist hands, so there may not be reason to worry…except if people decide to challenge them from the Right and the Left. So far, there is at least one known challenger to The Squad’s most vocal leader, the aforementioned Rep. Ocasio-Cortez (a.k.a. the Socialist Socialite), and there is enough time before the 2020 elections for more to join the fray. This has the potential to open a wider rift between The Squad and the Not-Leftist-Enough Democrats, who have watched The Squad go from back-benchers to unintended spokespeople for the Democrats. The impending Leftist civil war is going to be interesting to watch, if only because it underscores the pyrrhic nature of the victory they achieved in 2018 in part because of The Squad.

Congratulations, Leftists. You’ve created the means of your own destruction. But unlike in the original (and vastly funnier) “Ghostbusters,” it’s not a giant marshmallow man coming to destroy you; it’s identity politics which you helped to make mainstream.

Of course, anyone who decides The Squad isn’t all that great will get showered with allegations of racism, sexism, Islamophobia, fascism, white supremacy, patriarchy, Nazism, and other invectives that have become the new slang for the Left (along with copious amounts of vulgarity). The issue is none of the legitimate criticisms raised about The Squad have anything to do with any of that. Sure, there are people out there giving as good as they’re getting, but most of us between the Left and the Right see The Squad not as a powerful force for good, but as a group whose watched their expectations drop lower than a snake’s belt buckle because it’s hip to hate President Trump yet manage to limbo underneath these expectations all while standing upright.

I don’t have an issue with Rep. Ilhan’s faith. I have an issue with her possibly breaking the law repeatedly prior to becoming a Representative.

I don’t have an issue with Rep. Tlaib’s faith, either. I have an issue with her ties to Hamas, a known terrorist organization.

I don’t have an issue with Rep. Pressley’s race. I have an issue with her suggesting there are blacks that should be silent on racial issues because they may not agree with her.

I don’t have an issue with Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s gender. I have an issue with her being intellectually and emotionally unsuited to represent herself, let alone her Congressional district.

And collectively, I don’t have an issue with any boxes the members of The Squad can mark off on a checklist. I have an issue with them criticizing others for doing what they do instead of finding a way to bring people together. As the old Spider-Man comics say, “With great power comes great responsibility.” Maybe The Squad prefers DC to Marvel, but the point is they still haven’t grasped the concept of leadership, all while putting themselves out there as leaders. The longer The Squad goes unchecked in the political and communication arenas, the harder it will be to topple them.

And, no, I do not condone violence or threats against these women. Beat them with better arguments, not with your fists. And given some of the stupefying things The Squad has said since taking office, you won’t even have to work that hard!

“What is Ilhan Omar’s endgame”? – Guest piece by Ari Kaufman

353 Views
Coincidentally, my flight landed at Minneapolis-St. Paul airport just as Thursday’s now-infamous and sycophantic Ilhan Omar rally concluded.

The predominantly white and elderly crowd (retired teachers and assorted radicals) of activists I saw held signs with straw man  clichés (“Racism is not patriotic”), accompanied by the usual anti-Trump and anti-GOP rhetoric. There were maybe three dozen people in attendance, not “about 100 supporters mobbing Ms. Omar for a hero’s welcome” as a New York Times story noted. Some folks have jobs, you know. Perhaps even more media was present than attendees.

What exactly were they celebrating, though?

Rep. Omar’s views of the country that fought to save people like her in Somalia, allowed her family to settle here in freedom and, just a few years after graduating from a mediocre state college, jumpstart her national political career, remain ignorant and repugnant. Month after month of divisive and disingenuous venom from the first-term congresswoman deserves all the criticism and opprobrium we can muster.

This week, Omar transitions from making anti-Semitic comments to crafting anti-Semitic policy, when she introduces an offensive resolution supporting the Boycott, Divest, Sanctions (BDS) movement—a rogue anti-Israel organization, supported by Hamas and other execrable global groups, whose actions embody historical examples of Jew-hatred, while inexplicably equating the Jewish State to Nazi Germany in the process.

The invidious resolution is symbolic anti-semitic propaganda that won’t garner public support in a wise nation that, unlike much of the world, overwhelmingly believes the Jewish people have right to exist in their homeland.

Aside from seeking attention and more fundraising opportunities (“follow the Benjamins,” indeed), Omar likely wants to get her fellow Democrats, including 2020 Presidential hopefuls, on the record. This should infuriate those candidates, including fellow Minnesota Democrat, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, currently among the crop of aspirants. Klobuchar happens to be openly pro-Israel, unlike many candidates including purported frontrunners Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

Democrats, who already struggled mightily to condemn Omar’s numerous past abhorrent comments on Israel, Judaism, AIPAC and its “Benjamins” dominating U.S. policy on Israel, hope to delay the legislation amid fears of continued intra-party clashes. Not a bad idea, but sad too. Though Omar is safe in her provincial urban district, it should undoubtedly only alienate more Jews and Minnesotans from what her ilk believes is a “revolution.”

Tellingly, less than a year ago and before her election to Minnesota’s far left 5th Congressional district — ironically the most Jewish district in the state and nearly all the Midwest —  Omar told a crowd of Democrats at Beth El Synagogue that she opposes BDS, a group so bigoted that nearly 30 states have passed legislation banning organizations that support BDS from receiving state funds. The House Foreign Affairs Committee also passed a July 17 resolution accusing BDS of promoting “principles of collective guilt, mass punishment and group isolation.” What changed, Ilhan, or did you lie to placate gullible liberal Jews?

Lee Zeldin, a Jewish Iraq War veteran and congressman of Omar’s age, who has destroyed her since January on social media, tweeted, “Israel is our best ally in the Mid East; a beacon of hope, freedom and liberty, surrounded by existential threats. Shame on Rep Omar for bringing her hateful twist on that reality to House Foreign today, propping up the BDS movement and blaming Israel for all of its challenges.”

So Omar is hurting her party by augmenting the internecine war between liberals and the hard Left, dividing her district, ruining her brand, and giving a president she loathes more foil to expose her. What is her overarching goal?

Perhaps, as debated on Fox News, talk radio and occasionally the legacy media, the power within today’s Democratic Party is not with Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Steny Hoyer and party elders, but with inane “activists” like Omar and her vacuous media allies.

If President Trump wanted to call out the anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism of Omar’s so-called “squad,” there are more effective ways than to say, “go back where you came from”; but absent any check on their instincts, radicals like Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, Rashida Tlaib and other brainwashed young leftists will continue their commitment to, as one writer recently put it, “a special brand of ethnic and sectarian antagonism.”

And that hatred has troubling aspects for Democrats, Republicans, and the United States.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

144 Views

Once again, the US Women’s Soccer Team has won the World Cup. With this win comes the usual fanfare: wall-to-wall coverage of the tournament, puff pieces about the players, parades, media appearances, and the inevitable answer/question on “Jeopardy” in 2+ years before fading away into obscurity. This year is a little bit different, thanks to one of the players, Megan Rapinoe. Even before the team won the World Cup, she came out and said she wouldn’t go to the White House to visit President Donald Trump in part because she doesn’t feel he’s been inclusive to people like her.

Meaning white female soccer players with purple hair? Oh, wait, I forgot Rapinoe is a lesbian because I really don’t care what or who she does when she’s off the field. What she’s doing in refusing a trip to the White House over inclusion is taking a stand Leftists are applauding (because…Orange Man Bad?). But she’s also giving us a topic for a Leftist Lexicon blog!

inclusion

What the Left thinks it means – making sure everyone feels welcomed and comfortable in a social/political environment

What it really means – agreeing with and condoning Leftist behavior under any and all circumstances

Leftists talk the talk when it comes to inclusion. They invent multiple genders (most of them variations on a theme), insist you call people by their preferred pronouns (even if they’re harder to pronounce than Klingon), and talk about “safe spaces” where people can go to be validated for being the way they are. They tell their followers how powerful these differences are and nurture the idea these differences are core to who they are.

Until someone comes along who doesn’t follow Leftist dogma. Then, the Left’s inclusion talk goes the way of Eric Swalwell’s Presidential campaign. Now, I’m not saying the Right doesn’t do this, but it’s been my experience the Left is faster to the banhammer than the Right is over what amounts to a miniscule deviation from the ideological playbook. The purpose of this hardline approach is simple: the Left needs to keep its talking points straight, and any difference of opinion endangers that.

The funny (and by funny I mean weird) part is how willing the Left is to embrace inclusion the further left you skew. Today, the Left celebrates prepubescent drag queens who aren’t even old enough to get pimples, let alone wear pumps and feather boas. Tomorrow, the line will get shifted further leftward, and the Left will rally for more inclusion. But it’s not just inclusion they’re looking for; it’s normalization. Once something is seen as normal to average Americans, the controversy that preceded it falls away. Then, people can frame those who still see the controversy as backwards…with the help of our Leftist friends in the media. After all, if our neighbors think an 11 year old drag queen is fine, why shouldn’t we?

This is what is known in logical fallacy circles as an appeal to popularity, with a little appeal to authority mixed in for good measure. The Left has a stake in creating what they consider an inclusive environment because it helps solidify their political power and coerces people into agreeing with their ideas out of fear of ridicule, or in the case of Antifa, physical violence.

Not an inclusive position, don’t you think?

The funny (and by funny I mean funny, yet fitting) part is the Right already does what the Left claims they want. With only a handful of exceptions, most conservatives are easy-going and are willing to accept anyone into their groups, even if these folks disagree with them. They enjoy discussing issues and ideas with passion and purpose and they typically don’t end friendships or cut ties with family members over political disagreements. I probably shouldn’t do this, but I happen to have the super secret Conservative Inclusivity Plan which I will share with you now.

1) Be friendly
2) Find common ground with each other
3) Don’t let the differences spoil the commonalities
4) Grill meat of some fashion

Okay, so I added that last part under direction from some friends of mine in Texas, but the point remains clear. Inclusion isn’t and should never be about indoctrination or conforming to an idea or cause. Inclusion requires, well, including people. If you follow the #WalkAway movement online, you will see account after account, testimony after testimony, of people who have been welcomed, even if they don’t plan to vote for Donald Trump because it’s not about Trump. It’s about finding that place where you feel like you belong without fear of running afoul of the unwritten codes of a particular group.

Although Rapinoe’s message is the right one, she was the wrong person to be the messenger for it because she has shown her notion of inclusion is rather exclusive to those who agree with her. And here’s the kicker, if you’ll pardon the pun. On the whole, Donald Trump has been more inclusive with his Cabinet picks and staff than people realize. After all, Trump is the first President in our history to have been in favor of gay marriage from the outset of his Presidency.

And who was the candidate who said repeatedly marriage was between a man and a woman? Hillary Clinton.

Sorry, Megan. Looks like you just scored an ideological own-goal here. Or two.