Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

56 Views

There have been some major news stories breaking over the past week, but none has been bigger than WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange being arrested in London at the behest of the United States. Assange is a polarizing figure to many. To some, he’s an unsung hero who kept governments’ feet to the fire. To others, he is a dangerous individual who should have been arrested and jailed a long time ago.

And, as you might expect, the Left has been conflicted over his work. When it was George W. Bush getting skewered, Leftists loved Assange. When it was Hillary Clinton catching his ire, he was a Russian asset. And when President Donald Trump said he liked WikiLeaks and asked them jokingly to get her emails, Assange became persona non grata to the Left. (Persona non grata is Latin for “person without cheese.” Or something like that.)

Time to delve into the wonderful world of WikiLeaks and Assange.

Julian Assange

What the Left thinks it means – a dangerous individual who is a threat to international security

What it really means – a 21st Century version of a hired gun

The Left’s attitude towards Assange is no surprise to me because they’ve played this game before. Remember Cindy Sheehan? The Left loved her when she would protest against George W. Bush, but when she decided to run against Nancy Pelosi, Sheehan was painted as an unstable grieving mother who couldn’t find her way out of a ditch with a map, a ladder, and a sign. The Left will use whomever they want in whatever fashion they want until that person becomes a liability to them.

And Julian Assange fits that bill perfectly.

I’ve been following his efforts to shine light into the cockroach infested halls of government for years, and it’s clear he has no allegiance to any one ideology or movement. He is truly a merc with a modem. That can lead to some interesting discussions about the morality and legality of what he does. On the one hand, he is revealing information the powerful don’t want you to know (or in Hillary’s case relying on the stupidity of her campaign staffers to openly give out the information inadvertently). Knowledge is power, especially in the Information Age. Yet, what if that information results in an innocent party getting hurt? Some could argue people like Bradley “Chelsea” Manning were damaged by working with Assange. And he/she may not be the only one, just one of the more visible victims.

This raises a question that hits at both the legal and moral parts of this discussion: is disobeying a bad law for good ends justifiable? Not an easy one to puzzle out, is it? Once you factor in such elements as severity of the crime (stealing a loaf of bread to feed your family versus stealing a loaf of bread to kill your family), the frequency of the crime (a first-time offender versus a serial killer who uses baked goods to kill his victims), circumstances (a poor child versus a rich white man who washed out of culinary school and wants to take revenge on the world), and so on, the hard and fast solution we want becomes murkier and harder to obtain. Yes, Assange broke the law in at least 2 countries, and the reasons behind that lawlessness may be the result of a lawless process, but it’s hard to get past the fact the law was broken.

Of course, none of that means jack squat to the Left. They will justify lawlessness in pursuit of their own ends without fail. How do you think Al Sharpton keeps getting sweet gigs in spite of his criminal behavior? The minute Sharpton flips the script and sounds like Rush Limbaugh with a tan, the Left will turn on him faster than you can say Tawana Brawley.

But this relationship isn’t one way. Seems the Left had no problems wanting Assange taken out. I seem to remember someone from a recent previous administration who wondered out loud whether Assange could be taken out with a drone strike, but I can’t remember who that was…I’m sure it was nobody important. After all, the previous President would never let someone make a joke like that or make a similar joke about his daughters and the Jonas Brothers.

Anyway, even a joke like that would be enough to motivate him to counterattack in the only way he knew how: by releasing damning information about Hillary Clinton. Personally, I’m surprised he had the bandwidth, storage capacity, and patience to limit it to just her emails, but bully for him all the same.

Here’s where I part company with Assange. Although he’s shown he has no allegiance to the Left or the Right, I can’t quite trust him. Call it the David Brock Effect. Brock was a Republican (or so the self-professed liar said in his book Blinded By the Right), but then shifted hard Left. Whenever someone shifts that drastically, even if I agree with the outcome, I can’t completely trust that person. People with integrity can change their minds without it affecting their core convictions. I don’t get that from Assange, just like I don’t get it from Brock because I’m not convinced they have core convictions beyond the here and now. That tells me their convictions can be bought and sold depending on who’s cutting the check. What’s to say Assange doesn’t goes after Trump tomorrow if George Soros drops a few million dollars in his lap?

Granted, this is speculation on my part because I don’t know Assange well enough to say definitively. He may be as consistent and dogged as I am to get to the truth. We will see in the coming weeks and years whether he is an opportunist or a soothsayer. In the meantime, I will enjoy the Leftist meltdowns.

Popcorn, anyone?

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

13 Views

Since late October of last year, Democrats have suspected Russia had a role in the 2016 Presidential election. And thanks to a recent report from American intelligence agencies, they have renewed their suspicions to the point of accusing Russia of “hacking” our election. (Oddly enough, these same folks didn’t have a problem with our government trying to influence the Brexit vote or Israeli elections…).

With the allegations sticking around longer than a STD contracted from Courtney Love, maybe it’s time we tackle this idea head on.

hacking the election

What the Left believes it means – Russia influencing the 2016 Presidential election, an act of treason by Donald Trump and his supporters

What it really means – The Left can’t accept the fact Hillary lost.

Let’s get one thing straight. I am not a fan of Russia, especially under Vladimir Putin. I am also not a fan of jumping to conclusions, especially when the risk of being wrong is creating an international incident. As a result, I am cautious about letting my feelings towards the former taint my commitment to the latter. Yet, to hear the Left describe it, I am an evil Russia-loving, Putin-worshiping traitor.

You know, like Hillary Clinton was in 2009?

Either way, we really don’t have much to go on when it comes to the “hacking the election” allegations. “But didn’t 17 intelligence agencies just issue a report saying Russia tried to get Donald Trump elected?” you might say. Well, yes and no. Yes, American intelligence agencies issued a report that suggests Russia did what they’re being accused of, but it wasn’t nearly as much of a slam dunk as the Left wants us to believe.

Out of the 17 agencies, only 3 offered any analysis. And of those 3, a whopping 0 offered any hard evidence of such. Oh, they offered suggestions and assumptions, but no hard evidence.

Think about that for a moment. We have members of a political party willing to condemn a foreign country of a major crime solely based on assumptions. Then again, these are some of the same folks who ran with the UVA rape story from Rolling Stone, so actual justice may be something alien to them.

So, if it’s not Russia, who did “hack the election”? The first thing to understand is our election was not hacked. Hillary Clinton lost because she was a bad candidate. The only reason for this line of absurdity is because Democrats cannot accept the fact Hillary lost. If the election results were different, Russian hacking would be the last thing on the Left’s hive-mind and they would be telling Trump voters to get over it.

But there is a deeper reason why the Left needs to blame their Presidential loss on Russia: they suck at cybersecurity. This is where Wikileaks comes into the picture. Had it not been for Julian Assange, we might not know about how the Democratic National Committee screwed over Bernie Sanders to bestow the party nomination to Hillary. And how did they get caught? There are two lines of thought.

First, Wikileaks got emails from a Bernie Sanders supporter who had access to some of the most damning emails. This makes sense, given how Sanders got treated worse by his party than Ike Turner treated Tina. And let’s not understate the fact the DNC all but disregarded Sanders supporters unless they knelt before Zod…I mean Hillary. Even prominent Sanders supporters were told to knuckle under, and more than a few of them did. One can imagine what that did to more strident Sanders supporters. If the party felt fine with betraying them, it’s not impossible to imagine they would betray the party. And thanks to Wikileaks, these Sanders supporters earned a measure of revenge. One rule of cybersecurity is to make sure you have everything protected, and the Left didn’t do that here.

The other line of thought is John Podesta, Hillary’s right hand man, got caught by a phishing email. For those of you unfamiliar with the concept, a phishing email looks like a legitimate email from a trusted source, but contains malicious software that captures vital information that can often be used against the victim and others in the victim’s email groups.

And remember, kids, these are the smart people. Just ask them!

I tend to believe both lines of thought are valid and may actually be part and parcel of the same conclusion. In either case, the Democrats got caught with their pants down (not unlike one of their previous Presidential candidates) and couldn’t figure out a way to recover. But they sure figured out who they could blame for their failures.

Now, we just need to hope we don’t wind up in another Cold War because of them.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

7 Views

In an already insane election year, nothing could be more insane than the response to Wikileaks and its wholesale exposure of Democrats and in particular Hillary Clinton. Of course, their response is to blame the Russians.

By the way, Mitt Romney called. He says you’re welcome, and I don’t think it’s because he shared his mother’s recipe for chocolate chip cookies.

The on-again, off-again romance between the Left and Wikileaks is a marvel to behold in all of its glory. And it just so happens to be this week’s focus.

Wikileaks

What the Left believes it means: a group of hackers lead by Julian Assange who is going after Hillary Clinton and needs to be brought to justice

What it really means: somebody’s airing the Left’s dirty laundry

One of the defining characteristics of Leftist thought is hypocrisy. Since they don’t necessarily believe in black and white thinking, their standards, much like their genders, are fluid. And occasionally involve make-up and assless chaps. When the situation requires it, the Left will change standards faster than Usain Bolt being chased by The Flash.

Back in the day, the Left absolutely loved Wikileaks because Julian Assange and his buddies were exposing secrets the Bush Administration didn’t want to become public knowledge. Then, something happened that caused the love affair to end suddenly and without comment.

Wikileaks proved the Left wrong about the Iraq War.

See, Wikileaks found there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which destroyed the Left’s argument against the Iraq War: that Bush lied to get us into it. With that blockbuster news, let’s just say the Left decided not to return Assange’s voicemails. I’m not sure they’ve blocked him on Facebook yet, but given how the DNC and Hillary both have problems using common technology, I’m guessing they’re still trying to figure out how to connect their MySpace accounts to Facebook.

This year, however, Wikileaks turned up the heat to 11 (because, you know, it’s one higher) and exposed DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz as a primary-rigging totally-in-the-bag-for-Hillary-while-claiming-not-to-be incompetent moron. Normally, this would mean she would get promoted to a Cabinet position, but this year, it meant she had to resign her position, which was given to another totally-in-the-bag-for-Hillary-while-claiming-not-to-be incompetent moron, Donna Brazille. At least she hasn’t rigged primaries, but it’s still early.

Since then, the Left has been on edge waiting for the next Wikileaks shoe to drop if for no other reason than to try to spin the next doc drop without ever answering whether the emails are real. Given Assange’s track record so far, I’d have to say they’re legit because there isn’t really a motive for him to post false information.

This begs the question of why. Well, maybe it might have something to do with Hillary Clinton allegedly wanting to kill Assange with a drone. But I’m sure that’s just a little misunderstanding, right? Some have even gone so far as to claim it’s ideologically driven. But, considering one of the websites claiming this is Vox, which has all the journalistic and intellectual integrity of a toxic waste spill, I’m not putting too much stock in the ideological angle.

Contrary to popular Leftist belief, one doesn’t have to be an opponent to be a critic. In reviewing Hillary’s history, accomplishments, and behavior, it’s entirely possible Assange believes she’s a bigger threat to the world than Donald Trump. In fact, he’s said as much. And unlike Hillary, I can believe what Assange says.

On a side note, this conflict illustrates the difference between liberals and Leftists. Liberals (which I believe Assange is) believe we can act like adults and hold each other accountable for the crap we do. Leftists, on the other hand, believe we are dull children in need of people like Hillary to tell us what to do. Whether you like Wikileaks, hate it, or are still on the fence about it like I am, it serves a necessary purpose to keep sunlight on the exploits of those who would like nothing more than to hide their disdain for us.

But I’m sure the Left still wants our votes.

Personally, I think the reason the Left hates Wikileaks now is because it has exposed just what kind of hypocritical, dishonest, and utter assbags they are. But if/when it turns its focus on Donald Trump, watch the Left go back to loving Wikileaks, which would show what kind of hypocritical, dishonest, and utter assbags they are. In the end, though, Julian Assange could be the man who holds all the cards as to whether Hillary becomes President.