In the aftermath of Impeachment 2.0 winding up the way Impeachment 1.0 went, Leftists are praising Republican Senators who voted to convict former President Donald Trump for allegedly inciting the January 6th protest/riot. And they’re using a phrase they’ve used before to blast Republicans: country before party.
Confused yet? Just wait until you think about how Leftists went from cop-haters to cop-lovers within a couple of weeks. But that’s a blog post for another time.
Until then, hopefully we can digest what the Left is saying now before they change their minds.
country before party
What the Left thinks it means – putting the good of the country ahead of any political good
What it really means – putting the actual good of the country ahead of the good for Leftists
The phrase “country before party” sounds like it came out of the PR department of the DNC or a clever turn of a phrase from the media. Wait, they’re one in the same. Nevermind.
Seriously, though, I can’t understate how rhetorically brilliant country before party is. Not only does it play to our emotions and patriotism, but it automatically creates a dichotomy that makes people pick a side based almost solely on our psychological need to belong. Nobody wants to put a political party ahead of the United States of America, right?
Not so much.
One of the issues I have with the phrase is how manipulative it is. Anyone who uses it forces you to make a Faustian deal: either agree with the side who claims to be for the country or be shunned as someone who sides with a political party. It’s akin to saying if you love dogs you must hate cats. That may go over well on the absurdly-specific Why Dogs Are Morally Superior to Cats web forum, but in practice it’s a false choice. You can love your country and support whatever political party you want because the two aren’t mutually exclusive. That’s the beauty of America: you don’t have to agree on everything to love the country that gave us muscle cars, 24/7 access to porn, and Taylor Swift. And to be fair, I’m willing to negotiate on that last one.
The other issue I have with the phrase is the Left doesn’t really mean it when they use it. When they praise someone like Utah Senator Mitt Romney for voting to convict Donald Trump, I always have to go back to 2012 when these same Leftists were shitting on Romney at every opportunity. Did Romney change? Nope. He’s still the same fair-weather Republican he was in 2008 and 2012. And I can safely say the Left hasn’t changed. What changed was the end goal. In 2012, Romney was painted as the second coming of Satan because he was running against President Barack Obama. In 2021, Romney is being painted as a patriot because of his Senate vote.
I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that’s not an accident.
The Left did the same thing to George W. Bush. After literally comparing him to Hitler, most of them started “respecting” him after he came out against Trump. Ditto John McCain and the members of The Lincoln Project. Although after recent events, the Left may want to distance themselves from The Lincoln Project. Then again, they keep Bill Clinton on speed-dial when they need a little cash coming into the DNC’s coffers.
In any case, the Left will always put party/ideology before the country every time and they don’t even try to hide it anymore. Remember the long-promised COVID-19 financial relief package that we were supposed to get last year? Although we got $600 (which would buy us a limited amount of groceries, a few tanks of gas, or three trips to Starbucks), President Trump wanted $2000 more, which would have given much more, albeit temporary, relief. After Democrats took control of the House of Representatives in 2019, the Left had control of the federal purse strings. When COVID-19 hit and we needed financial help, the Left used this power of the purse to…prevent us from getting any more relief. The reason?
Orange Man Bad.
The Left hated Trump so much, they were (and still are) willing to make working people suffer for political victory. The sad thing is it worked. Now under President Joe Biden, we’re not getting the $2000 Trump was insisting upon. Instead, we’re getting $1400 because we got the $600 mentioned earlier, thus equaling $2000. And if you say anything like “Didn’t you promise us $2000 on day one if the Senate flipped to Democrat control” you get mocked, gaslighted, and talked down to as though you don’t know basic math.
Yeah, I want these assholes preaching to me about country before party.
The fact Leftists think they’re the standard bearers for country before party should be taken with a grain of salt…the size of Mount Everest. But you know who is the standard bearer?
We are.
I don’t care if you voted for Trump, Biden, Vermin Supreme, Godzilla, or the SMOD, as long as you want to make the country better. We will disagree on how to get there, but the final destination should be the same and we should be willing to figure out how everyone can get there. And the Left can’t have that because it doesn’t create chaos and discontent that can be exploited for their political gains. So, the next time you see a Leftist mention putting the country before a party, you can ask them what they’re doing to make that a reality in their own lives. When they can’t answer without bringing up an ideological stance, invite them to kindly shove their opinions straight up their asses.
Oh, and ask them when we’re getting the $2000 Biden promised because last time I checked $1400 isn’t $2000.
Masks are Political
ABC ran a story on the CDC about double masking. And reading it you will discover a few interesting bits. These get glossed over by the media but they are actually telling the truth here too.
The article is located at:
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/masks-cdc-study-finds/story?id=75789183
The 1st and obvious issue is that the URL has the story in the Politics section and not in the Health section of ABC’s website. Why? Because mask wearing is political and has nothing to do with health.
The 6th paragraph in the article clearly states that researchers at the CDC used mannequin-like forms to text exposure. Using test dummies is fine for testing cars or ballistics. But it tells you nothing about a respiratory system of a human being.
Further down in the article. The CDC is reported as saying that wearing tight-fitting N95 masks is not recommended because they are hard to breath in. And wearing N95 masks isn’t necessary in public places.
Wearing of masks is 100% political. There is no science behind this mask wearing. Using mannequins is not scientific at all when it comes to the study of a virus and how it is transmitted and effects the body.
I’m not going to say don’t wear one. If it makes you feel better by all means wear it. In your car by yourself too. Whatever floats your boat. But when such an article is posted in the political section of a major news organization. It speaks volumes.
The United States of Orwell
We’re less than a month into the Biden Administration and we’re already seeing changes in the way things are getting done. Unfortunately, those changes aren’t good ones.
In the past week alone, the following events occurred:
– Leftists and non-Leftists called out the Biden Administration for promising $2000 COVID-19 relief checks, only to watch the President and the DNC lower that amount to $1400, citing the $600 previously approved was a “down payment.”
– White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki scoffed at the use of anonymous sources for news leads potentially critical of the Biden Administration.
– Biden supporters have expressed a desire/need to limit conservative voices in mainstream media, social media, and in general, suggesting they should be “named and shamed” so people don’t ever do business with them or take them seriously.
– Members of the media are arguing any seemingly dishonest statements from President Joe Biden lack nuance or, more frequently, advise the dishonesty was far worse under President Donald Trump.
– New York Times tech columnist Kevin Roose wrote the Biden Administration needs to appoint a “reality czar” to address what he called a “reality crisis.”
– Leftists have eagerly supported “reeducation camps” for Trump supporters as a means to “deprogram” them.
– The Biden Administration requires people to wear masks on federal property as a means to stop the spread of COVID-19 while he has been photographed without one, leading Leftists to try to explain it away.
– Joe Biden announced a program to roll out COVID-19 vaccinations that matched what the Trump Administration was already doing at the same rate.
– Leftists are calling the incoming Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg the first openly gay person to serve in a Cabinet, thereby erasing Richard Grennell’s existence as the first openly gay person to serve in a Cabinet.
We’re not in the Upside Down, kids. This is what is actually happening.
Right now, we’re being told to believe what the government and its agents are telling us, even if it doesn’t live in the same neighborhood as reality. If you though the “gender is fluid” debate was insane, we’re entering a whole new suburb of Crazy Town.
And this is by design. The Left’s playbook has always relied on affecting change through manipulation of language. If they can get people to think a certain way through framing a topic in a certain way, Leftists can reshape perception, which reshapes the audience’s reality even if it creates self-delusion. Although there are many real life examples of this happening, there’s a literary one that seems to fit what the Left is trying, and in some cases succeeding, to do: 1984.
And before you Leftists call me out on it, I have read the book and understand it quite clearly. Unlike you, I also understand it’s not an instruction manual.
Whether it’s Big Brother (the fictional entity, not the TV show) or Big Biden, the principle of controlling the narrative is vital to the outcome. The more they can get you to believe 2 + 2 = 5, the better able they are able to convince you of other absurdities, like there are more than 2 genders, white people can believe they’re black, and it’s okay to enact fascism under the guise of preventing it.
George Orwell would be proud. Or frightened. Or confused.
But you needn’t be any of those because non-Leftists have a secret weapon that undercuts the Left’s most Orwellian of policies: free will. When you really think about it, the Left requires subservience to be successful, but only if you choose to be subservient. We can’t all be as outwardly rebellious as Number 6 from “The Prisoner,” but we can camouflage what we believe through the kind of intellectual subterfuge the Left employs. Outwardly comply, but inwardly resist. At some point, the Left will over-reach and their house of cards falls down.
And that’s the other secret weapon we have: the Left is just that stupid.
No matter what, the Left always manages to find a way to ensure defeat after securing victory, usually within a short time. Their main flaw is and always has been they don’t typically think strategically in advance of the next election. They think in terms of what wins now versus what will win years from now. The whole $1400 check debacle is proof of that. They keep doubling and tripling down on the “it’s basic math” argument when they need to be thinking of how to deliver what was promised without trying to weasel out of it. That doesn’t help anyone, let alone the people who actually need the money. Plus, once more people realize why they didn’t get $2000 in the first place and what party caused it (Spoiler Alert: It’s the Democrats), it’s not going to end well.
So keep your chins up, dear readers. No matter how many times the Left tells you 2+2=5, just remember these same rotten eggheads came up with Common Core.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
This week has been a great one for our favorite Socialist Socialite, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. After accusing Senator Ted Cruz of attempted murder in a tweet where the two agreed on the recent Robinhood controversy, she came out this week and told her story about what happened on January 6th.
To put it mildly, I’ve seen less melodrama in a telenovela than in her story. And, as expected, Leftists ran with it, even if the facts didn’t exactly match up with her version of events. After people attempted to correct the record, fact-checking website Snopes got involved and came out looking like one of AOC’s social media team by ruling the fact checks that undermined her story “misleading.”
I know we’ve covered fact checking before on the Lexicon, but this week I want to delve deeper into Snopes to try to figure out how they operate.
Snopes
What the Left thinks it means – a valuable fact-checking website that does its homework to expose lies
What it really means – a website that went from debunking urban legends to creating political ones
Snopes built its reputation for telling the truth by focusing on those stories we took as gospel, but may or may not have the ring of truth. You know, like the government actually spending within its means? For a while, this was good enough for the owners/creators of the site, but eventually it branched out into politics. Not surprising, given the creators happened to be prominent Democrat donors. Now, that wouldn’t matter to me if they stuck with urban legends, but once you cross the line into politics, those little details matter because they can taint the results of your fact checking.
Let’s just say Snopes has no concerns with it because they don’t care about whether their fact checks resemble factual information.
Take the AOC story, for example. Regardless of how you feel about the events of January 6th, it’s not far-fetched to say she could have felt she was in danger. Yet, the way she initially described it made it sound like she was at the Capitol when everything went sideways. That wasn’t the case, though. She was in a different building within a short walk of the Capitol and was evacuated before the protestors breached the building itself. Additionally, she said her fear was compound by a man yelling “Where is she?” That man happened to be a member of the Capitol Police trying to keep her safe and get her away from the potential danger.
Nowhere in that series of events was AOC in any actual danger, though. She can feel she was in fear for her life (which makes me wonder just how New York she really is), but the facts don’t back it up. And as Ben Shapiro has pointed out on a few occasions, facts don’t care about your feelings.
When presented with tweets explaining the logical inconsistencies, Snopes found the fact checks on AOC misleading because…she never said she was at the Capitol when things happened, which is true, but contradicted by her own story as she told it. It’s a question of literal versus figurative speech, which can also be subject to political biases. Case in point: President Donald Trump’s “very fine people on both sides” comment after Charlottesville. Even though the President clearly and unequivocally denounced the racists, the Left ran with the narrative he thought the racists were “very fine people.” The President literally explained himself, but it wasn’t convenient, so the Left went with what they said he meant to say. (Cue the dog whistles the Left keeps hearing, but few others outside of their circles can…which is an odd thing to consider if you really think about it.)
And how did Snopes rate Trump’s statement? A “mixture” because they felt he didn’t condemn white supremacists. Funny how a clear articulation gets treated as a mixture of truth and lies, but a clear implication AOC was at the Capitol Building gets treated differently.
That’s why fact checking, especially from Snopes, needs to be scrutinized and mocked mercilessly. I can count on the one hand of the world’s worst shop teacher the number of times Snopes has given Republicans the benefit of the doubt, but they will bend over like Cirque du Soleil when it’s a Democrat. No logic is too pretzel-like for Snopes if the ideology is right.
Even when the Democrat and Republican says the same thing using the same terminology. And, yes, this actually happened.
I have a rule of thumb when it comes to checking facts: if you have to equivocate to make something true, it ain’t true. The fact the preeminent fact checker can’t call balls and strikes should tell you everything you need to know about Snopes and its standards. Yet, Snopes keeps finding a way to limbo under their already low standards, as they have here.
Take their overwhelming focus on Republicans. The Left loves to point at the fact Snopes calls out more Republican lies than Democrat lies as proof the Left is more truthful. Now, consider the Snopes fact checking model. Naturally they’re going to find Republicans lie more because the site actively targets Republicans and giving half-butted explanations as to why while simultaneously giving Democrats a pass on even their most egregious lies. Under those parameters, it’s more likely that David Duke will win an NAACP Image Award than a Republican will get a fair shake, or an NAACP Image Award for that matter.
Even though Snopes has been in the fact checking game for a while, it’s clear they haven’t learned facts have no party affiliation. If a Democrat or a Republican tells a lie, it’s a lie. If somebody from “flyover country” gets it, why can’t Snopes?
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With a new President comes new hopes. The hope that the President will make wise decisions in the face of amazing pressure. The hope the President does what’s best for the American people. And, in this case, the hope the President doesn’t nod off during a state dinner.
But the hopes don’t end with the President. Leftists are now hoping to do away with a tool the Senate has used for centuries, the filibuster. And they’re doing it in the only way they know how: using a hashtag, #EndtheFilibuster. Although Leftists have used the filibuster in the past (see Wendy Davis), they now think it’s outlived its usefulness.
As with most things, the Left hasn’t thought this out, as we’ll soon see.
#EndtheFilibuster
What the Left thinks it means – a movement to get rid of an antiquated process that prevents progress
What it really means – a movement to remove the voice of the minority in the Senate
Now, for a quick history/civics lesson before we get into the meat of the issue. Senate rules allow for members to delay or stop legislation from passing by getting up and speaking until the controversy is resolved. Usually, this is done by members of the minority party in the Senate to block legislation, but it can be used to make a statement. Namely, some politicians love the sound of their own voices. This bit of political theater is known as a filibuster, and it’s a mixed bag as far as effectiveness. These days, the threat of a filibuster is enough to get politicians to back down.
Now that Democrats control the Senate, they want to take that option away from Republicans due to allegations of the GOP abusing it. Whether they actually did is a matter of opinion, but it’s interesting to note the timing of this desire to do away with the filibuster. I mean, this isn’t something the Left has made a focal point last year when they were campaigning to taking back the Senate. As soon as they got the votes and won the two open seats they needed, the filibuster became Leftist Enemy Number 1. (Excluding Donald Trump, of course.)
Maybe it’s me, but I seem to remember the Left wanting to silence conservative voices for, oh, the past decade or so, and it makes me wonder if the removal of the filibuster is in line with that philosophy. But I’m sure no one could be that petty, right?
Sorry. I forgot we were dealing with Leftists here. They hold grudges like Atlas holds up the globe.
Regardless, this current move to eliminate the filibuster is a bad idea that assumes far too much and leaves it open for others to use it against the Left down the line. Say what you will about Mitch McConnell, but he has a working understanding of Senate rules and traditions that is unmatched by his Democrat/Leftist detractors. That makes it easier for him to get what he wants by letting his opponents do all the work for him. Just ask Harry Reid about how the “nuclear option” on judicial nominees worked out for him. (Spoiler Alert: it’s how Donald Trump got his Supreme Court nominees through so quickly.)
This same kind of short-sighted strategy is in play here. The Left loves to think once they get into power they won’t ever be unseated. Politics doesn’t work that way. For every swing in one direction there will be a swing in the other direction eventually. Assuming permanence without evidence and without considering the long-term effects if things go south is like buying a Ferrari assuming you’re going to hit a slot jackpot at Uncle Cheater’s Casino and Pawn Shop. It works great if your plans come to fruition, but it’s a nightmare if it doesn’t. And when it comes to politics, the Left has been playing a lot of slots while avoiding the calls from the Ferrari dealership about when they can expect payment.
On the other side of the coin, the Left can’t call for unity while silencing the Right. I mean, they’ll try, but they will have a hard time convincing the public they’re serious about it. Although most people don’t know about Parler or Gab, they know about fairness. If one party consistently tries to curtail the other’s ability to do business, voters and potential voters may start feeling sympathy towards the injured party, which can swing the pendulum in the opposite direction. With the next election cycle being the midterm elections in 2022 and with the historical tendency for voters to create a divided government, this spells trouble for the Left.
So, naturally, they want to keep pulling the slot machine lever and taking their chances.
Although ending the filibuster is a bad idea, I do think the practice needs to be modified by requiring a personal stake in the outcome. If you threaten a filibuster on a bill, get your comfy shoes on because you will be speaking upright for quite some time. If you threaten a filibuster and don’t follow through, you should be punished financially for it and deserve to be mocked mercilessly. Either way, the parties will either have to learn to work together to come up with bipartisan legislation or they get mocked and have to pay out of pocket for it. That’s a win-win in my book!
Although #EndtheFilibuster has all the sexiness of Ernest Borgnine in a burlap teddy, it’s gaining traction with Leftists who want to exercise absolute power in the Senate because…reasons. Yet, it’s such a monumentally bad idea that shows the Left hasn’t learned their lesson from the previous times in recent history they’ve tried to pull the same kind of power trip only to have it blow up in their faces within an election cycle or two.
At least they’re consistent with their insanity.
Why Trump’s Second Impeachment Is Already a Failure
Now that Democrats control both the House and the Senate, you didn’t need to be Nostradamus to see a second impeachment against President Donald Trump would be a foregone conclusion. Leftists and Democrats are overjoyed at the possibility of sticking it to Trump one more time as he leaves the White House because…unity? Anyway, right now the only matter on the table will be how severe the punishment against Trump will be.
No matter what the Left decides is sufficient punishment, the impeachment is already a failure. Oh, sure, they’ll get the votes to convict and to punish, but in their rush to impeach, the Left has overlooked one important detail that renders their efforts as irrelevant as the footnotes in a Vox article.
Donald Trump has zero fucks to give.
Remember, impeachment is a political action, not a legal one. That means the extent of the impact of any impeachment is limited to the political realm. Even if the punishment includes Trump never holding public office again, he’s already served in public office once. Can’t draw a federal pension? Trump might have the money to do without it. No Secret Service protection for the rest of his life? I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say he already has hired security on the payroll. No matter what else the Left wants to tack onto the impeachment in the way of punishment, Trump has it or can have it covered. He may still have issues on the legal side of the equation, but there are no political consequences that will hurt Trump now or ever.
This may open a can of worms, but it begs the question of why the Left is so hot to impeach Trump again even though the punishment won’t affect him. There are a number of possible reasons, but the one I keep coming back to is revenge for winning the Presidency in the first place. I would hope the Left wouldn’t hold a grudge, but considering they still crap on Ronald Reagan, I’m guessing they haven’t gotten past the first stage of grief yet.
What they have done, however, is open a door that can and will swing back to hit them on the backside. As of this writing, Donald Trump is no longer President, which means the Senate element of the impeachment process will be against someone who is now a private citizen. A loud and somewhat boorish private citizen, but a private citizen nonetheless. It’s almost like convicting someone posthumously, except the convict is able to speak and hasn’t voted 43 times in Chicago yet.
Now, let’s play this out a bit. Let’s say Republicans or Trump-allied Republicans win back the House and Senate in 2022. Under the current Leftist strategy, that means Barack Obama can be impeached and punished for any number of crimes, actual or political, as can Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and any number of previous Presidents. Under the current Congressional leadership, impeachments against George W. Bush, George H. W. Bush, and even Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford could be on the table. We could see Impeach-A-Palooza for the next few years, which will significantly impact the ability of Congress to do its actual job.
Wait. Did I just make an argument in favor of politically posthumous impeachments?
While I try to figure that out, let me leave you with the bottom line here. Leftists and Democrats are so hell-bent on impeaching Donald Trump a second time (even though the first impeachment was legally flimsier than any case argued by Lionel Hutz) while ignoring the boomerang effect that will happen under different political circumstances because that’s what politics is anymore: using any advantage to the party’s benefit. And with some of the dirty players in DC, the taste of short term victory is sweet, but turns sour when someone else plays the long game.
So, I would invest heavily in popcorn shares. I get the feeling there is going to be a big demand for it when the fit hits the shan.
The State of the Onion Address, 2020 Edition
As the glow from the flaming dumpster fire that was 2020 appears in our rearview mirror, we can finally take a look back with hope, namely the hope that 2020 doesn’t come back for an encore. Unfortunately for us, the media’s malpractice will be coming back like the food and drink after a really intense bender.
The state of journalism last year was the gasoline thrown on top of the aforementioned dumpster fire. Big stories, like a little bug known as COVID-19, got covered intensely by people whose only experience with medicine is drinking a Dr. Pepper, while other stories, like Jeffrey Epstein’s “suicide” or Hunter Biden’s business details, were treated with a dismissive hand wave in spite of there being more red flags than a Chinese military parade. That is, of course, when they weren’t busy being the sycophantic propaganda arm of the Left.
But don’t you dare call the media out for acting like the lapdogs they were! They are real reporters working on real news, like…oh, I don’t know…continuing to follow the Russiagate narrative after being embarrassed by the lack of actual facts involved in it. That was certainly more important than reporting the actual news or following up on stories that might make the Left look bad. You know, like dragging a kid through the mud for shooting Leftist thugs who were attacking him first. The interwebs often did the work the “real news” people were reluctant to do, but the “real news” folks could be counted on to provide only half the story to advance their ideological ends.
Speaking of which, how’d that work out for you media types with Nick Sandmann?
The only other constant in modern media outside of the fact they’re all terrible is that they don’t learn from their mistakes. Oddly enough, that perpetuates the terribleness, which makes it all the more humorous to me. A lot of that comes down to ego. High profile journalists (which should never be a thing, in my opinion) are often notorious for having skin thinner than the plot of a Michael Bay movie. When they get caught screwing up, being general asshats, or looking down their noses at the rest of us, there’s a tiny bit of satisfaction that comes from watching them fail time and time again. It’s schadenfreudelicious!
Over the past year, the media decided to be fact checkers for anything and everything President Donald Trump said. And they failed. A lot. As of this writing, they still haven’t admitted the President was right when he said there would be a COVID-19 vaccine by the end of 2020. In fact, the media and their handpicked experts said it would be impossible. It makes you wonder why anyone pays attention to these self-professed defenders of truth when they can’t even find it.
This also applies to the self-professed fact checkers the media love to use to “debunk” the President and his supporters. In a move that can only be called peak 2020, the media did a handful of fact checks on…the Babylon Bee, a satirical website. And this is after popular fact checking website Snopes fact checked the Bee just the year before and were deservedly mocked for it.
Remember what I said earlier about the media not learning from their mistakes?
The funny thing (at least to me) in all of this is the people who profess to check and know the facts so we don’t have to are the ones who struggle the most with the facts and correcting the record when they get their facts wrong. This is why I take the media’s portrayal of themselves with a great lake of salt. At this point, you’re better getting your news from your local Super Shopper that has been left in a festering pile of garbage.
And speaking of festering piles of garbage, let’s talk about Twitter. Granted Twitter is to news what Jerry Springer is to quality TV programming, but more and more people (including journalists) are using it to report on events as they happen in as close to real time as we can get. The only problems with this type of on-the-spot reporting are 1) the information may not always be accurate, 2) information can be mixed with opinion easily, and 3) it’s fucking Twitter. And if you think journalists are slow to admit they were wrong, Twitter users rarely, if ever, correct their mistakes. They just prefer to ignore them or double down while insulting anyone who disagrees with them. Which, as we know, is the only way to win debates.
In closing, it will be fun to watch the media who spent so much time fact checking fall asleep on the job as Joe Biden starts his administration. If 2020 is any indication, 2021 in the media is going to be lit.
Just like a dumpster fire!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Last week, professional lemon tester and former CIA Director John Brennan made the following statement on MSNBC:
We are now looking forward that the members of the Biden team who have been nominated or have been appointed, are now moving in laser like fashion to try to uncover as much as they can about what looks very similar to insurgency movements that we’ve seen overseas, where they germinate in different parts of the country and they gain strength and it brings together an unholy alliance frequently of religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, Nativists, even libertarians
Nothing like a little authoritarian cleansing of the intelligence community, eh Johnny? I mean, it’s not like completely ridding parts of the intelligence community would lead to, oh, 9/11, right?
Although most of Brennan’s sentiments are expected, the part about going after libertarians struck me as a bit odd, if not down right creepy. Who could be threatened by libertarians?
You’ll find out soon enough.
libertarians
What the Left thinks it means – potentially dangerous people who align themselves with the Alt Right in an attempt to undermine the country
What it really means – people who just want to be left alone and will let you do the same
To add some clarification, I’m not talking about the Libertarian Party here. The party has been the best example for why we should consider self-government because it’s been incapable of being effective leaders of anything more complex than a Conga line, and even that’s suspect. The libertarians Brennan is referring to are people who see the bullshit from the “two” major parties and calls it out instead of rooting for the Blue or the Red. It’s that last part that gets people like me off others’ Christmas card lists, but it’s who we are.
But it’s also this attitude that gets Leftists mad at us.
Leftists by nature don’t believe we can take care of ourselves. Instead, they see government as the answer to every problem even if government is the problem. And, of course, since they believe they know better than the rest of us, Leftists feel they need to be in government to guide us towards the utopia they’ve created in San Francisco, Detroit, New York City, and Portland.
For the Leftists reading this, that was sarcasm.
The funny thing to me about this attitude is it contradicts much of what the Left advocates in different situations. Take abortion, for example. The Left’s frequent refrain is “abortion is between the woman and the doctor.” Additionally, they believe teenage girls are mature enough to decide to terminate the pregnancy, even without their parents knowing about it. No matter how you try to explain it away, there is no way to remove this contradiction.
Except, you know, if you value a person’s ability to make a decision himself/herself.
As much as I oppose abortion in most cases, I recognize I don’t have a say in the process unless I’m the baby daddy and even then my opinion has limited sway. That’s pretty much the way libertarians roll. You do your thing, we’ll do ours, and until you start violating the rights of others or harm them, we’re cool.
I know what you’re thinking. How can we let these evil bastards exist in America?
To any Leftists reading this, that was also sarcasm.
The real danger here to the Left is libertarians are free thinkers and tend to be smarter than your average Leftist. Granted, that bar’s lower than a snake’s belt buckle, but the point is libertarians tend to know their rights and how to defend them against the whims of Leftists wanting to bring people to heel. Leftists demand compliance, no matter what. Anyone who stands against that becomes a threat to society, at least to Leftists like Brennan.
That’s where it’s important to remember Brennan’s line of work for years. Intelligence requires at least some level of dishonesty and deceit to obtain information, which also requires a willingness to lie and deceive. You know, like Leftists do? I’m sure the Left considers a bunch of people who want to leave everyone else alone to be dangerous, but the reality is people who want to control every aspect of people’s lives tend to be more dangerous to life, liberty, and property because they will do everything in their power to maintain that control.
Including ratting out their fellow Americans for the crime of wrongthink.
Brennan’s MSNBC appearance to what could only be considered a sympathetic audience should raise a few eyebrows, not the least of which to people who know his past and what he allowed to happen on his watch throughout his career. Since being exposed as a ideologue with a penchant for deception, Brennan hasn’t exactly tried to reform his image or make amends for his multiple blunders. And since he’s on the Leftist payroll, he will be guaranteed spots on Leftist television networks and given all the gravitas he desires.
In the end, though, he is still a paid liar and has endorsed the rooting out of a group of people whose only crime was to think people can take care of themselves better than the government can. And given how Brennan’s approach has actually killed Americans, I’m gonna go out on a limb and say libertarians aren’t the dangerous ones here.
To any Leftists reading this, that wasn’t sarcasm.
Silent for While Longer
I haven’t posted anything in a while. This is due to a number of factors.
I was waiting to see the results of any litigation concerning the election results. It was very disappointing but also predictable that President Trump wouldn’t get far with the black robed tyrants being all Leftists and wolves in sheep’s clothing.
Also the holiday period is a very busy time with travel and family. And family is more important that posting anything on a blog.
But the greatest factor limiting my ability to post is that my beloved wife passed away suddenly on December 31st. I am emotionally spent. Grief is a long and hard journey to take. And I am suffering like Job in my grief. I have lost too many friends and family members over the last 13 years.
So for now I will leave most postings to Thomas. I may post from time to time but I’m not going to guarantee anything at this point.
Thank you for your prayers. I need them and my family needs them.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
There are a lot of things I could say about the recent storming of the Capitol Building, but not a lot of them are flattering. Even so, my criticisms would be a mixture of legitimate concern and more than a little mockery as Donald Trump supporters tried LARPing as Antifa for a few hours. But, I’m not sure I would go as far as the Left has in how they’ve presented the protest-turned-plundering and selfie expedition. Instead, the Left has made the entire affair into a breach of our country’s laws.
Yep, our Leftists friends found a new word in their 365 Reasons To Complain Calendar: insurrection. As you might expect, there are differing opinions on whether what happened at the Capitol rises to that level, but the Left has pretty much decided it did. And if you disagree with them, you’re obviously supporting insurrection against the country and, thus, are just as guilty. If the Left is correct on this, prison overcrowding is going to get a lot worse.
Are they right? Let’s find out!
insurrection
What the Left thinks it means – trying to overthrow a government through violent and destructive means, mainly by Trump supporters
What it really means – anything that the Left sees as threatening to their power base
I did a little digging online to make sure I had a workable definition of the word, and merriam-webster.com came through for me. Their definition of insurrection is as follows:
an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government
Keep this in mind for later because it’s going to be relevant. Unlike the rest of my writing.
Insurrection is a violation of federal law, so it’s a pretty serious charge and shouldn’t be thrown around lightly unless you have reason to do it. And, no, merely being a Trump supporter isn’t a good enough reason. Still, this might be considered a semantic argument rather than anything based on the law. It won’t satisfy the Left, but here is the legal definition as found on legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com:
A rising or rebellion of citizens against their government, usually manifested by acts of violence
Oooh. Might be in a little trouble there, folks.
Well, to paraphrase a former President, it all depends on what your definition of rebellion is. At the heart of both of the definitions posted above is the concept of rebelling against the government. And it’s in how the Left views the government where things get stickier than an explosion at a cotton candy convention.
The Left believes government is the be-all and end-all of everything, from paying for pet projects involving the mating habits of the rare Argentinian albino fourteen-toed tree sloth to promoting values that advance the Left’s agenda. If you disagree with that notion, even if it’s because there is no such thing as an Argentinian albino fourteen-toed tree sloth, the Left sees that as a threat to the government as a whole and, by extension, themselves.
Except, of course, unless it’s people on their side of the political spectrum, like Black Lives Matter and Antifa. When they take over a federal building, cause destruction, and advocate overthrowing the entire government, it’s cheeky and fun, not evil and seditious like when the MAGA crowd does it! It’s totes cool! And, unfortunately for them, it’s also the very definition of insurrection, albeit taken to a much larger extreme.
Where Trump supporters might have some wiggle room is the actual purpose of the protests at the Capitol Building. To them, Donald Trump is the government (among other things). Everyone else is either an ally or part of the “Deep State.” In order for the legal definition of insurrection to be met, it would have to be against the government, and since the protests were in support of Donald Trump, they could argue (please check local listings for likelihood this will work) they were protesting the Deep State and their actions are consistent with that. Granted, this is a bit of a stretch, but it can’t be dismissed out of hand.
Along the same lines (and with equal stretching) is the argument the protestors weren’t trying to overthrow the government, but rather a specific function of the government. In this case, it’s the certification of the Electoral College vote. Although there is likely to be at least one pocket of protestors who might be stupid enough to admit they were trying to overthrow the government, most of the people there weren’t.
Wait a minute…I’ve heard that same argument before…something about Antifa/BLM…but I’m sure the people who advanced that argument with them are right there defen…nevermind.
The Left and the Right are guilty of guilt by association here, so their current positions are as valid as a homemade PowerBall ticket. From where I sit, there are very few Trump supporters who can and should be charged with insurrection, but there are also very few BLM and Antifa members who can and should also be charged along with the Trump supporters. The issue is ideological blinders prevent both the Left and the Right from being honest about who should get charged. As you might have guessed by now, I have no problem charging the guilty, even if/when I agree with them. That’s because the law isn’t supposed to be ideologically tinted. Lady Justice has a blindfold on because that’s how justice is meted, or at least should be. If we hold our allies to one standard and our opponents to another, that’s not justice; that’s favoritism.
I’m not going to hold my breath for the Left to catch up on this, but I will continue to hold the only standard that needs to be held in this case: if you do the crime, you do the time.
Oh, and keep your eye on the sparrow.