Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

With springtime finally here (check local listings for the springtime in your area), college campuses (or would that be campusi?) are abuzz with activity. Sure, some are preparing for finals, dissertations, and summer internships, but many are taking the nice weather to…protest a war half a world away.

Yes, from sea to shining sea, student activists are rising up to show support to Palestine in its war against those evil mean nasty no-good Israelis. And Leftists are eating it up, or at least they’re trying to have it catered because “humanitarian aid” or some such bullshit. The Leftists of yesterday are enjoying the Leftists of today as the latter group does its best to LARP as the former.

But one of these things is not like the other. And none of these things belong on a college campus. Let’s delve into the wonderful world of protests.

protests

What the Left thinks it means – demonstrations designed to raise awareness and initiate desired social change

What it really means – college students being assholes

The right to protest is solidified in the First Amendment in a few different ways, namely the right to free speech, the right to peaceably assemble, and the right to redress grievances. All of these aren’t bad in and of themselves. After all, if I didn’t have a First Amendment right, I wouldn’t be able to provide you with at least semi-intelligent blog posts on a regular basis.

You can stop typing your letters to have the First Amendment repealed, thank you very much.

Anyway, protests are a good test of how strong our commitment to the First Amendment is. At their core, they’re designed to challenge our way of thinking and consider an alternative. At least, that was before it became fashionable to start taking over campus buildings in the name of whatever cause is hip at the time. During the 60s and early 70s, it was America’s involvement in Vietnam. During my college years, it was America’s involvement in Iraq during Operation Desert Shield/Operation Desert Storm. At the turn of the 21st Century, it was America’s involvement in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries following 9/11. And in each one of these, there is an argument to be made about the protesters being on the right side of the issue. Granted, some arguments are dumber than others, but you get the idea.

The current crop of protesters, though…I’m just not feeling it. The best way I can describe it is college students are upset Israel is taking military action against people who killed a bunch of people and kidnapped others. Oh, and America and different colleges and universities across the country support Israel and/or take money from them. Obviously, this must be addressed! After all, we don’t want Israel to think they can actually defend themselves against people who want Jews exterminated, right?

This notion stems from the Left’s love of the underdogs, or at least politically expedient underdogs. You don’t see Leftists taking over campus buildings to protest the lack of white members of the Congressional Black Caucus, but you will see them expressing unwavering support for Palestinians, Ukrainians, and anyone else who is trying to fight the good fight against a bigger, more powerful enemy.

Oh, and just so happens to fit into a neat Leftist narrative. Palestinians are dying by the gajillions, guys! And those poor Ukrainians are having to fight a war with only toothpicks, some half-used bottles of Elmer’s Glue, and the occasional rubber band! It’s only moral to show their support for these brave fighters who only want a better life for themselves.

And, you know, kill enough of the enemy so they can take stuff.

So, to show their solidarity with the people actually doing the fighting, college students are…staying as far away from the front lines as possible and creating their own mini versions of the CHAZ/CHOP in Portland. But instead of being able to sustain themselves, these brave moral souls are making demands for everything from food to banana-free zones to building materials.

That’s right, kids. They’re holding private property hostage.

And to no one’s surprise, college and university administrators let it go until there’s enough pressure on them to do something. And do something they did! Some cancelled the rest of the semester. Some decided to go virtual for the rest of the semester. And a few grew some balls and brought in law enforcement to take down the encampments or suspended students involved in the protests.

It’s clear to me who the masterminds behind the current movement are: fucking idiots.

Seriously, it’s been bandied about that your fiend…I mean friend and mine, Uncle George Soros, is behind the current crop of campus uprisings. Of course, fact checkers have already tried to debunk it, so that tells me he’s definitely involved at some level. Maybe not directly, but his talon-like fingers are in there somehow because, well, he’s George Fucking Soros!

To be fair to the fact checkers, there are layers upon layers upon layers to the way Uncle George funds Leftist sinkholes…I mean projects. But in most cases, the money gets wasted because he’s relying on people who are fucking idiots to do his bidding.

Like…the student protesters! See! It all connects!

While the previously aforementioned protests tended to be more on the peaceful (and less destructive) side, the current group of protesters have been taught in the ways of BLM and Antifa, which sets up an interesting parallel with a couple of figures from the 60s protests, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X. At the start of the civil rights movement of the time, the two figures took diametrically opposite stances on how to advance the cause. King sought peaceful non-compliance, while Malcolm X sought more direct action, up to and including violence. Today’s protesters seem much more aligned with the Malcolm X approach of “by any means necessary” and are more than willing to shed blood to bring about change.

Not their blood, mind you. That would be insane! Now, someone else’s blood, that’s perfectly fine to fuck with.

The problem with this approach, however, comes in the form of criminal activities. At the very least, any protester who takes over a campus building and stays there beyond a reasonable request to vacate is guilty of trespassing. Not a serious crime, but a crime nonetheless. Then, there’s destruction of public property, graffiti, discrimination against pro-Israeli students through the use of wristbands, terroristic threats, and many other possible crimes that, if prosecuted, would land more than a few of the protesters in the Big House for a long time.

Therein lies the question: will they be prosecuted? Given how Leftists enjoy letting criminals run free, there’s a good chance most of them will get off with a slap on the wrist and a mark on their permanent record, which by now has been converted to a downloadable file on iTunes. And while a whiff of a criminal record might be enough to make potential employers run away from these idiots, there are some who are willing to hire them.

Yeah. Ask Bud Light and Planet Fitness how capitulating to the Left worked for them. Spoiler Alert: it tanked their companies so much Michael Dukakis was seen riding in them.

It’s the disregard for the law that separates the previous protests from the current crop. Sure, you had some criminal activity with some of the earlier protests I mentioned, but not nearly to the levels we’re currently seeing. And a lot less whining. It’s hard to be seen as a true revolutionary when you’re begging the educational entity you’re protesting for food so you can continue to protest the same educational entity.

Kinda makes you reconsider forgiving college debt, doesn’t it?

Regardless of where you stand on the war in Gaza, the fact remains the protesters are their own worst enemies, but they’re also doubling as President Brick Tamland’s worst enemies if MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough is any indication. More importantly, though, these protests show how far the Left has fallen as an engine for change. For all the positive press they’re getting from Leftists in the media, the needle isn’t moving in Palestine’s favor. If anything, they’re turning off more people than they’re gaining because they’re going about it the wrong way and looking like assholes in the process. Try getting people who are barely making ends meet to get on your side by blocking roadways with stupid marches which prevent them from going to or coming from work.

And even with the backdrop of academia, it’s hard for me to not laugh at the sheer absurdity of the protests themselves. I mean, will a Palestinian child be saved if Hippie McBonghit holes up in one of the administration buildings? Nope! Will there be a ceasefire if more students threaten Jewish students to the point they can’t even attend class without being accosted? No. Will the Palestinians be able to get a foothold in Gaza if the University of Southern Dumbfuckistan decides to divest itself from any Israeli sources of income? Oooh, sor-ray.

No matter what they do, the protesters are fighting a battle so delusional and futile Don Quixote is telling them to knock it off. But those of us outside the Leftist bubble have time on our side. The recent crop of protesters from Occupy Wall Street to the current dipshits aren’t ready for shit to go sideways. Once the current semester ends and there are fewer people to annoy, what will they do? They’re attention whores, and they will be deprived of the one thing they need more than anything: people paying attention to them. If these protests go further into summer (which I honestly doubt), they will have to deal with summer weather conditions, including heat, humidity, thunderstorms, tornadoes, and so on. Hell, a lot of the BLM protests broke up when the temperature dropped. And these marshmallow warriors don’t appear to be any different.

But I, for one, hope they prove me wrong. After all, it’s hard to find good comedy these days.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

As a recovering Leftist, I have an insight on how the Left thinks (which is usually not at all). Even then, there are times when I shake my head in “what the absolute fuck are you thinking” mode.

This is one of those times.

I present to you a new Leftist group called Unpull the Trigger out of Portland, Oregon. Although they haven’t reached the sheer dumbfuckery of Everytown for Gun Safety or, well, being Hunter Biden, they are quickly rising up the charts with a bullet, or more accurately, with an AR-15. See, Unpull the Trigger has the brilliant idea of buying every black man an AR-15 as a means to make Republicans back gun control.

And it was at this point my head started shaking like a Jello mold on the San Andreas Fault during an 8.9 on the Richter Scale.

Unpull the Trigger

What the Left thinks it means – a Progressive group trying to get Republicans to finally get on board with sensible gun control

What it really means – another idiotic Leftist group based on an erroneous assumption about the Right

So far, not much is known about Unpull the Trigger, mainly because people are too busy laughing at them to do any actual digging. But, from what I’ve been able to find, they are a non-profit anti-gun grift…I mean group, and run by fucking idiots. Their big-brained idea I referenced above is called, and I swear I’m not making this up, “Scare the Racists Straight.”

See what I mean by “what the absolute fuck are you thinking”?

As you might expect, all Leftist anti-gun groups lack one essential piece of information: knowing any actual gun owners who aren’t one of them. Oh, sure, you’ll find a Leftist gun owner who thinks there needs to be stricter laws on the books because fee-fees, but that’s not the same thing as Bubba McMAGAHat, who is a proud gun owner and wouldn’t be caught dead voting for anyone to the left of Pat Buchanan.

Okay, bad example. Let’s go with Ronald Reagan.

This lack of actual knowledge leads to blind spots that lead to dumb decisions like assuming Republicans would be against arming blacks or naming an organization Unpull the Trigger. Once you start digging a bit, the blind spots become so obvious Stevie Wonder can see them.

Although whites make up a significant percentage of gun owners in America, there are still a number of blacks who are according to the Pew Research Center. I’m sure the NRA would appreciate the expected increased membership, but it doesn’t work if your goal is to prevent people from having guns in the first place. But only a complete dipshit would want…oh, the President of Unpull the Trigger wants that.

I have to give them credit, though, for thinking outside the box. Of course, their initiative will wind up the same way the other gun control efforts have: failing worse than Michael Bay doing a “Heidi” remake.

But here’s where shit gets really weird. If we look at the stats (and I do because my social life makes Boo Radley look like a TikTok “star”), there is a significant number of young black men who are in gangs, with a majority of them being over 18. Granted, these numbers are over a decade old, so the percentages may be different, but it’s immaterial to the larger point I’m going to make here. Unpull the Trigger wants to give these gang members AR-15s, which will undoubtedly change the dynamic of gang culture, i.e. allowing people with zero problems offing another person to have access to a weapon Leftists say are only made for killing people.

But not every black man belongs to a gang, so we can’t use that broad brush. However, we can look at how giving every black man a gun might affect Leftist groups like…oh, I don’t know…Black Lives Matter. Surely an organization that wants to defund the police wouldn’t use guns in a violent matter, right?

David Dorn could not be reached for comment.

What about ANTIFA? Although primarily dominated by whites, there are blacks who are either members or sympathetic to the cause. And ANTIFA isn’t above violent methods to achieve their goals or to make a statement.

And Unpull the Trigger wants to arm these assholes.

Oh, but it gets better! Notice Unpull the Trigger wants to arm black men…but not black women. Isn’t that sexist? Are these Leftists assuming black women a) don’t want to be armed, or b) are incapable of using a gun properly? And what about black trans people (as opposed to Shawn King and Rachel Dolezal, who claim to be trans-black)? If gender is a spectrum or a social construct, why are black men the only ones who get the guns? That’s patriarchy, motherfuckers! Not to mention, it’s trans erasure! And, I’m sorry kids, but that means Unpull the Trigger has to be shamed and run out of the public square.

Hey, I didn’t write the rules, but I can’t abide by your obvious hatred, so off you go!

Now, remember when I said earlier this whole concept was based on an erroneous assumption about the Right? Well, hold onto your hats because we’re finally getting to the good part.

The Left assumes the Right is full of racist bigots because the Right tends to oppose Leftist measures to “fight” racism and bigotry. And by extension, Leftists believe gun owners are racists. So, Unpull the Trigger wants to make more black men gun owners and, thus…make them racists?

Remember, kids, I am a trained professional. Do not try to make sense of Leftist logic at home.

And this is where the Leftist blind spot kicks them in the dick. There are racists who are gun owners if only due to the law of averages, but the Venn Diagram of racists and gun owners really doesn’t have a lot of overlap because gun owners care more about their guns than they do about the color of who owns them. I’ve been to a couple of gun shows and have known many gun owners in my 53 years of life. I even have had a gun owner or two in my family. You know what I found in interacting with actual gun owners?

They’re regular people. Well-armed people, I grant you, but regular people. Sure, they have differences as people often do, but when it comes to gun ownership, the only colors that matter to them are those of the guns themselves. Granted, this is anecdotal evidence, but it’s a damn sight better than the pulling ideas out of their asses that Unpull the Trigger is using.

Ultimately, Unpull the Trigger will become a laughingstock like David Hogg, and much for the same reason: they know jack shit about guns and gun owners. Assuming anyone on the Right would freak out about blacks getting AR-15s is not the sign of an intellectual giant, no matter how much the press writes glowing puff pieces about them. At some point, they will fade into the background like all the other gun control groups and struggle to remain relevant.

The only hope for their salvation would be if it came out they were trolling the Left just to see how much support they would get from them. If not, I have a much better solution for Unpull the Trigger. If you really want to stop gun violence, don’t ban guns; ban Leftists from having guns.





Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

With everything going on in the world today, it’s a good bet someone is going to get upset about something. And if that person is motivated enough, he or she may decide to whip up support by protesting that thing.

For Leftists, it happens on a day ending in, well, “day.”

Yet, for all of the protesting the Left does, they don’t always support protesting, as we’ll see in a bit. But first, a little housekeeping in the form of a definition.

protest

What the Left thinks it means – exercising a First Amendment right to express an opinion

What it really means – exercising a First Amendment right to express a Leftist-approved opinion

Among the myriad rights outlined in the aforementioned Amendment are freedom of speech and the right to redress grievances with the government. (Although, I’m not sure I want to know how the grievances got naked in the first place.) These combine like Zords into a Megazord we call protesting, and it’s a right many Americans exercise more than they exercise, literally.

Protesting is one of the rights the Left hold dear because otherwise they might have to get jobs and be productive. However, they have a two-tiered approach to it, and as the definition I provided shows, it’s based on ideology.

I’m going to call this next section “A Tale of Two Protests.” And hopefully the estate of Charles Dickens doesn’t sue me into oblivion. Our first protest is one that has made the rounds in conservative media circles because of its sheer intensity and literal volume. Jeff Younger is running for the Texas State House in large part because of the way the courts treated him. You see, Younger is the father of a young boy who has been convinced by his mother he’s a girl. After a lengthy court battle, he won a small victory by a judge’s decision barring his now ex-wife from giving his son drugs that would restrict puberty and essentially transition him from male to female.

Well, Younger appeared on the campus of the University of North Texas and the Left showed up in droves to disrupt his speech because…transphobe? Actually, I can’t quite make out the logical arguments they made because a) I don’t speak Shrill Leftist Harpy, and b) they didn’t make any. They were simply there to cause chaos, go viral, and take a stand against trans hate. As a fan of the First Amendment, I can’t begrudge their protest, no matter how asinine it was, and the Left agreed. The students protesting were in the right.

Now, we move on to a different protest, the American version of the Freedom Convoy. If it’s anything like the Canadian version, be prepared for the utter chaos of…honking horns, music, and a sense of community. A worse hellscape than anything Clive Barker could come up with, I assure you.

Seriously, though, the Freedom Convoy by and large was and is a peaceful event with generally good fellowship mixed with a good helping of traffic disruption. Sure, there were some asshats who went overboard, but you’ll get that and they were the exception instead of the rule. And as you might expect, the Left has gone out of their way to denigrate this protest, insinuating it’s backed by Russians, white supremacists, neo-Nazis, conservative media, the Koch Brothers, and a few other groups. As of this writing, I’m not sure if the Freemasons (or even the Reasonably Priced Masons) have been invoked, but it’s still early in the year. And now that the impending war over Ukraine is looming like Michael Moore’s shadow over an all-you-can-eat buffet, Leftists are dismissing the Freedom Convoy protest because “there’s more important things to worry about right now.”

Like…allowing young boys to transition to young girls, apparently?

The thing to remember is both the UNT students and the Freedom Convoy should be allowed to protest, even if we don’t agree with them. The thing the Left doesn’t get about the First Amendment is it goes both ways, not just the way they want it to go. Kinda like Dennis Rodman, but with better fashion sense in wedding dresses. If the Left values the right to protest, they have to allow for the right to protest against them, but they don’t. Otherwise, I would have to be boring you with a different Lexicon topic.

The reason for the Left’s two-faced approach to protesting involves their desire to control the narrative. Once you control how events are presented, you control how they’re perceived and what the audience sees, hears, and feels. That’s creepy enough as it is, but it gets worse when an event is 180 degrees out of phase from reality. Then, the outcome gets messy and even expensive if legal recourse is initiated.

Just ask CNN or its new owner, Nick Sandmann.

Controlling the narrative is essential in protesting as well as in the media/court of public opinion. The chaos and destruction left by Black Lives Matter and ANTIFA protests is hard to ignore, but surprisingly many people only focus on the narrative presented by those groups. Instead of garnering scorn for trying to turn city streets into Beirut on a good day, they garnered sympathy because of the cause. But here’s the thing: no matter how righteous your cause, it loses its righteousness when the resulting protest turns destructive. Blocking the street with a march protesting police brutality and the unnecessary killing of citizens is inconvenient, but doesn’t cross that line. When the protest includes destruction of public property, assault, and arson…well, let’s just say you’ve missed your turn and are zooming down the highway to the Destruction Zone.

The right to protest can be a tightrope walk because of the implications of letting different sides speak their minds. If you allow, say, a Nazi rally in your town, does that mean the town is totally pro-Nazi? Not at all, but with the advent of incredibly fast social media posting and incredibly slow thinkers using them, it can become one faster than you can type OMG. That’s where we need to be a lot more libertarian in our approach to protests, meaning we support what we support and ignore what we don’t. Trust me, it makes life a lot simpler and stops you from having to continually apologize to people who wouldn’t accept your apology under any circumstances.

As with the right to free speech, the right to protest comes with some responsibilities. Just because you can carry a rifle in public doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to do so while voicing displeasure over a public official’s actions. If you feel the need to protest, put your best foot forward (and not to trip someone else, by the way). Be willing to discuss your position in a calm, rational manner. Even if those protesting your protest are screaming like banshees listening to a Yoko Ono CD on repeat, you’ll come off better by keeping cool. Plus, it drives Leftists nuts when they can’t rile you into emotional outbursts, so there’s that.

In the end, though, it cannot be overstated how the right to protest has lead to positive change in this country. It’s one I wholeheartedly endorse and support because of that fact. Even if the Left puts ideological conditions on its valid usage, we don’t need to follow their lead. We just need to allow them to march along to the beat of their own drummers so they can enjoy the fruits of their labor.

And we can enjoy mocking them. Thanks, First Amendment!

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

If you listen to the Left for any amount of time (and, to be honest, why would you?), eventually the conversation will come to race. And by “eventually” I mean within microseconds. Recently, there’s been a new term that, surprise surprise, directly connects to race: white rage. Whether it’s CNN’s Brian “Mr. Potato Head” Stetler claiming Fox News’ Tucker Carlson stokes white rage or current Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark “Not Vanilli” Milley testifying the military should take training to avoid white rage, it seems the Left wants to make it a thing, and a racial thing at that.

But, just like with Critical Race Theory, it’s not exactly clear what white rage is. Good thing there’s someone who can cut through the bullshit and get to the heart of the matter. But since that person is off, you’ll have to let me do it.

white rage

What the Left thinks it means – white people’s reaction when their power and influence in the world is threatened, the most important problem in America today

What it really means – an accusation with little actual proof, but a lot of actual racism

As a white man, I get labeled with a lot of shit from the Left based solely on the color of my skin and what they believe what I believe. The Left sees me as a Bible-thumping, flyover country bumpkin who hates gays, blacks, women, albino midget Eskimos who walk with a limp, and so on. Now, to be fair, they are right about the albino midget Eskimo bit, but the rest of it is based off a serious of assumptions the Left has deemed to be true without affirmative proof.

And that’s the same basic principle behind white rage. As Leftists can’t leave a PR crisis untouched, they point to the 1/6 “insurrection” as evidence and bludgeon anyone who supports Donald Trump as someone who is one bad day away from being a mass shooter or insurgent against America. And if we’re not careful, white rage is going to create chaos (and that’s the Left’s job, darn it)!

Now, where have I heard that kind of verbiage before? Wasn’t there a movement in, say, the mid-to-late 90s that were considered to be dangerous crackpots not unlike the people the Left claim are out there waiting to strike? Why, yes. Yes, there was! It was the militia movement, and the rhetoric started to kick into high gear not long after the Oklahoma City bombing. The Left did their best to paint Timothy McVeigh as the typical militia member, even though he was kicked out of his local militia and had a record voting for Democrats, but why let the facts get in the way of a good narrative, right?

Last time I checked, the militia movement of the 90s didn’t cause any of the things the Left said would definitely happen if we didn’t do something right now. If anything, they just wanted to be by themselves to LARP as the National Guard, which is perfectly fine in my book. Just leave me be and don’t ask me to pay for your reindeer games.

Now, the Left is trying to resurrect the fear of militias and spin it into white rage. Within the Leftist hivemind, it works, mainly because a) it reaffirms their preconceived ideas about non-Leftists, and b) most Leftists today may not have even been born in the 90s or were too young to remember Militia Mania. That makes it easier to be successful than a coke dealer working on the Hunter Biden account. But here’s the thing: the fact it’s easy doesn’t make it right. Just like with the militia movement rhetoric, there isn’t anything concrete that suggests white rage is even a thing.

Except if you look at the Left.

Last year showcased a lot of violence and destruction from members of Antifa and Black Lives Matter. Although the Left swears up and down they weren’t responsible, the mugshots after the arrests show a different story. It seems most of the people arrested were…white. And the majority of BLM members? Also white. Hmmm…destroying property, attacking cops…that sounds a lot like the way the Left characterized 1/6, doesn’t it? And if 1/6 is an example of white rage, logic might lead us to conclude Antifa and BLM are examples of white rage, too.

Of course, this isn’t about logic. This is about pushing a racist narrative because the Left needs to make us believe white people are evil racist bastards. Call me conspiratorial, but I find it interesting the whole white rage concept didn’t get traction until fairly recently during a time when the Left wants to push Critical Race Theory that teaches…white people are evil racist bastards. With the pushback against CRT coming from mostly white parents, the Left appears to have scrambled to find a reason people might be against it and landed on white rage. On a side note, I swear the Left has a giant wheel with derogatory phrases they spin whenever they want to blame whites for something.

There’s a rule of thumb I’ve seen online that applies here. If you replace the racial word with a different race and think it’s racist, then it’s racist. This concept certainly applies to white rage, but there’s a twist. By assigning rage to whites only, the Left suggests no other race can get angry, which diminishes the other races’ agency. Under the Left’s constantly-changing definition of racism, that would be racism.

But in a Rod Serling-esque twist, I have to point out the ones who claim there is white rage…are white Leftists. They seem to have forgotten in their rush to make white rage all the rage who they are.

Normally this is the part where I give you advice on how to deal with the latest Leftist controversy-du-joir. This time there isn’t any advice to give because white rage is going to fall in on itself without us having to lift a finger. There is simply too much implausibility and illogic to adopt at once for it to survive much outside of the Leftist bubble. But should you run into a Leftist bound and determined to talk about white rage, ask them how they felt about the Antifa folks arrested in Portland and how they were predominantly white.

Then ask them to repeat what they said about white rage.

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.