The US Supreme Court has been busy making Leftists cry lately. In addition to their recent decision regarding Affirmative Action (my coverage available here), they also ruled in a 6-3 decision in favor of a Colorado businesswoman who wanted to do wedding websites, but didn’t want to them for same-sex weddings. Seems it would violate her religious beliefs, so she challenged Colorado’s law and eventually won.
Which royally pissed off the Left!
While Leftists started in on their “expand the Supreme Court” and “extremist right wing Court” recycled rhetoric, others cheered the decision as a “victory for free speech.” So, why were Leftists (who proclaim themselves as free speech champions) upset?
I’m glad you…errr I asked.
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis
What the Left thinks it means – a Supreme Court decision that makes it legal to discriminate against people
What it really means – the mask slipping on the Left’s commitment to free speech
Our good friends at Twitchy give us a nice breakdown of the case and the stipulations the businesswoman was willing to make to comply with Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws. The Reader’s Digest Condensed Version is she was willing to work with anyone, but not to make websites that would go against her faith.
Wait. I seem to remember a similar situation with a baker in Colorado and the Left’s response being “Bake the cake, bigot.”
Both the baker and the businesswoman were subject to what might best be called coerced free speech. I take that back. The best term for this is bullshit, but you get the idea. The idea behind free speech is to allow everyone a chance to speak their minds up to the point it inspires violence (i.e. “fighting words“). Where the Left takes the, well, left turn off the freeway of free expression is when others say things they don’t like. Then, they will stop at nothing to prevent those evil mean nasty Nazi ideas from getting traction, including collaborating with Big Tech to silence them. Of course, they’ll use any excuse they can to justify it and if you disagree, you’re just dag nasty evil.
Or in the case of COVID-19 hysteria, most likely telling the truth.
This brings us back to the “bake the cake” mentality of the Left. There are segments of the Left (namely the LGBTQA+ABCDEFGOHWEOHWEOHGIRLIWANNAKNOWYOUKNOWYOU crowd) who will use the judicial system to force certain groups (namely Christians) to do what they want in some weird flex of their protected status. And until fairly recently, the courts have let them get away with it, stating a protected class’ “right” to services trumps the Christian’s right to religion.
When you’re coerced to speak under threat of judicial or regulatory reprisal, free speech is compromised to the point of being ineffectual. This is why the “bake the cake” argument is so fucked up in the first place. Although business do have the right to refuse service, it’s limited to situations where it’s not considered discriminatory. And thanks to the aforementioned Alphabet Soup Group, anything short of total subservience to their cause is discriminatory.
Not surprisingly, though, this runs smack-dab in the face of their attitudes about Twitter banning conservative users. Back then, it was okay to silence conservatives because “Twitter is a private business and can make decisions to deny someone a platform.”
Soooooo…I have a question. Why is it okay to silence conservatives because of Twitter’s status as a private business, but also okay to force private businesses to give Leftists a platform for their ideas? The short answer is it’s not because it’s hypocritical and counterintuitive to the idea of free speech. Regardless of how tasty the medium may be, you cannot force compliance one way without forcing it the other way and still be intellectually consistent.
And now, you can’t do it while being legally consistent.
Look, I get the idea behind Colorado’s anti-discrimination law. It’s how it’s being implemented that’s the issue. If you’re using it as a cudgel to attack people who don’t agree with you, it’s being used incorrectly. Laws like the anti-discrimination laws are meant to be more of a legal shield and a method to provide legal recourse should the laws be broken. Using it the way Colorado Leftists have, though, turns a law with good intentions into one with bad application, which puts it in proximity of “fighting words” in my semi-learned opinion.
Where the majority opinion in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis diverted expectations is that it was ruled on as a free speech rather than a freedom of religion issue. But the true brilliance comes when you consider the Left’s opinion of religion in general (save for Climate Change Cultists). In arguing against religion in the public square, the Left has taken one of two approaches: demanding an all-or-none approach (except when it comes to Muslims), or demanding freedom from religion. After all, you have to account for those who don’t want religion shoved down their throats, right?
Wellllll…let’s apply this to another idea, freedom of association. As this link shows, the Supreme Court has already ruled there is a freedom from association as well as a freedom of association. In other words, the High Court has already laid the groundwork for future challenges to Colorado’s law if some plucky attorney with time to kill and a client willing to test the law would put it in motion.
Not that I’m hinting someone should do that, mind you…
Nevertheless, the 6-3 ruling (with guess who making up the minority) is going to stand for now, and the Left can’t handle it. Not only can’t they force people to do their bidding because reasons, but the arguments put forth in opposition to the ruling are…how can I put this delicately…fucking stupid. But remember, Leftists are smarter than us. Just ask them.
In this case (and, to be fair, in most cases for that matter), the Left got this one wrong, and instead of figuring out how they went wrong, they blamed the “right wing Supreme Court.” You know, like mature adults do? Yet, something tells me they aren’t going to understand the implications of their insistence people have to be forced to platform their ideas. I mean, if their ideas were so popular, wouldn’t people want to give them platforms?
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis is a victory for actual free speech and a blow to the coerced speech the Left want to make the norm. No matter how the Left tries to spin it or muddy the waters with absurd claims, this is an L for them, which is a given.
After all, you can’t spell “Leftist” without an L.
Tag: first amendment
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
This week, we delve into the world of comedy, for which some readers are saying “Finally!” Fortunately for you, it’s not my jokes this time.
Instead, we can look to Twitter and Leftists for the humor. Seems our favorite Socialist Socialite got her collectivist panties in a wad over a Twitter account parodying her. And as one might expect of someone dumber than a bag of hammers, the Socialist Socialite tweeted out a warning advising fans of the account. Because as we all know the best way to make a problem go away is to draw as much attention to it as humanly possible.
Needless to say, this didn’t work well. Which prompted fans of the Socialist Socialite to call for Twitter to ban the parody account, AOCpress. This gives us the perfect opening to discuss the wonders of parody.
parody
What the Left thinks it means – a potentially dangerous threat to valid communication between politicians and their constituents
What it really means – a way to mock the Left protected by the First Amendment
Our good friends at Dictionary.com provide a great definition of “parody” that will serve us nicely:
1. a humorous or satirical imitation of a serious piece of literature or writing: his hilarious parody of Hamlet’s soliloquy.
2. the genre of literary composition represented by such imitations.
3. a burlesque imitation of a musical composition.
4. any humorous, satirical, or burlesque imitation, as of a person, event, etc.
If you’re an observant reader, and I know you are, you’ll notice a pattern. If you’re not or a Leftist (which means you’re not observant by definition), the pattern is humor. Leftists love to tell us they’re funnier than conservatives, but yet they’re redefining humor to take the funny out of comedy and turn it into more of a monologue where the pseudo-comedian throws out Leftist talking points in lieu of jokes. But don’t worry. There are plenty of set-ups, chief of which being the audience being set up that they’ll be entertained, but there are a decided lack of straight men. Or women.
And as a side note, Dave Chappelle was right about Hannah Gadsby.
Anyway, the Left doesn’t have a mirth monopoly by any stretch. Granted, much of the humor they provide is unintentional (i.e. Puddin’ Head Joe and Kamala Harris going off script), but it’s humor nonetheless. Where the Right has the edge in humor is online, especially in the area of satire. With The Onion being as funny as its namesake these days, sites like The Babylon Bee and any number of Twitter handles have picked up the slack by…actually being funny. What a concept!
And a good amount of the time, it’s the Left getting skewered with the Right’s humor. Guess how that goes over with the Left.
As with other things that bug them and that they can’t control, Leftists moan more than a porn actress being paid by the orgasm. And where do they moan the most? On Twitter! After all, if you complain on Twitter about something and tag Elon Musk it actually does something important!
Guess how that turned out. And I’m guessing you’re seeing a pattern here.
See, Leftists hate being mocked, especially when it’s in the form of parody because it’s not just mocking them, but it’s mocking them directly.
Remember the young girl who did a parody of the Socialist Socialite? Well, she got death threats from Leftists. You know, the tolerate, loving, and totes free speech defending Left? (Yeah, I laughed hard when I typed that, too.)
That should tell you two things. First, Leftists take themselves way too seriously. And second, the jokes about their lack of a sense of humor are based in fact. Oh, and Leftists are shitty people when they get butthurt at being the butt of jokes. (See what I did there?)
But here’s the thing. Parody is protected under the First Amendment as free speech. And what’s even more delicious? It’s because of Larry Flynt, a loud and proud Leftist. (On a side note, how do Leftist feminists reconcile Flynt’s treatment and attitudes towards women with feminist ideology? Oh, right, they fucking ignore it.)
Of course, that doesn’t stop Leftists from making the case the AOCpress account should be removed because they claim it’s imitating the Socialist Socialist. Hoo boy. So much to unpack here, but let’s start with the easy one.
Twitter rules are quite clear on parody accounts being allowed so long as they clearly proclaim they are parody accounts. And Leftists should remember this, especially after many of them did Elon Musk parodies on their Twitter accounts.
In other words, it’s perfectly fine when they do it, but no one else can do it, especially to them.
Now, there’s the whole imitation angle. What AOCpress posts may look and sound like what the Socialist Socialite says, but at no time does the account owner say he/she is AOC. Just because it’s indistinguishable from what the Socialist Socialite really says doesn’t mean it’s someone trying to impersonate her. Although, it might be evidence the Twitter account wants to date her…
Now, for the best part of all of this. There are people getting fooled by the AOCpress account, even with the parody tag on it. How fucking stupid do you have to be to get fooled by a parody account that labels itself as parody? I know social media is a “Tweet first, ask questions later” environment, but fuck! You have to be a special kind of window licker to get fooled.
Which says a lot about the people who stan for the Socialist Socialist, doesn’t it?
The proper response to parody isn’t to try to get it removed from the marketplace of ideas, but rather to take it for what it is: an attempt at humor. You don’t have to get it for it to be a joke, and you don’t have to laugh for it to be protected. That’s why Dane Cook has never been arrested for doing his stand-up (although an argument could be made for him being arrested for impersonating a stand-up comedian, but that’s a blog post for another time). That means Leftists are going to have to put up with a lot more mocking from people, myself included.
And that’s going to piss off Leftists.
The AOCpress account exposes how thin-skinned Leftists can be, while at the same time showing how gullible and stupid they can be when they put their minds to it. Like it or not, though, parody is as valid a Socialist Socialite speech, only parody is intentionally funny.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Yes, it’s another post about Twitter. In my defense, though, the current Twitter drama is like being in the Mob or on Brokeback Mountain: every time I think I’m out, they pull me back in and then fuck me. Or something like that
The New York Times and other leftist media sources recently reported an increase in the number of hate speech incidents on Twitter since Elon Musk took over. Their source was a study conducted by several groups, including the Anti-Defamation League, academia, and the Center for Countering Digital Hate, all pointing to what they’re trying to push as an epidemic of hate. Their solution? Get another COVID booster.
Actually, the Left has a few different options on the table from having the government oversee Twitter to investigating Musk’s purchase to leaving the platform altogether to staying and fighting as Alyssa “I’m Definitely Not the Boss” Milano suggested. In other words, they don’t have a clear strategy, but they have a clear idea of what hate speech is.
And, as we’re about to see, they’re completely wrong. Again.
hate speech
What the Left thinks it means – hateful speech that is not protected by the First Amendment and should be illegal
What it really means – hateful speech that is protected by the First Amendment, but not necessarily by Twitter
I’m going to be honest with you at the start. Neither side has this issue completely right as it pertains to Twitter. As a private company, Twitter can set the rules as to what it allows on the platform, and the First Amendment need not apply. After all, the first five words of it are “Congress shall make no law” and last time I checked Twitter isn’t Congress. Although I’ve found an increasing number of twits on both…
At the core of the issue is how hate is defined. Since hate speech first came into the public lexicon, hate has evolved from racist, sexist, and generally unacceptable commentary to anything that hurts a Leftist’s fee-fees. Prior to Musk buying Twitter, the Left had a field day getting accounts nuked for Terms of Service violations more spurious than the credibility of Media Matters.
That’s because the Left has friends in high places, namely the moderation staff. When you get to define what constitutes hate speech, you can justify any moderation invoked under it. With the moderation staff at Twitter leaning so far left the only parts of their body that got sunburned were on the right, let’s just say they were fairly liberal with their definition, and definitely illiberal with their enforcement.
But, remember, it’s Elon Musk creating more hate speech on Twitter.
Actually, the hate speech has been there; it just hasn’t been called such. Like the “Summer of Love” in 2020, the Left crafted a tidy, yet wholly unbelievable narrative. And when confronted with the flood of conservative Twitter accounts going down, their response was the same: they shouldn’t have broken the rules Twitter, a private company, created.
All while telling a Colorado baker to bake the cake, I might add.
Fast forward to, oh, now. The Left no longer defends the private company because the rules are starting to apply to the people who used to be the ones who made up the rules as they went along. Although there are some inconsistencies with how the rules got applied, the fact the Left got a small taste of what conservatives endured for years isn’t entirely unwelcome, at least to me. Still, Musk should work on ensuring the rules are fair across the board, and that starts with the moderation team.
Meanwhile, back in the “hate speech is on the rise on Twitter” camp, they’ve run into a bit of a problem: the numbers don’t seem to match what is going on, or at the very least what the Left says is going on. But why let a little thing like reality get in the way of a good two minutes hate, right?
Which brings us back to what constitutes hate speech because, well…the people making the claims of a rise of hate speech on Twitter aren’t exactly forthcoming with their methodology. Although they cite the number of “slurs” being posted, they never provide context. Granted, there are few instances where calling someone a racial, sexual, or other type of slur would be fine, the fact there are some and the lack of transparency of the internal mechanics of the study being promoted as gospel should be enough to make even the most rabid Leftist pause.
Should be, but doesn’t apparently.
This is the time to push back against the Left’s narrative by asking hard questions. How is “hate speech” being defined? What was considered “slurs”? How were these slurs counted? Was context considered in the determination? Do we really need any more Tyler Perry movies?
Although these questions (especially that last one) will remain unanswered most likely, there is one thing that isn’t in dispute: the First Amendment protects hate speech. No matter how many Twitter Leftists repeat the idea it’s not, the US Supreme Court has already ruled it is. And before the Leftists decry this as a racist decision by a right-wing court, Justices Kennedy, Sotomayor, Kagan, and…the Notorious RBG concurred.
Oops.
Even if you disagree with the ruling, and with basic Constitutional principles for that matter, the concept of hate speech online and in general just doesn’t work without understanding intent. In most cases, it’s clear, but if you’re just looking for words and not context, there will be a lot of hits that should have been misses. Or Ms. if you’d prefer.
Without that added context, you’re more likely to find a cost-effective government agency than you are to find a consistent and logical conclusion. You might as well use a blindfold, a dartboard, and several adult beverages to confirm whether something is hate speech. In other words, a more sensible method than we’re using now.
What the Left fails to understand, either purposely or…oh, who are we kidding, is how to combat hate speech. What they want to do is remove it from the public square so no one can see or hear it. All that does is make it more attractive for those looking to push the envelope more than a postal employee working straight commission. It’s the forbidden aspect that makes it so attractive, as Tipper Gore and the Parents Music Resource Center found out way back in the 1980s. Nice to know Leftist still can’t learn from history, though.
The other and ultimately preferable way to fight hate speech is with…brace yourselves…more speech. By letting assholes spout off, they get their feelings off their chests and we can respond by not being assholes. That, and we can find out where the assholes are and know who not to send Christmas cards to, so…win-win! For the most part, I think Musk falls into this camp, which is a good thing for online speech all the way around.
Not that it will convince the Left to stop being hall monitors. Just look at how they treat each other on Mastodon! They need to feel they’re in control, which is why they’re trying to paint Twitter as a cesspool where only racists, sexists, homophobes, transphobes, and other shitty people congregate. That’s why they have to invent a scandal, especially considering their predictions about Twitter going the way of Kanye West’s future endeavors have yet to occur. (Amazing how the same folks who say the Earth is going to end in 10 years as they did in the 80s can’t get predictions right, isn’t it?)
So, I would take the studies showing an increase in hate speech on Twitter with a grain of salt…the size of Mount Everest.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
The Leftist losing streak at the US Supreme Court continued last week, much to the consternation of Leftists used to getting their way through judicial fiat. In a 6-3 decision, the High Court ruled the government (and any extensions of it under current, and quite wrong, interpretations) could not prevent an individual from personal prayer. To anyone who can read the First Amendment, this was a simple case to decide.
To the Left, it was a violation of the Constitution, more specifically the separation of church and state. Granted, we may have covered this topic before, but the fact the Left continues to bring it up tells me they didn’t learn the first time. So, strap in, kids. We’ve gotta take another swing at this.
separation of church and state
What the Left thinks it means – religious matters have no business in government matters
What it really means – the government can’t establish an official religion
For as smart as the Left claims to be, they consistently get the Establishment Clause wrong even though it’s pretty clear. Here goes:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…
There’s more to the First Amendment, but the purposes of this sketch, this section is the relevant part. Notice the first four words, “Congress shall make no law.” Those four words put the Establishment Clause into a specific framework, one where, well, Congress is prohibited from passing a law that meets the specific criterion outlined in the First Amendment.
At least, that’s the way it was until Leftists told us what James Madison wrote isn’t really what he meant. Thanks to groups like the American Civil Liberties Union, the Establishment Clause has been expanded to include any entity that gets federal funds, such as public schools. Although I have yet to see Mrs. Miller’s first grade class draft legislation, I’m willing to entertain this line of logic.
But with one caveat the Left doesn’t want to grant: using the entire Establishment Clause. Remember, under the Left’s thinking, a public school is an extension of the federal government, so praying in schools would be a violation of the First Amendment. However, the Establishment Clause also states the government can’t stop someone from exercising his or her religious beliefs, which means public schools aren’t allowed to stop someone from praying.
Checkmate, bitches.
What’s worse, the entire concept of the separation of church and state doesn’t even exist verbatim in the Constitution. Oh, it exists as a concept, but nowhere in there will you find “separation of church and state.” That turn of a phrase came from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote and, surprise surprise, the Left used to extrapolate a simple concept into a gross misapplication.
And even then, the Left doesn’t apply their own standards equally. I know, I was shocked when I realized this, too! Anyway, the Left has used the separation of church and state primarily against Christians to curtail their religious expressions. These restrictions go from the ridiculous to…well, the more ridiculous. But when it comes to, say, Muslims, those restrictions aren’t even considered. If anything, Leftists will tie themselves into rhetorical pretzels to state teaching about Islam in public schools isn’t a violation of the separation of church and state because it’s being done purely as an educational exercise.
But a high school coach quietly praying after a football game without requiring anyone else to join in is a Golden Gate Bridge too far?
No matter how far you follow the Left’s thinking on separation of church and state, it will eventually lead to an intellectual dead end. You know, like “The View.” It’s not without reason, though, and that reason (oddly enough) is an appeal to emotion. The Left wants us to believe any outward show of Christian faith is forcing religion down people’s throats which creates a victim, albeit often an unwitting one. Thanks to the ACLU, people putting up a Nativity scene in a public square is an affront to all religions, so communities either have to dump the Christian imagery (their unstated preference) or allow all religions to put up holiday decorations (a nightmare for city maintenance workers). Because the latter is so labor-intensive (and the ACLU is more sue-happy than an injury lawyer working straight commission), communities opt to forego any religious icons on public property.
And remember, kids, this is all based on an idea that’s not actually in the Constitution itself.
Although the separation of church and state is a no-brainer for Leftists, it actually creates a series of problems. Imagine that! Leftists not thinking ahead! Anyway, if the Left really wants there to be no intermingling of church and state under any circumstances, we’re going to have to remove some laws from the books. Granted, they’re not major crimes like murder or theft, but…oh, wait. Yes they are! It’s hard to deny the religious influence on some of the laws we have, but that doesn’t stop Leftists from doing it or outright ignoring the issue altogether.
Then, there’s the matter of representation. Sure, instituting pure separation of church and state will get rid of Christians, but it will also get rid of…many members of “The Squad.” After all, Islam is a religion, right? So, buh-bye Ilhan Omar! So long Rashida Tlaib! Oh, and let’s not forget government officials who believe in the Jewish faith. Shuffle off to Buffalo, Chuck Schumer! Bid farewell to Bernie Sanders! It would get to the point only atheists would be in office, and given some of the hardcore atheists I’ve seen online, we might be better off governing ourselves.
Even if Leftists aren’t listening to reason, we should encourage them to really push for separation of church and state at every level. You know, just to see their faces as Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden will have to resign. In the meantime, the best thing you can do is to know your rights. That makes it easier to fight for them when the time comes and to know when others are trying to undercut them.
And this last part is really fun, too. Leftists expect Christians to shy away from letting other religions celebrate on public grounds. To be fair, there are some Christians like that, but most of us tend to be pretty open to letting other faiths have their time in the sun (especially sun worshipers) because we realize freedom of religion is a two-way street instead of a cul de sac (which is French for “sac of the cul). It doesn’t have to be either-or. In fact, I have four words for any Leftist who demands all religions get equal time in public schools.
Your terms are acceptable.
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
Yep, this is another Election 2020-related blog post.
The latest news out of the Election That Won’t Die revolves around 126 Republican Congresscritters who supported a lawsuit brought by President Donald Trump’s election team against four states due to election irregularities (you know, like…throwing away military votes for the President). This has the Left up in arms. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said these Republicans have “brought dishonor to the House.”
But that’s not good enough for Leftists. Leftist Twitter (but I repeat myself) exploded with claims these House Republicans are guilty of sedition. Probably not the best week to invoke this, given Rep. Eric Swalwell sleeping with a Chinese spy while he was running for the House, but let’s go with it. Do they have a point this time? Let’s delve deeper into sedition, hopefully without contributing to it.
sedition
What the Left thinks it means – advocating for revolting against and toppling the established order
What it really means – another example of how the Left doesn’t understand irony
For the past 4 years, Democrats and Leftists have been calling President Trump illegitimate and demanding he be removed from office because he didn’t win the popular vote and/or various crimes he and his family are alleged to have committed. They “know” Trump had help from Russia to steal the 2016 elections. In fact, they went so far as to hold protests across the country delegitimizing the Trump Presidency, up to and including violent overthrow of the government or blowing up the White House.
Yeah. These are the folks I trust when it comes to sedition.
On the plus side, Leftists are concerned with people who want to overthrow our government. On the down side, they’re going after the wrong folks. I’ll be the first one to tell you I thought the lawsuit was dumber than letting Jeffrey Epstein babysit, but does it rise to the level the Left wants you think it does? The short answer is no. The longer answer is still no, but has a lot more words connected to it.
The President’s lawsuit, although ill-advised, isn’t an attempt to overthrow the government or its rightful leadership. Neither is the support from House Republicans because…and this is the part the Left keeps forgetting…Trump is still President until January 20, 2021. This little detail makes the sedition charges harder to stick. After all, why would the support for the President’s lawsuit be seditious when the person bringing the lawsuit itself is the President? No violence called for. No threats against the President’s life or the lives of government leaders. Just support for a lawsuit.
Can you say “overkill”? I knew you could.
Even if you expand the focus to the lawsuit and its supporters hurting the government, it falls flat because of the forum used to address the President’s concerns: the courts. You know, the courts…that are established in the Constitution? If President Trump is trying to get people to rebel against the government, he’s doing a crappy job of it. I’m going to go out on a limb here and say the Left is reaching more than Reed Richards.
The funny thing (at least to me) is how quickly the Left is adopting conservative ideas. Since it’s their ideology that stands to gain or lose the most over the outcome of the lawsuit, they want to preserve the status quo of a Biden victory over Trump. If the courts agree with the Trump campaign (which, to date, they haven’t, making them the second most losing team in history behind the Cleveland Browns, but work with me here), that overturns everything the Left wants to accomplish. No Green New Deal, no tax hikes on the wealthy, no free health care and tuition, just four more years of Trump’s Tweets and Leftist meltdowns. Don’t worry, though. Leftists will still have their meltdowns because that’s what they do in lieu of gainful employment.
Once you get past the hyperbole, the Left’s concept of sedition in this case is frightfully strong in words, but frightfully weak in application. In a few short years, they’ve gone from “Dissent is patriotic” to “Dissent is treason.” Yet, the First Amendment gives people the right to not only criticize the government, but to redress grievances with the government. Under Republican Presidents, the Left uses, if not abuses, both concepts demanding they be heard. Under Democrat Presidents, however, they seem to “forget” these parts of the First Amendment exist. Funny how that works out, isn’t it?
This is by design, of course. Leftists believe anyone who doesn’t stay in line like a Rockette is intellectually and morally inferior, which justifies their actions (at least in their minds). To extend this thinking a bit further, anything a non-Leftist does is anti-American and dangerous to the country. And when that non-Leftist is connected to Trump in any way, it becomes an imperative to discredit them, if not outright punish them for not thinking the right way.
George Orwell called. He wanted to let you Leftists know “1984” wasn’t an instruction manual.
Regardless of my feelings on the Trump campaign’s lawsuit regarding the 2020 election, there is no way it rises to the level of sedition, even if you water the definition down like a drink at a strip club. It’s more of the Left conflating objections to their ideology with objections to the country. After seeing some of the Left over the past four years, it’s safe to say the two are mutually exclusive.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With the Republican National Convention finally over, Democrats and Republicans can start discussing issues that the American people really care about.
Who am I kidding? They’re discussing the Hatch Act.
President Donald Trump delivered some of his convention speeches from the White House, which the Left says is against the law. And now they’re complaining the President is getting away with it because no one believes in their latest screed to make him look like an authoritarian dictator unaccountable because of those evil Republicans.
If for no other reason than to get some mileage out of this controversy, let’s all drink some coffee and take some truck stop speed because things are about to get boring.
The Hatch Act
What the Left thinks it means – a law that prohibits federal officials from campaigning while serving the President
What it really means – an anachronistic law that no one enforces because of its potential for abuse
The Hatch Act of 1939 is a law designed to limit the political activities of federal employees working in the Executive Branch with some exceptions. Remember the last four words of the previous sentence because they will be important to understand later. Although this was done primarily to undercut political and monetary interests in policy decisions, it was also designed to ensure only qualified candidates obtained federal positions.
Yeah, that worked out as well as any of Joe Biden’s foreign policy ideas.
As politics, money, and special interest groups have become as inseparable as Bill Clinton and promiscuity, the Hatch Act seems to have lost its bite, if it ever had one to begin with. The key to the act’s power lies in two areas: personal responsibility in selecting Executive Branch officers, and enforcement of the act when violated. Without both parts in place, they’re just words on a page.
Which brings us back to the present day. The Left have their collectivist boxers in a bunch because they feel President Trump violated the Hatch Act by having RNC events at the White House. And, they would be right if only they looked a little harder at the Hatch Act.
Remember when I mentioned the exceptions earlier? Two of the people exempt from it are…the President and Vice President. Oops. Reading is fundamental, Leftists.
And it doesn’t take a lot of effort to understand why, but I’ll explain it anyway for any Leftists out there reading this. With every election cycle, the President and Vice President have the ability to lend their political might behind any number of candidates they choose, as well as campaigning for their own reelection. Applying the Hatch Act as the Left wants us to believe it must be applied means any sitting President and Vice President can’t campaign at all. Granted, this may not seem to be a bad thing on the surface, but it would give the other party (or other parties) free shots at the President and Vice President without giving them the power to defend themselves. Not only is that decidedly unfair, but it would be a gross violation of the First Amendment because the law as passed by Congress would be limiting a person’s freedom of speech.
Well, at least the Left is consistent with its contempt for free speech when the speech doesn’t agree with them, right?
Like it or not, Leftists, but President Trump didn’t violate the Hatch Act in any way by holding RNC events at the White House. Besides, aren’t we supposed to be staying in our homes due to COVID-19? After all, you did tell us lockdowns were effective in slowing it down…well, except if you’re a senior citizen living in New York State, California, or Michigan, that is. Regardless, the point remains the same: you don’t have a leg to stand on here. Either you deny the President freedom of speech or you open the door for future proceedings against the next Democrat President, or even previous ones. Much like the Biden/Harris ticket, either way it’s a lose-lose situation.
It’s also time we take a look at removing the Hatch Act altogether because it’s not working anymore. Both major parties have abandoned the accountability and enforcement elements of the law, and neither one really wants to be held to task on them. A law that goes unenforced is useless and shouldn’t be on the books anymore.
But let’s say you want to keep the Hatch Act in place. The only way I can see to salvage it is to amend it to the point it spells out every last detail of what the Executive Branch can and cannot do and forces Congress to act when it’s been violated. The drawback to that is it would create more bureaucracy and more ways for legally-minded scumbags…I mean Representatives to find and create loopholes so the other side can’t get away with doing what their side can. Essentially, it’s a wash, except for those who make money building immovable monuments to government sloth.
Of course, I have another solution. My idea would require politicians and candidates to undergo mental health evaluations for every stupid or impractical idea they come up with. After enough trips to take the test, they would be forced to retire and would no longer gain access to their government pensions, any positions that require a security clearance, and be deemed mentally unfit for any role with a PAC or special interest group and, thus, unemployable by said groups.
I call it the Booby Hatch Act, and I get the feeling it’s going to be very popular…