Frequently I make notes to myself about something that I think would be good for a future article. Even more frequently I conclude that there is no way trying to fill 750 – 1,000 words will only put my readers to sleep, but I have found that short, and to-the-point, bits can occasionally hit the right spot.
Democrats are Masters of the Misuse of English
We should immediately stop listening to idiots who say things like "Republicans are fascists" or "Democrats and Progressives are fascists". Things like that have little or no basis in reality.
Fascist is not a political label. It is a label for an economic system, not a political system. It's like saying that Kim Jung Un is a Communist. No he's not a communist, which, by the way is also an economic system, not a political system. And while Kim Jung Un is not a communist, he is a psychotic person who is overwhelmingly narcissistic and whose sole goal is to rule as a totalitarian. People like Kim exist all over the world today and have existed for millennia. They want to be a dictator. They want to be king…or queen for that matter.
Many governments around the world govern using a fascist style (or if you prefer a fascist-"lite" style) of governmentally dominated economy where the government directs the activities within their borders rather than allowing the "invisible hand" described by Adam Smith to allocate resources and determine goals. Liberal - Democrat - Progressives use the term fascist to describe a political structure that is dictatorial/totalitarian, and is therefore "bad" and "evil". And this is true -- by their definition.
What is that definition?
It's fairly simple. If the other guy is the dictator, that is "bad" and "evil". If they are in charge of the political structure of the government and also act as the dictator then it is "good" and "moral".
See the difference?
Too Bad for You if You’re White and American
"White Privilege" is a term used more and more frequently these days. According to those who desire to ingratiate themselves with those whose great-great-grandfathers did not exercise unequal authority or power over others. The accused were always descendants of "white" men. You might jot yourself a note that those holding this "power" are always men. You never see accusations tossed at white great-great-grandmothers, do you?
The term applies to anyone today who has "white skin" because they are guilty. Exactly what they are guilty of always seems to be undefined in terms that the accused can understand. Accusations are thrown about with the crazed abandon of what was seen in the "show trials" of the Stalin era in the Soviet Union or the Mao Zedong era in the People's Republic of China. Yet in those days, no criminal (who, it should be understood, might have simply disagreed with the government in power) never seemed to include the elites of the culture who were, of course, Communists. Yet there were never any accusations of abuse of Communist Power or Communist privilege, were there?
Idi Amin was never accused of "Black Privilege" or "African Privilege". Nor was Muammar Gaddafi ever accused of "Muslim Privilege". I doubt that Mao Zedong was ever accused by anyone of “Asian Privilege”.
I Suppose Republicans Will Settle for Any Praise
"Damned with faint praise". Now that's a phrase that is one of those gifts that just keeps on giving. When the Congress passes an amendment for a bill under consideration that says (and I paraphrase), "Well, yeah, the climate seems to be changing, but we can't determine exactly why that is happening."
This then becomes the point where you should ask your Senator or Congressman "Why did you even bother?"
If it was so that these nitwits can say, “Well, at least we're more objective than Democrats!”, then that is a classic example of being “damned with faint praise”. I believe today this might be referred to as “passive-aggressive” behavior, or to be utterly current linguistically it might be an example of "microagression".
Where is Daniel Webster When You Need Him?
Am I the only person who has noticed that the MSM (and even a lot of the more conservative media) has created, without bothering to either (a) explain the source/definition of the term or (b) define their use of the term ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS. And if there is some sort of dictionary definition of the term, what is the reason that Democrats never seem to have a creature called an ESTABLISHMENT DEMOCRAT? Such terms are never described, or defined or explained, it is always just "assumed" that everyone just knows what they are talking about. Is it?
Why is there never reference to Establishment European Union-ists? How about Establishment Islamic fanatics? Outside of politics, are there any other "establishments" that exists? Do we have to deal with ESTABLISHMENT blacks or whites or Hispanics? Have you ever read about "establishment" members of a profession?
Are members of the "establishments" also member of the "elites"?
Aren’t Anonymous Polls Convenient?
Recently (on 02/01/15 to be precise) during a speech, Obama said:
“You know, I think that the way to understand this is there is an element growing out of Muslim communities in certain parts of the world that have perverted the religion, have embraced a nihilistic, violent, almost medieval interpretation of Islam. And they are doing damage in a lot of countries around the world. But it is absolutely true that I reject a notion that somehow that creates a religious war because the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject that interpretation of Islam. They don’t even recognize it as being Islam. And I think that for us to be successful in fighting this scourge, it’s very important for us to align ourselves with the 99.9 percent of Muslims who are looking for the same thing we’re looking for. Order, peace, prosperity. And so I don’t — I don’t quibble with labels. I think we all recognize that this is a particular problem that has roots in Muslim communities. And that the Middle East and South Asia are — it’s very ground zero for us needing to win back hearts and minds particularly when it comes to young people. But I think we do ourselves a disservice in this fight if we are not taking into account the fact that the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject this ideology.” [emphasis supplied]
Can anyone tell me exactly what poll (or ideally, polls) reliably identifies the 99.9% of Muslims who do not support the activities of ISIS? Can a poll be found that illustrates the idea that Muslims are not supremacists? The foundation of Islamic thought is that Muslims were destined by God (or if you prefer, Allah) to reign supreme on every continent and over every person on the planet. Not only did Mohammed decree that Islam would rule over every individual on earth, they would also be the final authority on each and every question, with no exceptions. Non-Muslims would be delegated to a position akin to slavery.
Or was the 99.9% claim pulled from the same imagination that gave us the famous “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor”?
Make the Labels more Accurate
Perhaps conservatives should begin referring to Democrats and Progressives, elected or not, appointed to a governmental position or not, as the natural allies of ISIS, Boko Haram, AQAP (and on and on with all the other Islamic terrorists).
Why? Well, both Democrats/Progressives and Islamic terrorists share a burning, fanatical desire to exercise absolute power over everyone in the world. They believe that they hold the only real intellects and the real knowledge of how things should be because they, and they alone, have the right answers to everything.
