Friday, April 29, 2016

Pro-Trump Republicans are Just Taking Tips From Liberals

Reports out today show there were arrests made at a Donald Trump rally yesterday. And it wasn't his supporters making the fuss. It was liberal protesters.

According to Yahoo, the small mob threw a brick through a police car window and blocked traffic, leading to 20 arrests. None of which is any big surprise.

After all, liberals have been outspoken about their demands for a while now. Whether the issue at stake is gay rights, abortion or promoting a PC culture where Jesus and the American flag are banned from public places, they’re quick to express their beliefs.

Liberals are unashamed of their stances, and their corresponding words and behavior.

Kinda like Trump, when you think about it.

He's loud and willing to fight dirty, and he'll skew facts to fit his agenda, making no apologies about any of it. The biggest difference is that Trump supporters aren’t throwing bricks through police car windows, blocking traffic and getting arrested.

While that could happen too if they keep taking pages out of the liberal playbook, for the time being, they’re just frustrated, vocal and reveling in the idea of someone actually representing them.

I know I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating: The vast majority of Republican politicians – particularly those in powerful positions – have bowed to their Democrat opposition for decades now. They’re much more interested in being well-padded in the pocket and well-represented in the media, both of which require liberal leanings.

And so lean they do, subtly and no-so-subtly bullying constituents to do the same.

They tell us to keep our opinions about global warming to ourselves even while the mid-East Coast feels like early March in late April. They instruct us to be nicer to illegal immigrants even while those people drain our national funds and add to our crime levels. And they implore us to pipe down about the national debt already.

All so that we don’t embarrass them.

The end result is that they're getting their wish in a twisted kind of way. They want us to look and sound like liberals? Well, that's what Donald Trump supporters are doing. Only they're doing it with Republican principles.

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Somebody Needs to Tell Ted Cruz That This Is Getting Embarrassing

Somebody needs to tell Ted Cruz that this is getting embarrassing.

I understand Hail Mary passes and longshots and the thrill of the underdog and all that. But I’m pretty sure it’s now mathematically impossible for him to fairly win the Republican presidential nomination… which makes it high time to bow out while he still gracefully can.

Instead, what does he do? He picks a vice presidential running mate.

Like that’s going to help.

I’m not saying any of this as a Donald Trump groupie. I don’t want him as president. I’m not even entirely sure I’ll be voting for president come this fall. I’m vacillating like crazy.

I’m saying it as one of the apparent few in the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Delaware and Rhode Island who voted for Ted Cruz on Tuesday. I wanted him to win.

But he didn’t.

Let’s face it. We have elections for a reason. There’s a process put in place for a purpose… and that’s to guarantee – as much as possible – that America gets what America wants.

And if America wants Donald Trump, then I’m not going to be thrilled, but so be it.

On the plus side, I doubt he can be worse than Obama.

Tuesday, April 5, 2016

I Don’t Hate Obama

I was going to write about two crazy racist women today, but what the heck. We all know there’s racism in the world. And if we don’t recognize that racists come in all shapes, sizes and colors, then me highlighting a blatant example of such isn’t going to do a single bit of good.

Actually, me highlighting anything probably won’t do much good. Not when everyone is so determined to have their opinions these days, regardless of the actual facts.

Since I apparently have nothing better to do with my time, however, here I go anyway…

I was talking to my sister over the weekend, and we were joking about the NSA listening in on our conversation. Which, hey, it might be for all I know. It’s a nosy little thing like that.

Anyway, just to annoy them if they were tuned in, I said that I hated Obama, then immediately had to check myself. Because that statement just isn’t true.

I don’t hate Obama. I actually don’t know if I hate anyone. It’s such a strong word that gets overused just as much as “love” does these days.

But realizing that didn’t make it any easier to figure out what I do feel about the president of my beloved country. Dislike, disapprove of, object to: None of them seemed to capture my opinion.

The best I can come up with is that he exhausts me.

Obama’s steadfast commitment to what’s wrong is draining. His arrogant refusal to consider any other opinion is wearisome. And his campaign to revise American values is downright bewildering.

I don’t understand being so hateful. So spiteful.  So vindictive, as he seems to be. It boggles my mind how willing he is to jeopardize an entire nation just to prove a point, whatever that is.

He says he cares about the poor and then goes off on one expensive golf trip after another.

He claims he cares about the environment after flying in Air Force One to attend a rally he could have video-conferenced in for.

He took an oath to protect the American people but opens our borders to terrorists, drug dealers and other foreigners who would use us for our resources but give little to nothing back.

And then he laughs in all of our faces when we tell him we deserve better.

Do I hate how he acts? Yes. But as for the man himself?

Honestly? Sometimes I want to just go to sleep and not wake up again until next January when he’s gone from office.

Monday, April 4, 2016

I’m Right! You’re Wrong! End of Story? – Part 3

Remember that research book I mentioned last Thursday and Friday: 1812: War and the Passions of Patriotism by Nicole Eustace?

After page 28, I had to set it down, since that’s the point when she unwittingly reveals she’s just as bigoted and agenda-driven as the Mr. Hezekiah Niles she so zealously attacks.

As I noted on Friday, it was pretty obvious pretty fast that she and I didn’t see eye to eye on politics. While she preaches in the preface how Edmund Burke “warned that emotional words could distort reality even as they shaped understanding,” she herself chooses her language like a duelist selecting her weapon of choice: with calculation to wound or kill, not to educate.

This includes using:

·         Big words to promote her own intellectual superiority (an obnoxious habit that, admittedly, isn’t limited to either political party)
·         Logical fallacies, such as building up her anti-War-of-1812 thesis by praising the British for ending slavery, yet never once mentioning its continuing colonization practices
·         Judgmental phrasing whenever she’s talking about opposing opinions (e.g. “With logic that could only be called…” and [he] perversely tailored his presentation”)

Even so, I was largely amused by her obvious attempts to manipulate her readers. Up until that telling page 28, anyway. That’s when, after citing the narrow-minded Niles over and over and over again as her primary example of what intolerant warmongers “Republicans” were, she writes:

“In 1812, Hezekiah Niles was still an upstart young printer trying to make his name and fortune with the newspaper he called the Weekly Register. Whoever his readers were, they probably did not include many at the highest levels of U.S. policy circles.”

With those two sentences, she went from being petty to flat-out dishonest. Because, by her own acknowledgement, Niles was a small, self-important figure, not the very definition of an entire political movement. If Eustace had any academic or intellectual integrity, she would have noted that when she first brought him up.

I have every intention of eventually reading past page 28 all the way to the end, but not for a while. Not when she’s established herself as such an untrustworthy source. First, I need to analyze my other research books, which were hopefully written by intellectual adults instead of self-righteous children.

Then, armed with actual historical research, I can weed out what’s worthwhile and what’s not in Nicole Eustace’s 1812: War and the Passions of Patriotism.

Friday, April 1, 2016

I’m Right! You’re Wrong! End of Story? – Part 2

As I said yesterday, I’m researching Maiden America III, a.k.a. Proving America, which centers around the War of 1812. Hence the reason why I’m reading 1812: War and the Passions of Patriotism by Nicole Eustace.

While I wasn’t even through the first chapter when I wrote this blog post or its predecessor, the evidence already strongly indicated that Eustace was a lot more liberal than me.

For instance, she brings up the case of Hezekiah Niles, “a Republican newspaper publisher with firm nationalistic views and… a steady promoter of renewed war with Britain.”

I do have to say that – as Eustace well knows, being a professional historian of the era – there was no “Republican” party back then. It was the Democrat-Republicans and the Federalists.

That chastisement aside, Eustace does a thorough job of crucifying Mr. Niles for being a narrow-minded bigot. Moreover, she uses his own written words as the nails. And since he was so opinionated with such a pulpit to preach from, Eustace has a lot of nails to choose from.

Here are just a few:

  • About Native Americans: “Imagination looks forward to the moment when all the southern Indians shall be pushed across the Mississippi: when the delightful countries now occupied by them shall be covered with a numerous and industrious population.”
  • About the British: “Upon the whole, we conceive our author would have been more consistent to have attributed the small proportion of births in England… to the very great licentiousness of manners which prevails to so great a degree… owing to the facility of sexual intercourse.” In other words, the British were disease-ridden sluts.
  • About Africans: “The children are so debauched… that from the age of ten or eleven they give themselves up to every species of lustful practice,” an opinion he apparently went on to use as justification for the slave trade. 


In Nile’s dubious defense, perhaps Eustace took him out of context. I mean, I kinda doubt it, but who knows. If I was wrong about the Battle of Bull Run, I guess I could be wrong about this too.

Yet even giving him that unlikely understanding, the very fact that Niles published those words – unless he was quoting someone else in order to repudiate them – was downright foolish. Those words are out there now for good, making him look like a permanent first-class jerk.

So be careful what opinions you express. For that matter, be careful what opinions you have.

Because sometimes, no matter how passionately you feel about a subject, you’re going to eventually be proven wrong. And it’s best to look as classy as possible when you are.

P.S. Any liberals who read this and are feeling smug and superior? Go back and read “I’m Right! You’re Wrong! End of Story? – Part I.” Or Monday’s “I’m Right! You’re Wrong! End of Story? – Part III.” You’re not even close to being off the hook.