Playing A Dangerous Game

"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

We've all heard that quote before, and frankly, I think we should take it to heart.  It's generally attributed to Voltaire, but some have said it was from a biography of Voltaire penned by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, who wrote under the pseudonym S. G. Tallentyre.   She was an English writer best known for her biography of Voltaire titled The Life of Voltaire, first published in 1903. She also wrote The Friends of Voltaire, which she completed in 1906.  She didn't actually say it, she intimated that Voltaire said it. So, notwithstanding the feminists' claim to the quote, I'll credit Voltaire, thank you just the same.

But think about it when you hear the next snowflake whine about hate speech, whatever that is.  One of my best friends used to joke with this witticism: "I'm not bigoted; I just avoid niggers, spics and Jews!" The humor of this is in its contradiction.  But the truth and subtlety of the statement is lost on those pearl clutchers who immediately feign outrage at those three censored words.  Oops, that's hate speech.  We gotta stomp that out.  But there's no hate there.  It's simply a stated personal preference, which all of us have.  But what if we applied Voltaire's maxim instead of being triggered or offended?  We may recoil in disgust at its vulgarity, but if we truly champion free speech, we defend the right to say it, and move on.

It seems we've unlearned the old schoolyard rhyme:  "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."  Not so in today's infantile "woke" culture.  We're taught now that words are akin to assault.  We are encouraged to seek safe spaces from words that trigger or offend.  And we're further encouraged to shame, or condemn or even arrest those who may speak of things abhorrent to us, or to use words or phraseology that somehow upsets our tender sensibilities. 

The English language is one of the most - if not the most - expressive language in use today.  It's full of nuance and form and meaning that enhances conceptual understanding.  Ideas and concepts are made easier to grasp using English, because it contains a plethora of words that when combined into sentences, make thoughts and ideas more understandable.  For example, the Second Edition of the 20-volume Oxford English Dictionary, published in 1989, contains full entries for 171,476 words in current use, and 47,156 considered obsolete. Add to this around 9,500 derivative words included as sub-entries.  Yet the average native English speaker acquires a vocabulary of perhaps 48,000 during his lifetime. 

But some elitists want to decimate this rich language by eliminating certain words they don't like.  And why are the Marxist/Socialist left in this country so anxious to ban or censor certain words?  To regulate, moderate and censor free speech, perhaps?  To nullify the God-given right to speak freely and openly?  Merely because some indoctrinated snowflake may be offended by hearing them?  To spare some idiot's tender sensibilities?  Or is there a more nefarious reason the left seeks to change the language?  If you change the language, you change the process of cognition, or understanding, and yes, of meaning.  So instead of using a vibrant and expressive language to seek ever deeper meaning, and exploring ideas more vigorously, the left seeks the opposite: rigid, dumbed-down and unenlightened. And that's their goal - to transform the basic concepts of understanding so that it adheres to, and supports, the left's insane world view.

Stimulate thinking and knowledge, or adhere to a rigid limited political dogma?  Expand the human brain, or deliberately atrophy it?  I know what my choice is; I'll use my native language as completely as I am able.  But the elitists, who seek to return society to a class structured feudalism, have made their choice as well.  But only for us, not for them.

And that's playing a dangerous game. 

Insanity in Review

It keeps getting curiouser and curiouser, as Lewis Carroll's Alice might say.  That would be my assessment, too, as I return from a week or more of blissful insulation from the constant assault of fake news and communist propaganda.   So after a reprieve from such in the mountains of upstate New York, I return to review the news and offer comments below.  And in no particular order.

Withdrawal from Syria.

Well, okay, kinda sorta. First, let me say that any US involvement in the Middle East is like trying to juggle Jello.  It can't be done.  That's been proven over the last 18 years in Iraq and Afghanistan.  There's no peace to be made in that region simply because we're dealing with ancient tribal peoples trying to exist in a twenty-first century world.  Allies made today become adversaries tomorrow, because loyalties aren't necessary to nations or to ideologies, but to familial, tribal or religious constructs.  Further, the prevailing religion there is so factionalized that no foreign policy by the US would have any long term value.  But that said, economic stabilization as well as the containment of radical Islam in the region is of paramount importance.  While President Trump may draw down some US forces there, he also repositioned others in country.  He hasn't abandoned the Kurds, he's made it possible for the US to pressure Turkey to behave in ways that do not include more boots on the ground. By threatening financial collapse of Turkey's fragile economy, he's won the battle without the loss of American or Kurdish lives.  Remember that Klaus von Clausewitz observed in his famous axiom that "politics is war by other means."  Politics is deal making, and Trump is well versed in the art of the deal. And isn't "troop reduction" what the democrats have been demanding for decades?  The US, under the Kenyan's reign, emboldened the radical Islamists with tacit endorsement, arms and money, and to reverse that insanity will require something other than brute force alone.

Fake News, Fake Impeachment

There's a House committee to study impeachment, led by rabid partisans, but there's no there there.  The impeachment “inquiry” is simply an all-for-show circus.  There's little, if any, chance it will ever result in the House actually filing legitimate articles of impeachment, and even if it somehow manages to do so, impeachment will survive neither a trial in the Senate nor a motion to dismiss. Democrats won’t admit it, but they are keenly aware of that, too.  But the charade will go on.  Everyone, Democrats, the media, and the American public realize that this is nothing more than an attempt to enhance the existing Orange Man Bad narrative:  Impeach Trump.  They won't because they can't, but the narrative will live on.  Meanwhile, what’s really at stake here that enough dumbed-down, fake news consuming voters will believe it enough to effect the 2020 election.  They hope to divide Trump from his base, which is unlikely in any magnitude.  The Democrats simply can't win on ideas because they haven't any, so they have to cheat to win.  Expect harvested ballots, "found" ballots, dead voters walking, and illegals bused from state to state.  And in addition to flat out DNC cheating, the fake impeachment narrative will be constant background noise, and it will not stop.  Meanwhile, the White House politely declined to play the game as the House issued a "pretend subpoena" to Trump to produce documents to the committee. 

The Kenyan Exposed

Oops.  Looks like the despicable Kenyan has been exposed as the ringleader of the failed coup d'etat that tried to take down a duly elected president of the United States.  Is seems that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper was interviewed on CNN this week and during this interview, he defended the actions of the intelligence community during the 2016 election.  In so doing he implicated the Kenyan   This from PJ Media:

When asked by CNN anchor Jim Sciutto if he was concerned that Attorney General Barr's and U.S. Attorney John Durham's criminal investigation into the scandal will find any wrongdoing on their part, Clapper said, "Well, I don't know, I don't think there was any wrongdoing," which doesn't exactly inspire a lot of confidence, but then he said something really interesting. "I know, for my part, my main concern was with the Russians and the threat posed by the Russians to our very political fabric and uhhhh, the message I'm getting from all of this is apparently what we were supposed to have done was to ignore the Russian interference, ignore the Russian meddling and the threat that it poses to us, and oh, by the way, blown off what the then commander-in-chief, President Obama, told us to do, which was to assemble all of the reporting we could, that we had available to us."

"It’s kind of disconcerting now to be investigated for, you know, having done our duty and done what we were told to do by the president," Clapper added.

Wow.  Talk about gall.  These Kenyan-worshiping mutts did everything they could to smear - and frame - Trump, but now that they are being investigated for high treason, they're all whinny and pitiful, cowards that they are.  But even more telling is that it is now confirmed that the Kenyan was directly involved in the Trump surveillance scandal - er, I mean treasonous coup.

A point to consider:  During the Nuremberg trials after WWII, many of the Nazis accused of war crimes used the "I was only following orders" defense.  It didn't work; they were shot.  In fact, that defense lead to a legal precedent, known as Nuremberg Principle IV which states: “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.”

When the Kenyan is indicted for treason, and he will be, he'll take down the rest of the swamp with him, including our gal Hil.  I can't wait.

And Speaking of Hill
I have long thought that by the time election day rolls around, our gal Hil will be the Democrat candidate for president in 2020.  In fact, I predicted that Mike Robinson, the Kenyan's wife or something, would be the Veep.  Now it seems she's - that's Hillary I'm talking about - is actually ramping up some enthusiasm for another Clinton candidacy.  Hil's been dragging Chelsea Hubble around, trying to soften her brazen evil image, I suspect.  She has tenacity if nothing else; she lost to the Kenyan in 2008, and she lost to Trump in 2016.  Now she's up for a rematch with Trump.  The problem is, she'll have to destroy Pocahontas to get there.  But hey, rigging elections is what Clintons do, right?  And Donna Brazile and Bernie Sanders - bless his heart - are still around to help.  So there's that.  But Debbie Wassermann-Schultz is a burned bridge.  But I have a hard time envisioning Warren taking a back seat to Clinton, given that Hil is roundly despised by American voters. But you know Hil - she has a way of getting her way.  Think Seth Rich, Victor Thorn and Shawn Lucas.  And those are just the recent deaths involving her 2016 campaign.  There are lot of others who got sideways with her, and who are now deceased.  But what will be the real contest is whether Hil has the political might to overcome the resistance she'll get from the DNC.  They want no part of her, her health, or her other considerable baggage.  And worse, she's just too moderate for the new Socialist-Islam-Communist Democrat wing of the DNC.  But bring popcorn.  It will be a hoot to watch.