Political Furies: The Voices Never Heard

Whose version of history will endure to future generations?

Three American prisoners released from North Korea, brokered by the Trump Administration.

How will this be memorialized in the history books of future generations of Americans?

The Leftist Version, as articulated by Chuck Schumer:

Ignore the significant deed; emphasize perceived cacology “Kim Jong Un is an honorable man,” spoken by President Trump.

The Right Version:

Three American prisoners released from North Korea as a gesture of goodwill by Kim Jong Un; praised by President Trump to keep the dialogue positive leading up to the upcoming summit to Denuclearize the Korean Peninsula.

Stand up and fight back…

Do not let Leftists control the dialogue such that their anti-American spin becomes immortalized in our future’s history books.

 

Chuck Shumer is openly lying to the Congress.  His lie is the spin with which he criticizes the release of the American prisoners from North Korea.
None of the rhetoric is delivered to praise Kim Jong Un.  The positive rhetoric is to continue the spirit of cooperation with a world figure who has heretofore antagonized the United States.  The Trump Administration’s work to get Kim to cooperate has been historically remarkable.  Unprecedented progress has been made toward denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.  Yet, Leftists mischaracterize the whole event to negatively influence public opinion. The continued use of Straw Man fallacies is tiresome.
Also, Schumer said, “Release should not be praised, it should be expected.” That sentiment was glaringly absent when his Democratic President Obama failed to act when it came to negotiating the release of Otto Warmbier. Where was the”expectation” of release then?

I read that people are appalled that he said that Kim was “an honorable man”.  Then they recite a litany of other words our president has used in reference to Kim, all of which resulted in utter outrage by the Left.

It doesn’t matter what words President Trump uses, his political enemies will semantically or syntactically twist them into a weapon against him. His accomplishments are incontrovertible, so they are pointedly ignored in the press who choose to attack him using every turn of a stone to find mud with which to sling at him. The accomplishments are far more historically significant than his words.

It is most disturbing to me that the same political opponents who derogate Trump for his words have wholeheartedly accepted the lies and corruption dealt by the Leftists who have usurped the Democratic Party.

Attacks on our Constitutional Rights are happening right under our noses.  They have been easy to dismiss as fringe nonsense in the past, but take notice of the current trend.  The Leftists are becoming more vociferous in their desperate attempt to remain relevant, so their agenda is now quite prominent.  You will see it if you take notice…

I recently heard an impressive monologue succinctly spoken by Liz Wheeler:

“Outlaw hate speech = take away any speech that offends your feelings

Preach Tolerance, but hate people who don’t act like you

Preach Inclusion, but ostracize people who think differently than you

Preach against bigotry and hatred, but spew vitriol against anyone who didn’t vote for your candidate

Accuse Republicans of hateful rhetoric while you blame mass shootings on innocent, law-abiding gun owners

Label the NRA a terrorist organization, but refuse to call Radical Islamic Terrorists ‘Radical Islamic Terrorists'”

Under the guise of “common sense” measures posited by Congressional Democrats, here is the groundwork our burgeoning Leftist usurpers are attempting to set:

Hate speech legislation:

1. outlaw hate speech, ostensibly to protect minority groups from racism/bigotry
2. broaden the generalization of “hate speech” to include “speech that makes us feel unsafe”
3. normalize the narrative that opposing opinions “make us feel unsafe” and establish ubiquitous “safe spaces” free of objectionable opinions
4. label all Republican rhetoric as “hate speech” and continually refer to it as such, relying on salience bias to convince the public that it indeed “makes people feel unsafe” (if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will come to believe it.)
5. Outlaw Republican and other Right Wing talk radio, guest orators, etc.

Gun control:

1. enact “common sense” gun legislation, ostensibly to protect the public from “assault rifles” (high capacity magazines, military style weapons, full semi-automatic weapons, and other disinformation… another big lie technique
2. Use “common sense” gun legislation as anchor point for broader interpretation, therefore widening scope of gun ban
3. broaden interpretation of language in gun ban legislation to apply to more and more types of guns
4. control the narrative by applying language from gun ban legislation to describe more types of guns
5. Eventually ban the sale of all guns

Hate Groups/Terrorist Organization

1. continue big lie technique repeatedly labeling NRA as “terrorist organization”
2. Criminalize association with “terrorist organization” known as NRA
3. Use criminalized association with NRA as pretext to confiscate guns
4. Use confiscation of guns as pretext to criminalize ownership of guns
5. Incarcerate gun owners, thereby eliminating your political enemies

This may seem like a slippery slope/conspiracy theory, but the “hate speech” backhand censorship is already happening on college campuses.  Pay close attention to this indoctrination, because these brainwashed college students will soon be the pool from which our political leaders will be drawn.

Do not give an inch in terms of ceding our Constitutional Rights.  The Left is notorious for taking a mile for every inch they are given.

What’s that?

All week long I heard the media NOT report a racially charged police incident.  That’s odd… according to social justice activists, we are led to believe there is war against black men waged by the police.  I would think the media would not be able to resist reporting the casualties of this “war”, providing a daily litany of the dead.

Kaepernick posited this in a recent public interview: The

“Racialized oppression and dehumanization is woven into the very fabric of our nation — the effects of which can be seen in the lawful lynching of black and brown people by the police, and the mass incarceration of black and brown lives in the prison industrial complex,” Kaepernick said.

I offer a rejoinder to this allegation.

Here is a list of deductions that lead me to believe that this “racialized oppression” simply is not so…

• If there were racially charged police incidents, the press would not fail to publicize them.
• The press compulsively publicizes controversies to capitalize on public obsession with political and social strife.
• The press is not reporting such controversies on a regular basis.  In fact, the incidents are rare and often misrepresented.
• Therefore, I deduce that there is, in fact, NOT “lawful lynching” occurring at all by the police… nor a war waged on black men

A sciamachy is an act of fighting an imaginary enemy…

Colin Kaepernick unnecessarily injected racial strife into the NFL by mounting a useless, pointless protest against a sciamachy.  The “rampant racism in law enforcement” does not exist in the 21^st century.  Cries of racism have been injected into clashes with police when it is not truly the issue.  This grandstanding at the expense of fueling racial strife needs to stop.

Censorship in its full glory… enacted ostensibly as an overture to “social justice”… yet, censorship just the same

New Political Vocabulary awareness…

• Bias response teams
• Restorative justice
• Unconscious bias training
• Cultural appropriation training
• Diversity education
• “Open Minded” Culture
• Heckler’s veto

Why is it that people in the 21^st Century, an era comparatively devoid of racism vis a vis the 20^th Century, are utterly crippled by the phantasm of racism they envision behind every act, every statement, and every political claim of their opposition?

Well, crippled is a misleading term; they are feigning “discrimination” any time things don’t turn out the way they want.  Rather than “suffer” from the alleged discrimination, the accusers are using their indignation for political leverage.  This “weaponized indignation” is proving to be quite effective, enabled by guilt-ridden conservatives who recoil, recant, and resign as a result of the backlash of umbrage.

1.  Weaponized Indignation:  It is clear that the constant onslaught of racial indignation has served as a very effective propaganda movement.  It has rendered the topic of racism so taboo, so sacrosanct, so fraught with insensitivity vs. outrage that it has become impossible to carry on a factual, logical discussion about it.
2. Demonization of their Oppositin:  The prevailing attitude in our society has established a false dichotomy fallacy that either you are “outraged by the rampant racism, oppression, bigotry, etc.” in America, or you are guilty of “racism, bigotry, intolerance, anti-diversity, white supremacist, white nationalist, etc.”  The political stigma of being slandered as a “Racist” is extremely difficult to cleanse, therefore most political leaders will avoid controversies altogether rather than risk the subsequent tarnished reputation from the inevitable slander campaigns.

The purpose of my discussion here is to flout this false dichotomy and engage in a “hate-free” analysis of current trends.  I repeat… this is a HATE-FREE analysis, so I reject any allegations to the contrary.  I promote the empowerment of all races in America.  What I am attempting to point out is the continued victimization mentality that is stripping them of the empowerment they should have.

The frenzy generated by this sciamachy has led to the congelation of “social justice” activist groups.  The violent nature of these groups is particularly unsettling because they instigate violence against the persons that constitute “hate groups”.  The inevitable retaliatory violence that ensues is, as appears to be the stratagem, attributed to the group that was assaulted.   “Speech is violence” is their mantra, intended to justify their pre-emptive assaults.

Everyone with whom I have broached this subject has said the exact same thing:  “I had friends who were there!”  Spoken as though that hearsay is indisputable truth.  It’s not; it’s a fallacy because there are numerous ways “eyewitness” accounts can be corrupted.

So, not only is freedom of speech being overtly curtailed by college administrations, it is being violently quashed by “social justice” gangs who at the very least use the heckler’s veto to shout down conservative speakers, yet more often violently endanger or intimidate conservative speakers resulting in the cancellation of their appearances.

Ultimately, I speak not in defense of white supremacists.  I speak in defense of the First Amendment.

William Perry Pendley, President Mountain State Legal Foundation, used this term:  A trap for the unwary…

Curtailing the speech rights of white supremacists, even though they are universally abhorred, is a trap for the unwary.

A Trap for the Unwary, in the case of hate speech, is that language in any legislation can be subject to interpretation.  The subjectivity of interpretation is the threat to the First Amendment.

We are already seeing what Leftists intend to do with their subjective interpretation of “hate speech”.  They are showing their cards left and right all over college campuses in the United States.  They are claiming to “feel unsafe” because of the words of ALL Conservative orators.  So they have every intention of using “common sense” hate speech legislation to shut down the speech capabilities of their opposition.

That is why I am speaking out regarding this matter; not to defend any one group.

Imagine what they will do with “common sense gun legislation”…

 

We have been inflicted with a contagion.  A revisionist history narrative is growing that  involves the disparagement of our Founding Fathers.  There are calls for the removal of their memorials because of allegations of hypocrisy.

Stop these people in their tracks:

Hypocrisy is not a valid counter-argument for the logic of one’s position.  The Tu Quoque Fallacy is being weaponized to deracinate our history.  Reject their claim, regardless of their corrupt appeal to pity for the woes of non-whites during the formation of America.  That appeal is a fallacy, too.

America was built from a “political void” as a foundation to “form a more perfect union”.  From the beginning, the intent was to become more perfect.  It was acknowledged that America did not instantly manifest as THE perfect union.  Therefore, to look back from a perspective of nearly 250 years of more and more progress toward the perfect union and pass judgment on the failure of the founders to “uphold the values” that had 250 years to develop is an anachronism.  It is an unfair comparison.  It is the equivalent of criticizing the medical profession for performing surgery without anesthesia in the 1860’s… there simply were neither many options nor much supply of anesthetics in that period of history…

I heard a news contributor state this (I will try to find out this person’s name so I can properly credit this quote):  “We live life forward without knowing what’s going to happen, but then we look at life backward…”

Consider the first part of this quote:  “We live life forward without knowing what’s going to happen…

Think of Historical figures and their significant contributions to the development of our nation.  They were living life forward from a world that was characterized by:

• Minimal development of civilization
• Human brutality toward others
• Despotism that quashed liberty
• Imperialistic drive for national self-sufficiency

 

Peoples were territorial out of necessity for self-preservation

Priorities of nations were:

• Trade (ports, rivers)
• Secure borders (natural protective boundaries)
• National defense 
• Natural Resources

 

Throughout history mankind:

• Brutally dominated other peoples
• Enslaved others to secure dominance and maintain a supply of manual labor
• Sought to expand territorial holdings for purposes of natural resources, access to trade, and to provide a buffer zone for defense

…but then we look at life backward.

History is now taught from a judgmental perspective rather than a factual one.

It is a fallacy to pass judgment on historical figures if the condemnation is anachronistic. 

For example, consider the words of a politician who refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance:  “I respect America’s values, but I don’t respect America’s failure to uphold those values”

 American education is now condemning our founding fathers for moral dilemmas and flaws that are an anachronism for the progress of liberty in their time.

•  How could Thomas Jefferson pioneer liberty while continuing to own slaves?
• How could America fight the brutality of Axis powers while bombing their cities and using atomic weapons?
• How could America claim moral high ground when it stole its land from the indigenous peoples of North America?
•  (Insert the paradox du jour of any given Anti-American protester…)

While these are compelling philosophical questions, they commit fallacies of logic when used as condemnation of America and its founding fathers.

 The perfect is the enemy of the good… America has experienced over 200 years of forming a “more perfect union”.  What we have now is completely different than what existed in Jefferson’s time.    There was no democracy, no individual liberty, therefore, any such establishment required political invention; there was no contemporaneous model.

 Jefferson and Washington were significant historical figures because they were instrumental in the invention of such an establishment.  The liberties they established were utterly experimental.  They had to be conceptualized, dictated in legal terms so that they could not be infringed, put into practice, and protected.

•  Why were the liberties of women, slaves, etc. not included in the original deal? 

Consider the tabula rasa concept.  The Constitution was a blank slate.  The authors had several obstacles to clear before the document would be accepted:

• Everything had to accommodate the needs of an extremely diverse demographic from Georgia to New Hampshire.  
• The unification had to be fair so that no one group would develop greater power and become the next despot.
• The prevailing decorum of the time was that political participation was most relevant to individuals who possessed a higher education.
• Political power had always been possessed by landowners (those who historically had the most stake in the interest of law)
• Landowners, by default, happened to be wealthy
• (many, many other conventions held by historical precedent, forming the prevailing concept of governance)

… to be continued…

• 

A Democratic politician justified her refusal to recite the pledge of allegiance as such:

… not because I don’t respect our country’s values, but because of our country’s failure to uphold them.

This claim is a fallacy:  The perfect is the enemy of the good

Using this corrupt logic, you will forever be awarded license to commit acts of disrespect and hide behind this smokescreen of defiance.

In terms of logic, hypocrisy does not invalidate the logic of one’s claim.

Therefore, claiming that she is entitled to disrespect America based on its failure to uphold its values ignores the logic of the values themselves.

This defiance, as well as Colin Kaepernick’s NFL movement to kneel during our national anthem, needs to be called out for the fallacy that it is.

WE REJECT YOUR INVALID CLAIM.

AMERICA’S VALUES ARE TO BE ASSESSED ON THE MERIT OF THEIR LOGIC; NOT ON WHETHER OR NOT YOU DETECT HYPOCRISY IN THE UPHOLDING OF THOSE VALUES!

As the 2018 election season approaches, I feel compelled to point out a major flaw in campaign rhetoric, and media commentaries in general, that has degraded our dialogue for too long.  The rampant relegation of meaningful discussion to uncontested utterances of fallacy deserves critical consideration.

At the risk of sounding like a tutorial for high school debate club, I would like to point out the corrupt appeals in the claims of politicians and news personalities.  My intent is to arm my fellow conservatives with logical means to degrade the rhetorical attacks of Leftists.  The barrage of utter slander leveled at our current president is alarming.  So, let’s fight back.

Fallacy Call-Out #1:  The Straw Man Fallacy

Among multiple fallacy usage, the one I notice that permeates nearly every argument posed by Leftists is the “Straw Man”.  This fallacy is a misrepresentation of the opponent’s stance posited in order to make it easier to attack.  We see it all the time:  “Donald Trump wants to make America WHITE again!”  …Fallacy Alert… The Straw Man here is the corruption of President Trump’s position, misrepresenting it as a racist agenda.  That corrupt appeal to outrage (implying white supremacy attitude) is a total misrepresentation of the Trump Administration’s vision for America.

Our president’s call for stricter adherence to immigration laws, border protection, and construction of a border wall has nothing to do with racism.  Factually speaking, it is clear the intent is to correct an illegal immigration problem that has been allowed to escalate out of control for many years; the move to tighten the enforcement of existing laws is not racist at all.  However, the Left mischaracterizes President Trump’s agenda as “racist” because that universally abhorrent designation is easy to attack.

Retaliation:

1. Stop your opponent’s claim in its tracks by naming the fallacy that it is: A Straw Man, an invalid argument
2. Call out their slanderous claim and insist they state a valid claim that conforms to the decorum of logical debate.
3. Refuse to be drawn into the argument by mounting a defense that is already suffering a disadvantage. Your rhetorical disadvantage is that you are not defending your actual position; you are attempting to refute a misrepresentation, which is not only a hopeless endeavor, but a complete waste of time trying to dig yourself out of a hole rather than beginning on a level playing field.
4. Insist on a restated claim: This will deflect the disadvantage and return it to your opponent, because they will need to rethink their argument.
5. Repeatedly call out your opponent’s claim for the fallacy that it is until they establish a factual, logical claim.

Far too long, conservatives have enabled the Left to control the narrative through use of fallacy that usurps the high ground of the argument.  This is an invalid debate technique.  It is time we stand up and fight back by reclaiming the narrative