Why are they called 'Protestors'? Because the pen is mightier than the sword and your carelessness can kill you

Not 'protesting': Stochastic terrorism

Stop calling them protestors. The pen is mightier than the sword, and wielding it carelessly can kill you. And they know that.

These people who've been acting violently in the streets (again), are not protesters, and you should not tolerate the misidentification of their threats to your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

These people that are stopping people's cars in the streets, these people who are rioting outside federal facilities, these people that are harassing and interfering with law enforcement officers, rousting people out of diners, accosting random passersby while demanding that they identify themselves and denounce our laws, these people that invade and disrupt church services - these people are not protesters, and they are not in any reasonable way, committing their violent actions in support of any civil liberties, whatsoever.

CRT ...Maoism by any other name

Who and what these people are, are pro-regressive insurrectionists, who're driven by marxist totalitarian ideologies, and they are engaged in violence against the public peace of America. They're able to do what they are doing, day in and day out, because their unchecked misuse of our words is shielding them from the consequences of committing violence against us, consequences that should and would unquestionably follow, if we took our own language seriously. If you're one of those who was taught to think of grammar as unimportant & arbitrary conventions about the use of commas, see Josef Pieper's brief (and terrifying) essay: "Abuse of language, Abuse of power".

Why does it matter whether we call them 'protestors' or 'insurrectionists'? Because the pen is mightier than the sword!

If you persist in using their language of deception - a deception that goes back at least as far as the 'Berkeley *free speech* movement' (which was itself nothing more than organized political violence against the public peace) - that misidentifies who and what these folks are, then any reaction you have to their actions (actions which are plotted by them to instigate an overreaction from you), will be easily spun by them and their co-conspirators in the popular media, academia, and bureaucracies, to portray you as being in the wrong and as some form of anti-American fascist that is opposed to free speech and civil liberties.

Willful insanity

Our society is held together by language, do you really think that misusing and misunderstanding the language we use can be tolerated and engaged in without consequences?

Do you not understand that the laws that uphold and protect our individual rights, lives, and property, are made from those same words that we've got in the habit of not paying attention to? The Rule of Law cannot be any sounder or stronger than our understanding and commitment to the words they are made from!

The pen is mightier than the sword and mishandling it can lead to serious injury to you and those around you.

They are following the insurrectionist tactics that have been taught by Marxist revolutionaries, from Alinsky. to Prairie Fire, and Beautiful Trouble - each of which expresses a violent opposition to the principles of the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and the Rule of Law - which is what makes them Pro-Regressive (they seek to regress our society to the time before those principles were understood and upheld), and a danger to every aspect of our lives.

Stop calling them protestors. Just stop it.

Training in Insurrection

You need to read this

Attacking persons & property

Americans have property in America. Or not.

Why have I not had anything to say about the 'Infrastructure Bill' (which considers requiring Breathalyzers in new cars, to be part of 'infrastructure') or Biden's CDC '60-day eviction moratorium' (AKA: elimination of private property)? Why bother pretending that supporting either one is anything other than deciding against 'the American way', to choose between whichever flavor of tyranny - socialism, marxism, communism, fascism - it is that you prefer? There is no way to read either of these, and pretend that isn't what they are about, and I just have no interest in helping anyone pretend there's something legitimately debatable in either one.

"...gradual and silent encroachments..."

I've gone over the ideas and principles involved here, way too many times, and the reality is that the issue really is as simple as what James Madison laid it out in his essay on Property, back in 1792. Fortunately, with the level of literacy and understanding that was the norm in America at that time, those who didn't already understand the nature of private property, could read his essay, and both understand his point, and the importance of it.

The issue that is being decided with these two... 'measures' today, is really whether a century of 'modern *education*' was enough to eliminate Americans from America, or if it still requires a few more semesters to complete the process. 

Pop-Quiz: Do you understand that these two statements are saying the same thing:

"Property must be secured, or liberty cannot exist."
John Adams, 'Discourses on Davila', following his 'A Defense of the Constitutions of the Governments of the United States of America'

"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
Karl Marx, 'Communist Manifesto'

If not, then the answer is that in your case, a century of 'modern *education*' was enough for you - you've either made your choice, or abandoned the effort altogether. 

For the rest of us, there's this:

James Madison, Property
29 Mar. 1792Papers 14:266--68

This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.

Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho' from an opposite cause.

Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.

According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just securing to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.

More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favour his neighbour who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the oeconomical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!

A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.

If there be a government then which prides itself in maintaining the inviolability of property; which provides that none shall be taken directly even for public use without indemnification to the owner, and yet directly violates the property which individuals have in their opinions, their religion, their persons, and their faculties; nay more, which indirectly violates their property, in their actual possessions, in the labor that acquires their daily subsistence, and in the hallowed remnant of time which ought to relieve their fatigues and soothe their cares, the influence [inference?] will have been anticipated, that such a government is not a pattern for the United States.

If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments.

The Founders' Constitution
Volume 1, Chapter 16, Document 23
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s23.html
The University of Chicago Press

The Papers of James Madison. Edited by William T. Hutchinson et al. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press, 1962--77 (vols. 1--10); Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1977--(vols. 11--).

Trump's Tweets - De-ranting Washington's Rules of Civili-Tweeting.

Ok, so... as my Monday rant on the furor over Trump's Tweets has faded from my blood pressure, some questions have surfaced about it - sorry, but rants being what they are, it may not have been too clear on who or what my rant was directed at in the wake of Trump's tweets.

No, I was not ranting against Trump... directly. I was more ranting over how the ludicrous offendocrats (Left, Right & Center), have dutifully ignored ALL of the instances of truly anti-American, racist, mendacious, tyrannical and ideological norms that've run amuck in our Politically Correct world today (I'd hoped that the many links in the rant would point ya'll's attention that-a-way). Outrages which they've  so easily and entirely ignored for decades, and yet these same flustered pearl-clutchers come wide awake and fully aroused, when Trump tactlessly points out some harsh opinions, flawed facts and obvious truths, causing themselves, the media, and the various 'spheres (Twitter, Blogger, etc) to spaz out with an:

"Egads! The Orange Man has failed to be a shining example of George Washington's Rules of Civility! Burn him! And everyone who agrees with him!"

They vent their outrage over Trump's Tweets, while ignoring the fact that they themselves not only utterly fail to live up to that ideal (in everything from Pink Pussy Hats & Slut Walks, to violently silencing Free Speech & fascist antifa terrorism and thuggery, etc), but it's a standard that they've been actively ridiculing for decades (again, see my rant's links).

To give the short answer first, before getting into the details of why, no, Trump's Tweets were not racist, and what is most upsetting about the the outrage over Trump's Tweets, is that there's nothing, nothing, to be upset about in them - the outrage you find there, is your own. And by focusing on these four, the outrages of thousands of others, are ignored. But if racist is what you're looking for, I'll be happy to direct you to a select few of the many comments of Omar, Tlaib, Ocasio-Cortez, Pressley, and more, that are racist, and biggoted, and anti-Semitic and anti-American. That being said though, Trump's Tweets were worded in such a way as to guarantee an uproar, and as bad as that is, what's worse is that it's very likely the only way that We The People of today would take notice of what desperately needs being taken notice of, and now. Sad.

To be clear about what direction I'm coming at this from, as I've said too many times before, I'm not a Trump Supporter (though I most definitely used Trump's name on my ballot to counter the greater threat to the nation in the Pro-Regressive Hillary presidency posed), but I'm also not a Trump Hater, I'm simply not a fan, and haven't been since the 1980's (even in his "Art of the Deal", he showed a willingness to use govt to aid his own ends, which I'm opposed to, and his personal style in doing so, doesn't appeal to me), but I've never had reason to think him to be a fool, or a racist, or a fascist, or a [insert idiotic blank here], and while I've been unsurprised at the number of his missteps, loose comments, self-inflicted tweets, etc., that's he's made, I've also been pleasantly surprised, and pleased by the majority of his actual actions in office, especially those which involve reducing regulations, making generally good use of the military, and the judiciary - mostly in the lower courts, as Kavanaugh is about what I expected of him, yet Gorsuch was a very pleasant surprise.

What I do support politically, is our Constitutional form of representative, limited govt, where Govt's powers are limited to upholding and defending Individual Rights and (and that last 'and' is only

Trump's Tweets and the Serious Consequences of We The People (a rant)

rant: Look, you might as well go read the very sensible comments upon Trump's Tweets, which Charles C. W. Cooke had to say (H/T Dana), or go to Lindsay Graham to hear what will please the Right half of you, or go to CNN to hear what will please the Left half of you, because all I have to say is what none of you want to hear.

Don't believe me? Ok, here ya go: So... lemme guess... you're all stirred up because Trump tweeted, or by those he tweeted at. Again. Huh.

And you're shocked about that? Seriously? And you expect me to be shocked? Please. I really don't care whether you support Trump, tolerate or oppose him, or are a NeverTrump'r, I'm sorry/not-sorry, but your shock and outrage at him, or at his critics, or at those he was critical of, is disingenuous, pathetic, and deplorable.

What's that? There are anti-American representatives in Congress? Ya know what it means if there are anti-American representatives in Congress? It means that there are a hell of a lot of Anti-American Americans in America, that they represent!

CLUE!

Listen up buttercup: We The People (that's all o' y'all) have been making some consequential choices for a very long time - and with those choices, habits, and educational standards, in Art and entertainment preferences, et-friggin'-cettera, we've chosen to move on from:

• Plato, Aristotle & Aquinas, to Descartes, Rousseau & Kant;
• Homer, Shakespeare &The Federalist Papers, to textbooks, modernistic drivel, and the Green New Deal;
• Adam Smith, Jean Baptiste Say & Frédéric Bastiat, to Marx, Keynes & Paul Krugman(!);
• Civility, manners & polite regard, to hostility, sarcasm & rudeness;
• Ward Cleaver to Al Bundy;
• Wally Cleaver to Bart Simpson;
• Annette Funicello to Miley Cyrus;

And no matter how fair it isn't, what all of those choices mean, is that we've mandated that presidents such as Silent Cal Coolidge, are no longer an option in America, they're now a thing of the past, because we've 'progressed' - and guess what: What that 'progress' looks like is Donald Trump Tweeting, and those he's tweeting at.

And you want me to get all upset over the pitiful handful of a few whoevers that you think are our 'real problems' today, while all o' y'all busily ignore the rest? Please. Maybe tomorrow. But for now, have a chair.

And don't give me no Left, Right, or Libertarian finger-pointing B.S. - We The People, and that's all o' y'all, have gotten into the habit of making the choices that we've been making, and the consequences of those choices (and the ideas that drive them - or fail to), are what have brought us to where we are today.

Choices have consequences. Don't tell me you haven't made those choices yourself, that's a lie, and whether you're lying to me or to yourself, lying by commission or omission, I really don't give a damn - you either knew that the choices you've made, or not objected to, were wrong, or you suspected they were and didn't bother to find out why, or if you understood why you didn't do all of what you needed to do about them. Same difference. And no, I don't excuse myself from that, although I've renounced (most) of them, and have done (some) of what I could about them, at one time I too explicitly made them, or enabled them by default. By choice.

Those choices have consequences. Those consequences are not optional. The world we find ourselves in today, is one that we've all chosen to bring about.

If you want to change the world, if you want to make the world great again, start with yourself, and change what you think and why, change how you treat others, and change what examples you teach others by.

In the meantime...as the consequences of what all o' y'all have chosen are continuing to come home to roost upon our faces, just shut-up about it already. Go do something to create better consequences, and get the hell off of my lawn.
/rant

Americans vs America - To Keep and Bear Arms Across Time - pt4

America, and Americans - what do they have left in common? If that strikes you as an odd question to ask, you probably haven't taken a public position (as I've been doing in these recent posts) on something like the the 1st, or 2nd Amendments to our Constitution. Do that, and I think you'll quickly notice, as in these examples below, how divided we now are by the very ideas that once defined us:

• On our college campus's, opposing views are increasingly being met not with the force of persuasion, but the persuasion of force:

  "...A controversial conservative commentator was escorted by police from California State University, Los Angeles as angry demonstrators protested his presence on campus Thursday afternoon...."

• in the state of California, a State Senator has proposed infringing upon the freedom of speech, by proposing a bill, SB1424, to have the state approve which news is fit to print:

  "...This bill would require any person who operates a social media, as defined, Internet Web site with a physical presence in California to develop a strategic plan to verify news stories shared on its Web site. The bill would require the plan to include, among other things, a plan to mitigate the spread of false information through news stories, the utilization of fact-checkers to verify news stories, providing outreach to social media users, and placing a warning on a news story containing false information...."

• Dana Loesch is a clear example of how exercising those rights that are protected under the 1st Amendment, in support of those protected by the 2nd Amendment, can result in not only a barrage of tweets and shouts for you to be raped and murdered (non-violently, of course), but it can also leave you in need of physical protection to escape those who'd physically like to harm you:

  "..."I had to have a security detail to get out," she said of the Sunrise, Fla. event. "I wouldn't be able to exit that if I didn't have a private security detail. There were people rushing the stage and screaming burn her. And I came there to talk solutions and I still am going to continue that conversation on solutions as the NRA has been doing since before I was alive."..."

• Even the idea of Americans being 'United' is dividing us, as this 'think piece' that was endorsed by the CEO of Twitter as a "Great Read", which yearns for one party rule, the end of the GOP, while promoting California as the role model for a new 'peaceful' Civil War to banish 'The Right' from power, and from 'respectable' society. If you doubt that, just take note that part 4 of this 'great read', is subtitled:

  "Why there’s no bipartisan way forward at this juncture in our history — one side must win"
  

  

These are not simply emotional outbursts that've been stirred up in public gatherings, they are the results of persistent, considered intellectual positions that have been percolating up from academia, and have been spilling out into our mainstream conversations for decades. Some recent examples can be found in last year's debates over whether it was ok to "Punch a Nazi" (with the implication being that violence as political speech is ok, if you happen to think of the other side as being a Nazi, or in sympathy with them), or the New York Times' opinion piece calling to "Repeal the 2nd Amendment", and of course we recently had a retired Supreme Court Justice writing an op-ed in that same 'newspaper of record', calling to Repeal the 2nd Amendment, on the basis of public opinion - or at least that part of the public that agrees with him - rather than on the basis of those American ideals which the Constitution was written to preserve, protect and defend.

As I say, it's easy to see what divides us today - but how easy is it for Americans of today to see what it was that once united us, and how?

Back at the time of our founding, America was 13 colonies of people who then, as now, held often radically different views and interests, and were prone to dislike and distrust the people in those 'other' colonies. How were they able to unite? Today, more than ever, that's a question worth re-asking.

Ideas, not positions, united us
When Thomas Jefferson took up the task of writing the Declaration of Independence, he intended it to express ideas that were common to the American mind,

"...Neither aiming at originality of principle or sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion. All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, &c...."

Dear Offendocrats: Please gather up your totalitarian virtues and Piss off! Thank you.

I had a short breather yesterday before being pulled back under the whirlpool of work, and as I looked out at the world for the first time in days, it was a struggle not to laugh bitterly at the stupidity abounding about us and dive back into the whirlpool. But eventually you reach a point where stupidity passes beyond the point where you can smile rudely, or sadly, and still manage some sympathy for a fool's victimization of themselves; there's a point where it descends into something that is purely obscene - and ladies and gentlemen, we've reached that point.

Appropriately enough, this latest episode began with a rodeo clown. It seems that what happened was that a rodeo clown did what rodeo clowns have been doing for decades, going at least back to Nixon (Richard, that is), and the clown put on a presidential mask, mixed it in with some clownish buffoonery, and amused the crowds while distracting the bulls from the riders.

That's their job.

Usually the only shit they have to deal with in such situations, is what comes out of the bulls.

This time however, the actual shit that came out of the bull's ass was positively fragrant and hygienic in comparison to what has come out of the mouths of our fellow citizens and elected officials.

Dana Loesch has skewered & linked to a stunning amount of human BS related to this episode, but there are a few stand-outs that I've got to point out.
One, is what MO Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) had to say:

"“If what’s being reported is true, then it’s shameful and it’s unacceptable. The State Fair is funded by taxpayer dollars, and is supposed to be a place where we can all bring our families and celebrate the state that we love. But the young Missourians who witnessed this stunt learned exactly the wrong lesson about political discourse-that somehow it’s ever acceptable to, in a public event, disrespect, taunt, and joke about harming the President of our great nation. Missouri is better than this, and I expect someone to be held accountable.”

Bite me Claire.

Oh, and BTW that's a bi-partisan 'Bite Me', which I'd also like to extend to the second stand-out, MO's Lt. Governor Peter Kinder (R), who tweeted:

I love the @MoStateFair and will attend this week. I implore @GovJayNixon to hold the people resonsible for the other night accountable.

, and,

The @MoStateFair celebrates Missouri and our people. I condemn the actions disrespectful to POTUS the other night. We are better than this.

The Lt. Gov. is condemning the actions of a rodeo clown, and demands that someone be held accountable... for his behaving like... a rodeo clown.

Are you friggin' kidding me!?!?!?!?

We have now sunk to such a level that the standard which We The People are to aspire to, is one where a rodeo clown A RODEO CLOWN (!!!) for Gawds sakes, cannot be tolerated to behave disrespectfully to those in authority?

Is it just me, or does such an uptight, repressed, priggish & humorlessness bunch of people seem more reminiscent of Cold War era East Germany, than of the American "Show Me!" state of Missouri?

I am so damn offended by these OfendoCrats, Left, Right and Center... and I have been for some time... see here ... and here, but this one, this really takes the cake.

It's tempting to simply reply to these examples of stupidity, absent memory and blatant hypocrisy, with examples from all sides reminding them of what has been done, and accepted good naturedly, in the recent, and very recent, past. I mean... while Claire's claiming to be offended over taxpayer dollars being spent in ways that might be inappropriate for family viewing, has she really never heard of the National Endowment for the Arts? Has she never heard of the NEA's funding of Robert Mapplethorpe's exhibitions? Serrano's 'Piss Christ'? Seriously? Or maybe those are simply examples of what Claire finds to be acceptable for family viewing?

And while she's claiming to be offended at taxpayer dollars being inappropriately spent, maybe she oughta browse some vintage Breitbart posts... from all of three years ago, such as:

"EXPLOSIVE NEW AUDIO Reveals White House Using NEA to Push Partisan Agenda

Should the National Endowment for the Arts encourage artists to create art on issues being vehemently debated nationally?

That is the question that I set out to discuss a little over three weeks ago when I wrote an article on Big Hollywood entitled The National Endowment for the Art of Persuasion?”

The question still requires debate but the facts do not.

The NEA and the White House did encourage a handpicked, pro-Obama arts group to address politically controversial issues under contentious national debate. That fact is irrefutable. "

But such reminders are really missing the real point here. But ... sadly, before we can get to the real point... I have to point out that what I've noted so far, is not nearly the lowest of lows that this situation has sunken to.

Brace yourself.

One: The Rodeo Clown has been fired... for being a Rodeo Clown.

Two: The Rodeo Announcer, has been removed, for announcing the doings of the rodeo clown in the rodeo he was there as an announcer for.

But it gets worse (though still not worst of all), with:

Three: Taking the absurd to the limits of absurdity, the Missouri State Fair Commission has insisted that rodeo clowns be given sensitivity training classes before they can work AS A RODEO CLOWN at another state fair.

Clowns. To be taking sensitivity classes. It is tempting to say that these people are obviously suffering from severely irony deficient diets, but it still gets far worse than that.

Just when you think the last clown has piled out of the clown car, along comes the biggest low of all, and the one that leads us to the real point that we should be focusing upon, and this low point comes to you courtesy of Tishaura O. Jones. Who, you ask, is Tishaura O. Jones? Her web page in the St. Louis City web site states that:

"Treasurer Tishaura O. Jones brings a deep personal commitment, a wealth of experience, and a proven record of leadership to serving the City of St. Louis. "

And apparently part of the wealth of experience that she is deeply committed to, is race bating, ignorance, and promoting an anti-conceptual mentality, all of which she perfectly expressed in under 140 characters in a tweet, during taxpayer funded city business hours:

"@eyokley @JeffSmithMO since November 2008, racism has been masked under the guise of "anti-Obama sentiment."

Psst! Claire! Is that an acceptable use of taxpayer dollars? As Dana points out in the above link:

"So a taxpayer-funded city official is entitled to her opinion but a rodeo clown at a tax-payer supported fair is not. In Missouri an elected official can clown the people whom she represents but a rodeo clown can’t clown Obama."

The Rodeo Clown was fired for being a rodeo clown. The City Treasurer is not even chided by the mayor for calling those who disagree with Obama, racists. I would personally like to thank Treasurer Tishaura O. Jones for so perfectly summing up the proRegressive mindset - if you disagree, you are not only wrong, you are bad; bad because what they agree with is good... and so 'logically'... you must be bad.

What she, and every other Offendocrat, of the left and the right, are demonstrating, is not just stupidity, but the chief virtues of the totalitarian state: Hostility to any ideas, actions or preferences that fail to hold up the positions of the state in a sufficiently exalted light.

This isn't funny folks, it should chill you to the bone.

Totalitarian Virtues Aren't Clowning Around
Not only is it now unacceptable to mock the President of the United States, but it is now a secular sin (Racist!) to criticize any of the policies of the politically accepted victim class, a crime punishable at the very least, by being fired from your job... and condemning everyone in your line of work to political re-education classes.

These sensibilities which people such as the Senator and Lt. Gov. are expressing, are two phases of Totalitarian 'Virtues', both of which promote in a person a sense of anxious self-consciousness, spiced with a liberal dollop of fear, and the ability to extend it (dare I say project it?) onto others. When a person feels concern not only over what their neighbor might be doing, as the Senator expressed,  but over what their neighbor might be thinking that you are doing, as the Lt. Gov. expressed, and that sensation impels you to speak out loudly in order to avoid being caught up in a politically correct backlash you know will directly, or indirectly, turn the power of the state against you - then you are displaying what, in the eyes of the totalitarian state, passes for virtue.

In short, if you are able to tolerate Un-PC points of view, you will be viewed as being intolerable to society.

And dealt with.

These are the priceless virtues of totalitarianism, and they can take decades to instill in a people, but to those in power they are worth their weight in your gold - because you simply cannot maintain a totalitarian state without a people conditioned to support it, and conditioned to turn on their fellow citizens, in just such a way as this. Such a state does not require a government itself be totalitarian - though that will surely follow - it only requires that its people cringe to the godz of political correctness.And IMHO, the 'Me Offended Too!'s', such as Lt. Gov. Kinder, are even guiltier than those who really believe it.

What this is, is the result of so many decades of fighting a political war, while ignoring the philosophical/cultural war - the intellectual equivalent of bringing a spit wad straw to a gun fight. It is the result of intellectually honest people being AWOL from academia and from the culture for a decade of decades, and the ignorance which that absence has bred are fast becoming our society's norms, which is to say they are becoming Cultural Law... and once those laws are written into the hearts of the people, neither the Bill of Rights, nor the entire Constitution for that matter, will be worth the paper they will be burned on.

"You Americans, you are such a happy people!"
When you go back and listen to interviews from 19th & 20th century immigrants to America, what they nearly all reported as being the most striking feature of Americans, was their cheerfulness "You all seem so happy" they'd say... unlike the people form those totalitarian societies they were escaping from.

There was nothing in the climate or food of those societies that made their people, or ours, as happy or as tight lipped and grim as they were, it was in their ideas, and their societies endorsement of those ideas - its culture.

Understand, it's not as if people in America were walking around with giggly faces on, they simply spoke their minds, and laughed at what amused them, and they did so without a second thought, or more significantly, without any inkling that such a thing should even be given a thought. THAT is a decidedly UN-Totalitarian mindset.

That is not a view that is compatible with Political Correctness.

Tell me, that spontaneity, that habit of acting without first wondering whether you should be concerned that what you say might 'get you in trouble' (aka: fear)... do you have that today? You don't have to tell me - tell yourself. Honestly. Do you ever wonder whether or not the first response that comes to mind might, like the Rodeo Clown, get your life turned upside down?

Really, the fact that the question can even be posed, should raise more than a few alarm bells.

The ProRegressive State of Political Correctness, which we are well into today, could not possibly have come into being without first having ingrained into our minds the need to be concerned about whether or not something might be 'offensive' to one politically favored group or another.

The common term for this, though rarely thought of in this way, is seeking to 'raise consciousness' upon the 'correct' response to a 'politically sensitive' issue.

IOW, the healthy, happy American mindset, that of being open to reality and responding honestly and truthfully to it, had to be replaced by one that shows concern for what certain influential groups of people think is more important than reality itself, in short: a dis-ordered mind.

If you think that's a stretch, you don't need to confine yourself to rodeo clowns, or even Missouri, for examples of this. Just look to our schools.

Such as this one from the California of the east:

"Parents across Massachusetts are upset over new rules that would not only allow transgender students to use their restrooms of their choice – but would also punish students who refuse to affirm or support their transgender classmates.

Last week the Massachusetts Department of Education issued directives for handling transgender students – including allowing them to use the bathrooms of their choice or to play on sports teams that correspond to the gender with which they identify."

The word 'Identify' is now no longer explicitly intended to accurately describe reality, but only to 'identify', meaning to take sides with, what some particular (politically acceptable and favored) person might wish reality actually were.

I'd call that dis-ordered 'thinking'.

To put that in broadly philosophical terms, whenever faced with an issue of Quality, the Leftist mind automatically transforms it into an issue of Quantity.

In regards to Health care, if you dare mention your concern for a persons right to live their own life and choose their own path, they will snarlingly demand to know why you want to condemn 30 million people to die in the streets without health insurance. They do not, and will not, respond to the conceptual quality of your idea, but only to the particular quantities of issues which they hope will deflect you away from your position - finding an actual error in your ideas is not their aim, but only to declare them to as being 'bad', making further explanation unnecessary.

If you say you'd prefer that your daughter not have to shower with someone you consider to be, more likely than not, a pervert, they will have you and your daughter punished for refusing to support what they have declared to be 'diversity' (a position notably lacking your opinion within the diverse positions it claims to uphold).

Unfortunately, the Right, caught unawares and outside of church, typically accepts these terms as offered and, raised in the same schools as the leftist, counters only with how it might be possible to tally up the quantities into socially acceptable, though hidden, benefits - surrendering the field of Right & Wrong altogether, and crawling off into the mud of justifiable quantities.

These are not unique situation, they are the norm. The left transforms Philosophy into Politics, and the Right responds with that relatively small fragment of politics they identify (in the modern sense) with... though bereft of the superior ideas they haven't had the courage to identify (in the classical sense) and defend ... and then they are baffled as more and more of the world slips away from their grasp.

To sum it up, if you lose the ideas that America IS (and that'd be what the meaning of 'is' is), and import Anti-American ideas into that place the American ones used to be (between our ears), then you will lose America, and no birth certificate will ever secure you passage back to it.

IOW, ya can't fight Philosophy with Politics.

You'll look like a clown if you try to.

Period.