Trumping the Offend-O-Crats of the Left and Right

Trumping the Offend-O-Crats of the Left and Right
Donald Trump is ridiculously far ahead in the polls, is the center of conversation in any political discussion, even in interviews with his opponents in the GOP POTUS race, and despite appalling all of the "I'm smart and hate him so you should too" set with every comment that comes out of his mouth - his popularity is increasing.

Daily.

And 'everyone' is baffled.

'Everyone', that is, aside from everyone who is absolutely thrilled with every word that comes out of his mouth.

What do you suppose that they're so thrilled with? His expert political analysis of the issues and how to address them?

I'm... gonna go out on a limb and say... noooo.

Then why, his common sense plans for fixing immigration?

Again... nooo.

His foreign policy acumen?

Nnnope.

His plans for fixing the economy? Schools? The military?

nope. nope. nope.

Then what? Here. Look at this video:

People. Please. It's not so much what The Donald is saying - What he's saying is proof enough of that.

It's not what he's saying, but the fact that he doesn't sound as if he's asking permission to say it, he doesn't sound as if he's worried about who's listening to him saying it, he doesn't sound like someone who is afraid to say what he thinks.

IOW - no matter what he is saying, he sounds like an American when he's saying it. As I just replied to someone, if a pollster were to call me right now, and I somehow managed to not hang up on them, and they asked me

"Would you vote for Donald Trump?"

, I'd absolutely answer YES. Would I ever vote for Donald Trump? Not a chance in hell. But every one of his potential Bobble-Head Debate Mates, sound like they are thinking first and foremost of what will play in the politically correct media sound chamber. Rick Perry definitely does. Rand Paul? Absolutely does too. Ted Cruz? Carly Fiorina? They at the very least sounds as if they craft their statements around it. Trump? Whether he does or not, he Sounds as if he never even considered the matter, and that, by god, Plays.

What he actually is saying, should be proof enough of that. The deeply unpopular nature of what he's said over the past decades, especially with the Right, from advocating for govt healthcare, to immigration amnesty, to taking advantage of eminent domain to increase the value of his properties at the expense of others, to endorsing wall street bailouts, is proof enough of that - the secret of The Donald's popularity is not so much what he is saying, as what he is not saying and what he is steadfastly refusing to say.

Donald Trump is trumping the competition, because he has not been bending the knee to political correctness, he isn't carefully wording his comments for 'sensitivity', he isn't either begging approval from the popularly public idols of wackademia, apologizing for his views or pretending to have a high regard for any of the patently fake manners or any other bullshit idol that everyone else in or near his position reflexively panders to!

It is obvious that he doesn't give a second thought, let alone a rat's ass, for any of that, and people are going apeshit with enthusiasm for it.

And what's more, and quite possibly most importantly - I deeply hope so - he's trumping our media culture because Donald Trump does not speak as if he has to beg permission to speak, or for need approval from the high priests of PC for his success or his hair, or his lack of polish or as if he feels guilty for breathing, eating, driving or making money.

And Americans, still, somehow, no matter how deeply it is buried in them under the soot and grime of their educations, popular culture and media PR, respond to that with an up from the toes rebel yell that peg the decibel meter enough to drown out a rock concert; they breathe that in like a drowning man bursting up from the depths for a lung full of sweet fresh air.

And the Offend-O-Crats of the Left and the Right, the pundits and politicians, especially those on the Right, who attack him for it? With the possible exception of Ted Cruz, and the definite inclusion of John 'feel sorry for me and grovel to me' McCain, and even Rick 'I'm deeply offended he said...' Perry, are apparently too stupid to realize that condemning Donald Trump for doing and saying what the American people are all so enthusiastically responding to, is the same as telling them that they are 'crazy', 'comical', 'buffoons', 'wackos' and 'morons'.

Why do the 'politically savvy' set do that?

Because apparently, in this regard anyway, they are too stupid - meaning advised and educated - to know any better.

I'm not for Trump - No way Jose - because I've actually paid attention to what he's said over the years, but the reasons why I don't support Donald Trump are not because I think he's stupid, a clown or a buffoon (frankly, those of you saying or implying that he is any of those things, are saying far more about yourselves, than about Trump), but because I simply disagree with what he's said over the years. I don't need to insult him. That's enough. But as to what he's saying today, and more importantly the manner he is going about saying it? I'm behind that so much so that I also find myself with an unsanitary 'thrill running up my leg', not over what he's saying, but over the very American sense of life that's veritably exploding from his personality as he says it.

I wouldn't vote for the guy, but I'm sure as hell not going to condemn him for saying, and saying in the manner he has been, what every other leader should have been saying for decades (and a special note to the GOP: If you don't pick up on that, you're fired!).

Donald Trump is the first 'political leader' to Trump Political Correctness, and everyone who bows towards any of its idols in order to put him down, might as well close up shop for the time being - no one's listening to a word you're saying.

It may not last, but damn, am I ever going to enjoy it while it does!

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.

Career Politicians, Political Self-Defense and the purpose of Political Rhetoric

Political Rhetoric has fallen to new lows in this country, hasn't it? But... I'm betting that I probably don't mean that, in the way you do. For instance, I'm not all that upset about the recent "Hate!" rhetoric surrounding Chick-Fil-A.

Liberal Fascism

What? Why?

Well, not because it wasn't a despicable misuse of political power, bordering on the fascistic - it most certainly was; but that is actually why I'm rather pleased that the comments of the Chick-Fil-A executive were so frantically set upon and made into such an issue: Because it did expose the ProRegressive Left as being political thugs, ridiculously shallow, and for having a fondness for fascistic practices.

What more can you ask of Political Rhetoric, than that it clarifies your political beliefs?

 [BTW, the Euro-Fascists of the 1920's & 1930's, got most of their ideas from our Yankee ProRegressives, in the 1900's & 1910's.. Just sayin'.]

The progressives in out of the way, leftist backwater locales, such as Washington D.C., Boston and Chicago, took a statement by a private citizen supporting marriage as being between a man and a woman,  which was essentially the same position as Barack Obama's position was while running for Senator in 2004 and four years later in 2008 while running for President, that,

"Mr. Obama tells Chicago public television “marriage is between a man and a woman."

, yet the popular ProRegressive Front called this man's company a bunch of homo hating fascists. At the same time they demonstrated their eagerness to use political power to punish people for expressing ideas which had the gall to differ from theirs, even to the point of trying to damage their businesses - all for the CEO 'daring' to say what he thought in response to a question... about what he thought.

That's a political self-exposure that you couldn't pay prize winning journalists to expose! And... I mean that seriously, I mean, read the papers, watch the News; the "Real" reporters are unable to expose what we see them doing every day. And here every political hack from Mayors Menino, to Rahm Emanuel. to the MSM & The Muppets, berated and attempted to shut a private person down for expressing his opinion - the exact exercise of freedom of speech which the 1st Amendment is designed to protect the government from abusing!

Even the private smart set of the caring and tolerant left, showed themselves to be two faced, lying, clueless idiots in the process!

America saw very clearly, even more clearly than they did when Obama said "You didn't build that!", just who it is the ProRegressive left really are and what they're made of. As a result, it sparked such a vivid understanding and outrage over what the left was doing, that the American People demonstrated by patronizing Chick-fil-a in record breaking sales numbers, literally putting their money where their mouths were, at such levels that not even the most left of the left could ignore or deny!

Wonderful! What's not to like about that! That is precisely what political rhetoric should be: stating what you believe and who you are, so that people can see and make up their minds about you.

Marvelous!

Sooo... just what is it that I find to be deceptive & despicable examples of political rhetoric? Statements like this one, from GOP Senate hopeful John Brunner,

"Comments like these have no place in this U.S. Senate campaign, or any other campaign in this country, because they don't represent American values."

, a sentiment which he energetically sought to insert into a media meltdown over some lively political rhetoric, a few months ago. More on that in a bit.

Actual Highs and Lows
First, to try and get us onto the same page, and to get a better perspective on what the High points and Low points in our political rhetoric might actually be, it's worth asking a couple quick questions. First:

"What were the heights we have fallen from?"

, and second, it's worthwhile to ask:

"What is political rhetoric meant to accomplish?"

A case is often made that Politics and Political speech in America were at their high point during the time in which our Founding Fathers were still alive and active in them, somewhere in or around the 1790's to early 1800's. That is after all the period that produced our Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the ratification debates and those politicians who defined and respected our form of government as no one has since.

But what's interesting if you accept their time as being the high point, and then compare our political rhetoric of today, with that of theirs then - if you are expecting to find polite, respectful speech that is careful not to offend or aggravate the sensibilities of either the other candidates or various members of the public... you are going to be in for a very serious shock.

The fact is that the political rhetoric of their day was often blunt, rude, caustic and full of insanely unfair cheap-shots. If that's surprising to you, then you might want to consider your answer to the second question above (which really should be the first question asked) - what do you think the point of political rhetoric is?

• Is it to show your respect for the other candidate, and those who support them?
• Is it to communicate your personality and thoughts, or to camouflage them?
• Is it to blur positions and policies or clarify them?
• Is it to show your respect for the sensibilities of those in society who did, do or might support your opponent?
• Is it to make your opponent and supporters feel more comfortable in their positions?

Or,

• is it to clarify or at least make starkly visible, your differences with other candidates,
• is it to convert non-supporters into supporters or at least make them hesitate to declare their support of anyone else,
• so as to defeat your opponents?

Whatever your assumptions might be, the political rhetoric of our Founders era was made in the effort to make vividly clear the differences between the candidates and their positions, in order to defeat them (and I've got news for you, it still is today, except that the methods today are far more underhanded and crude).

For example, there's this famous political 'attack ad', where Thomas Jefferson was calling John Adams

a 'hideous hermaphroditical character, which has neither the force and firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman."

- you just can't beat that for making it very clear just what he thought of re-electing John Adams as President of the United States. Those same standards and rhetorical style carried on into the period where the newspapers hit their stride with the famously fiery rhetoric of the yellow journalists.

What people of today whine about disliking in political rhetoric, is exactly what those of our Founder's era purposefully set out to do, and they used the most figurative, imaginative language (''hideous hermaphroditical character' !!!) they could think of, to do it. Consequently their rhetoric was loud and often crude, but it succeeded in accomplishing what it set out to do - it made a point with perfect clarity and it left listeners in no doubt about where a candidate, reporter or commenter stood. If you had any ideas about finding level headed, objective reporting of the facts of each other's platforms and characters by either the candidates or the partisan press, along with polite and respectful discourse between the candidates... then you were looking for what never was, and were looking for it in a place where it never will be found - politics.

Political speech in America, in the last decades especially, has moved away from that model of pure political theatre, where it was at least understandable (politicians after all, will try to 'Score!' any way they can, and newspapers have always enjoyed making a point without being hampered by facts), and it has now indeed sunk to its lowest depths ever, but those depths are not measured by how inflammatory the rhetoric is, but rather through the congealed, deadened, boring, meaningless form of speech which those in power are attempting to foist upon us, speech which seeks to banish clarity & imagination while imposing a pandering thoughtlessness in their place and which no one dares to deviate from, and it is this, IMHO, that is killing political discourse in America.

This new attack upon free speech in America, and that is what it is, is one that empowers 'The Press' to force the lowest of political acts - verbal suicide - upon those it dislikes, demanding that they submit with nonsense such as:

I apologize if I in any way offended anyone and I of course deeply respect the traditions of...'

, while scoring the cheapest of political points for its preferred candidates - 'eh, compared to the other guy, he wasn't too bad'...even though, supposedly, The Press says that it shouldn't be out to 'Score!' points for anyone, or ever try to move any particular candidate or platform Forward!

Right? (so to speak.)

The chief weapon of this NewSpeak has been spun through our political parties and media functionaries, following the cant first aired in wackedemia, by insisting that opponents self-censor every instance of figurative language they might consider using ('shoot', 'target', 'explosive', 'crazy', etc.), insisting that every word of it be taken as if they were literal commands to the most unhinged of listeners imaginable, and mindful of the worst possible way in which it might be taken.

If you are 'Tsk-tsking' at me, scroll back up and look at Jefferson's comment about Adams, or look at John Adams' retort to Jefferson, that he was

“a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia mulatto father.”

If you can't imagine our Founding Fathers even attempting to live by these new prissy shackles (and before you say they didn't have to deal with the sort of people we have to deal with today, recall that Former Vice-President Aaron Burr shot and killed former Treasury Security Alexander Hamilton, over some heated words)... should we be attempting to impose such prissy shackles upon ourselves?!

Loaded for bear... 'Care Bears', that is....
Keep that in mind as you consider a round of this deadening of our language, which came in reaction to a comment by Tea Party activist Scott Boston (a friend of mine), made during a Tea Party Express rally for conservative candidates seeking to unseat Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill. Mr. Boston, correctly gauging the intelligence of his audience, made a remark which, as you can see from the heavily edited video they've provided, was very clearly understood, and thought for the most part to be grin worthy but otherwise unremarkable by all concerned, and drew nothing more than polite, applause from those listening... and would likely have been quickly forgotten by them.

By those it was meant for, anyway.

But the new puritans of prissiness found much they could seize upon in his offhand remark. Keep in mind, Scott's remark was made while describing to the crowd how McCaskill routinely presents herself with two diametrically opposed images - the one made for the public presents her as a cloyingly caring friendly Aunt, and is laid on so often and so thickly, that she is commonly referred to around Missouri as "Claire Bear", a reference to the sickeningly sweet "Care Bear" cartoon characters. The second image is that of the reality of how she operates in Washington D.C., where she is a calculating and powerful Senator, a skilled politician, who is adept at advancing agendas that are often, as conservatives see it, detrimental to Missourians. With that in mind, Mr. Boston made the point that it was important for conservatives to work to dispel her phony 'care bear' image, and in the few words we're allowed to hear in the heavily edited video (on the Huffington-Post's story), you can hear him saying,

"We have to get Claire McCaskill out. We have, we have to kill the 'Claire Bear', ladies and gentlemen. She walks around like she's some sort of. 'Rainbow Brite' uh, 'Care Bear' or something, but really she's an evil monster."

Watch the video and pay close attention to the peoples expressions in it. You'll see Sara Steelman, a candidate for Senator, and her son Sam Steelman who works in her campaign, as Mr. Boston is speaking - do you see them being roused to passionate action? Do they seem stirred into an emotional frenzy by this 'violent hate speech'? Do you hear the crowd in the background roaring for blood?! No, what you see in the video, which was probably provided by the McCaskill campaign, is Sarah Steelman paying only passing attention to the remarks, while her son Sam Steelman, turns almost absently, though politely, to clap along for a moment, as does the unseen audience.

Why? Because neither they, nor anyone else at the rally even remotely thought for one moment that when Scott Boston said "We have to kill the Claire Bear ladies and gentlemen", that he was speaking in anything other than simple metaphors & analogies to cartoon characters and stuffed animals. It was a quip. Period.

The editorial board of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, however, in a nearly hysterical lament, did its best to convince anyone who reads it, that:

""Kill the Claire Bear" is not a campaign slogan. It's not a poor choice of words. It's not a metaphor.

It's a threat of violence. So when an overzealous supporter of U.S. Senate candidate Sarah Steelman, a Republican, directed the threat toward U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Democrat, at a campaign rally this week, Ms. Steelman swiftly should have condemned it."

Do you seriously buy that? Do you think they buy into that? Why do you suppose that they made such incendiary comments in response to a rather banal analogy made during a backwater stump speech in Missouri?

Meanwhile at the Washington Post, they continued that theme, with,

"... an activist at a Tea Party Express rally near St. Louis implored the faithful in attendance to “kill the Claire Bear, ladies and gentlemen.” ..."

, though they do let slip that Mr. Boston was probably not making a serious call for violence, but only an exercise in hyperbole:

"...In a hyperbolic rant against incumbent Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill, GOP activist Scott Boston exhorted the audience, “She walks around like she’s some sort of Rainbow Brite Care Bear or something but really she’s an evil monster.”"

, they don't let that carry on for long, with statements such as,

"Not only is uncivil rhetoric dangerously taking society in the wrong direction, it is, incidentally, costing taxpayers money and resources. "

, and they allow one more brief bout of reasonableness,

""I doubt the Missouri conservative was advocating that anyone actually end the life of the 58-year-old senator or, for that matter, that Ted Nugent was threatening the president with his crude bully talk...."

, before going in for the insult, and forewarnings of doom to follow from such dangerous and vitriolic language:

Most people recognize that the screaming bombast aimed at public servants is just horrible manners by attention-craving individuals apparently unable to express themselves civilly. But the trash-talking can incite unstable persons to commit lethal acts."[emphasis mine]

, they even go on to cite the Arizona nut-job, Jared Loughner who shot up a congressmen's rally, as the logical result of using such 'language'.

Seriously? Play that video again.

Look. Listen. Think.

Are we really to conclude that political stump speeches referencing Care Bears and 'evil monsters' are what We The People must be on the guard against hearing or thinking of, or using in public, in order to safeguard ourselves from ourselves?

Do you believe that THEY believe this idiocy? I don't.

I don't believe it for a second. I don't believe that either the Post-Dispatch, or the Washington Post, or the Huffington-Post or Sen. Claire McCaskill or her staff believed it (the FBI, who gave Mr. Boston a swift 'all clear', certainly didn't believe it). These people DID NOT misinterpret what Scott Boston said. Instead they all deliberately worked at taking the figurative speech he used, and deliberately took what they knew he meant, and with carefully spun spin, they actively re-interpreted and re-purposed his words for their own pathetic political purposes - in order to move their political agenda Forward!

Note: I'm not calling them out for using fiery rhetoric themselves, quite the contrary, I'm calling them out for trying to castrate the political free speech of those they disagree with, and that is the despicable low to which political discourse has fallen to in this country. Not the name calling between candidates (recall Jefferson & Adams), but the intent to deprive anyone from being able to freely use the full power of our language in the fashion it is intended to be used, in order to communicate ideas in a lively fashion, from one person to another, so that they will be passed on, from one person to another.

In the attempt to deprive you of the power of your own spoken word, these despicable people are doing their very best to transform any thought of using imaginative language to communicate your political speech, into fears that 'it might' be taken as literal demands for violence. What they want is for their political opponents (you know they don't intend to impose the same standards on the likes of Van Jones or Alan Grayson) to be cowed into using useless, grey, deadened language that pays deference to their leftist idols.

GOP Strategic Response to Political Correctness: Sell the hangman the rope for your noose - but at a profit
Unfortunately Republican Senatorial Candidate, John Brunner, also running for the same senate seat, provided an excellent example of what we've come to expect from 'canny' GOP candidates. It's just the sort of knee-jerk apologetic reply which is expected from the opposition in response to any sign of lively language being used, and which 'conservatives' typically run to the microphones with, seeking to get air time & score points with, and often doing so faster than Obama could bow to a king. In this oh-so compliant reply to media criticism of Mr. Boston's remarks, it was glowingly reported (similar to how John McCain used to enjoy attention from the press) by the Huffington-Post, and others, who patted Mr. Brunner on the head like a good little republican for being 'so reasonable'.

The promptly issued statement from Mr. Bruner, was that:

"Comments like these have no place in this U.S. Senate campaign, or any other campaign in this country, because they don't represent American values."

Please, take a moment and scroll back up to Thomas Jefferson's comment to John Adams - which remark do you think was more likely to be representative of our original American values, Mr. Boston's, or Mr. Brunner's? Adams & Jefferson's remarks were made during the height of political discourse and truly statesmanlike accomplishment in this country... Mr. Brunner's, IMHO, are characteristic of those being made during the low it has sunk to.

Thank goodness Senatorial Candidate Sarah Steelman refused to meakly submit to the power of the press',

"I may disagree with the words Mr. Boston chose in his statement, but I understand his frustration and I emphatically support his right to express his views," Ms. Steelman said.

Mr. Bruner has also gone to mind numbing lengths to paint himself as pledging to be a 'Citizen Senator' (um... is there another option?) and opposed to 'Career Politicians', and yet he said in a recent statement, words to the same effect of Scott Boston's:

"We have an opportunity to eliminate three career politicians…two Republicans and one Democrat."

, which uses the same PC Scare-Language ('eliminate', 'target', 'kill') he slammed Scott Boston and Sarah Palin for using.

Do I think that language is 'over the top'? Hell no! But it does tell me that Mr. Brunner is perfectly happy to play the game of political correctness - using language to incite responses in order to mislead and conceal information - whenever it's convenient, which is the epitome of what he claims we'll be able to eliminate by voting for him: 'Career Politicians'.

Was this just a slip of the lip on his part? You tell me. From The Missouri Record, May 11, 2012:

"According to Jake Wagman at The St. Louis Post-Dispatch,

In a debate Friday in St. Joseph, Republican Senate hopeful John Brunner emphasized both the importance of voting, and his opposition to gay marriage.
"It is so important for so many people to get involved in politics ... and most importantly get out there and vote," Brunner said.
But when primary rival Sarah Steelman pressed him on how he had voted on the 2004 amendment to the state constitution banning gay marriage — "'yes' or 'no,'" Steelman asked — Brunner offered a vague response.
"Every vote I have ever taken has been in support of marriage," Brunner said.
Turns out, Steelman was asking about a vote he didn't make.

This made my head spin. Brunner doubtlessly knew he hadn't voted on the matter when he was asked about it in the debate. A normal person may have forgotten such a vote eight years prior, or even misremembered. But normal people haven't spent $2.5 million dollars of their own money on a campaign that had to have included background research. (It is possible that he didn't know, but that would require a jaw-dropping level of political ineptitude in those around him.)

So Brunner knew the truth and he chose to prevaricate...."

On top of that, the campaign of this 'non-politician Citizen Senator' has been the most unrelenting in its use of selective information and full out attack ads on his two opponents, Sarah Steelman and Todd Akin, that I just can't buy a vowel of his claims for being the non-politician, politician. It just doesn't wash.

When I add this all up, the answer that I come up with, is exactly what I dislike about the worst of our politicians - that they use language to mislead and conceal, rather than to reveal their beliefs - and that the only reason I can find for his not having been a career politician, is that it was only late in life that he discovered his true calling.

Which leaves me in an uncomfortable position, because while I'm not particularly for either of the candidates for Senator in our Primary this Tuesday - though I am leaning towards Akin (I was initially attracted to Brunner, but for these very reasons, he soon repelled me), I'd dearly like to see Brunner lose to Akin or Steelman.

Is that too harsh? Sorry, that's what primaries are for.

But on the other hand I would eagerly take any one of these three candidates, Akin, Steelman or Brunner, without hesitation, over Claire McCaskill, as Missouri Senator.

Primaries. Ugh.

Electoral Self-Defense
It is my hope that incidents such as Chick-fil-a, as well as examples of kowtowing to any other sort of politically correct sensibilities, will be a strong turn off to any and all audiences, especially conservatives. I hope that people are beginning to see, that it is through this pandering for 'the popular vote' by people in general, and by politicians in particular (who apparently do believe that political correctness really IS the popular view), that political correctness has been able to accomplish its aims: imposing upon us all a form of politically correct self-censorship.

It is promoted by the princes of prissiness in order that the media can preen themselves in the glow of their own faux moral high ground, and it is done in order to portray the position or candidate they are trying to move Forward!, as a brave, brave victim of evil-doers - so as to boost and secure political power for them, over you.

Worse, these PC views are being imposed upon us not only by Wackedemia and the MSM in order to support their political favorites (and penalize their opponents and everyone else connected with them), but it is being aided and abetted by many a vote seeking 'conservative' as well, and these positions gain an even more terrible strength as a result of that conservative complicitness, than they ever would have acquired if they were expressed by the left alone.

We cannot let these ProRegressives, Left or Right, continue with their campaign of Political Correctness; they are attacking even our ability to think and to speak, and even to eat, and in the process, frankly, they are wiping the toilets with our language, turning it into something with no more character or substance than used toilet paper.

The level of political discourse in our times has fallen to new lows, and it is up to us to lift it back up to where it belongs, this smothering of speech must not be tolerated any longer.

It is what has helped to deliver us to the world we've got. A world where electing one person is often little or no different than electing another. A world where no one says what they really think, everyone seeks the approval of the politically correct princes of prissiness, and We The People end up with Representatives without representation. It's the world we've got, and it is one where those I despise politically (Romney for instance) end up being the ones that ends up on the ballot.

What do we do about that? How do you defend your electoral integrity, when you only have those you dislike, together with those you dislike even more, to choose from? Personally, I can't vote For any of them, but then again to not vote, enables all of them. Remember, it's not the candidates to brought us to this point - they just hitched a ride on our apathy and carelessness. Both have to be remedied in order to improve the situation at all.

In my view that leaves us these options:

1. Decide which candidate wants to use the govt to most weaken your Rights and force the most ignorance upon you.
2. Decide which candidate has the best chance of defeating that 1st candidate, and use your vote to help defeat that 1st candidate.

More importantly, in every other moment between elections, when you hear 'political correctness' from friend or foe, call them on it. Laugh in their faces. Dismiss them. Kick them out of power in Washington, with your vote at the ballot box, and out of power at the newsstand & T.V. by spending your dollars and attention upon information that is actually informative.

Also, do as much as you can to understand what Government, Law, Rights and Liberty actually mean, and depend upon, and then spread that light you've gathered as widely as you can, and help to dissipate the ignorance around you.

My fellow Americans, it took us a minimum of 150 years to get to this sorry state, and there will be no quick answers, no magic legislation and no miracle candidates that will get us out of it. We have to reestablish what America Means, one idea, and one mind, at a time - and that means starting with YOU.