My Political Blog:
Points to Ponder, &
Other Bits & Pieces...
Points to Ponder, &
Other Bits & Pieces...
My latest opinion piece at Western Free Press is now available.
Full disclosure: I close my commentary with a rather harsh statement aimed at Left-leaning individuals. I engaged in such harshness because of the stakes involved with "fake news." Specifically, that some errors of opinion (i.e. those held by a James Hodgkinson) are far from harmless.
It's one thing to have a harmless error of opinion. (After all, we all have some errors of opinion: it's part of the human condition.) It's quite another to have an error of opinion that drives you to commit a crime. Yes, it is harsh of me to point this out. Well, what's worse: pointing this out, or remaining silent till another James Hodgkinson chooses to commit another heinous act?
Would you think me lying if I were to point out that I have a lot in common with "Social Justice Warriors" and the other more vocal Left-leaning individuals out there?
I really do. No, not with respect to ideology. I'm not on the Left, not even close; I consider myself firmly on the Right. Perhaps even close to the far (but not extreme) Right. I offer up no duplicitous assertions that I am "just to the Right of middle," that I am "moderate-Right," or some such deceptive characterization. I yam what I yam. Again, it's not ideology that binds me to SJWs and other Left-leaning folk. Instead, I share a great deal of similarity with the them in this respect: that which drives me to articulate and to advance my ideology.
I'll explain as I go along. But let me first confess and acknowledge the obvious: that I post a lot of political and philosophical stuff on my Facebook page.
Yeah, I know. That's some marvelous acknowledgement, some profound confession there Doug. After all, anyone who even casually follows my Facebook posts (or my blog posts here on www.justanotherdoug.com) can easily see how overwhelmingly political and philosophical my posts are.
What may be news, however, is how I view my desire to post political and philosophical items: I see it as pretty much the same sort of desire that drives SJWs and even run-of-the-mill Left-leaning folk.
I am, like they are, motivated to share and to trumpet what I consider to be "good," "useful," or even "righteous" posts, articles, and ideas. I'll go as far as to say that the only other difference between the "SJWs"/Leftists and me is only a matter of degree.
Think about it. Are some of you not, on occasion, just a little annoyed about how often I post political content? Are not some of you so annoyed, at times, that when you see a new Facebook post by "Douglas Goode" you immediately roll your eyes--and quickly scroll your mouse with break-neck speed--past my screed?
Of course you do. No, I don't take it personally. I know that my very actions and behaviors often encourage others to ignore my posts. I own up to the risks I take. I'm not a victim here in any sense of the imagination.
Here's the deal: our God-given right to speak our minds does not mean we have a right to be heard. Or even listened to.
More important than all that, however, is this: the whole "similar desire thing" I mention above serves as a point of connection, if you will, between a Right-leaning man like me and Left-leaning folks.
It's not just a point of connection, but it is also a common thread among us. A profound common thread. A non-trivial common thread. I, and they, want to see the world become a better place. I, and they, are highly motivated to share and to speak and to argue for what I/they consider to be "right."
We just choose dramatically different means of seeking to implement that change.
I seek to convince others of my point of view. I do so, at times, with intense and profound passion. But little more: you are free to ignore me at will. Scroll past my screeds with abandon.
But the SJW's and the more passionate of the Left-leaning folk out there? Do they seek to convince in the arena of ideas, or do they seek to compel through intimidation or even through the full force of Law?
The answer to this is as obvious. It's as obvious as how plainly political most of my posts are. The mere fact that Leftists shoved the laughably named "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" down our throats--with not one "yea" vote from Republicans--is proof enough of this. The mere fact that "Black Lives Matter" activists cause all manner of property damage, traffic delays, and other riot-like episodes is another instance of obvious proof.
The trick is to see past this, and seek to weave what few common threads we have into a strong fabric. The fabric of the Civil Society is incredibly threadbare these days. Frightfully threadbare. These precious few common threads must be nurtured, and must be painstakingly crafted so as to repair and restore the terrible tears in the Civil Society's fabric.
Otherwise, we will find that we will have to work with other fabrics. Fabrics like emergency compression bandages, and perhaps even battlefield dressings. James T. Hodgkinson's actions last week in Alexandria, VA illustrate this last statement far more viscerally than I could ever achieve.
If I may, I'd like to confess my primary reservation about Donald Trump during the primary and caucus season. And, what I thought about him prior to Election Day on November 8, 2016.
I thought him just as narcissistic and thuggish as Barack Obama.
Worse, I really had a hard time interacting with some of Trump's supporters. Why? Chiefly because I interpreted their enthusiastic support for Trump as something along the lines of, "Sure, he's a thug. But he's OUR thug."
Fast forward to today. I must confess that I could not have been more wrong about Trump and his supporters. Trump is not a thug. He is, however, brash. He is braggadocios. He tweets with the self-control of an undisciplined teenager. But here's the rub: he has also demonstrated a great deal of maturity, political savvy, and humility. Certainly not always. But enough to count.
I won't take the time to substantiate my previous statement. Those who agree already know why I can make that assertion. Those who disagree, in my experience, won't believe whatever substantiation I could provide (and many of them will instead sneeringly deem it "fake news" or "alternative reality" or some such other intellectually lazy and dismissive term).
So instead of substantiating my statement above, I'd like to move on to why I wrote this blog post in the first place. I have just recently come to the conclusion that President Trump is probably the only man who can win against the Democrats and the other collectivist/progressivist/statist forces lined up to oppose him, including Ruling Class Republicans.
Consider how George W. Bush handled the volcanic hostility vomited his way during his two terms as President. In a word, he didn't. By and large President George W. Bush, out of respect for the Office of the President, did not "get down into the gutter." Bush didn't join the Democrats, and their fellow travelers posing as journalists, in wallowing in the gutter. As such, Bush allowed The Ruling Class Media to occupy--no, to dominate--the field of political battle. Consequently, The Ruling Class Media, in lock step with its fellow travelers in the Democrat Party, was able to promote and disseminate its own (false) narratives almost entirely without challenge from President Bush.
Trump won't follow in Bush's footsteps. Trump suffers no illusions about what it takes to take on the Democrats and the Ruling Class Media (RCM). If the RCM or its lock-step allies in the Democrat Party step on Trump's toes, he calls them on it. He won't even hesitate to step on their tender toes if the situation calls for it.
"A lie will travel twice around the world before the truth can make it half-way out the door." Well, much as I profoundly dislike President Trump's habit of tweeting, I have to concede that he tweets pretty much in self-defense: his tweets, for all their clumsiness, shove some truth out the door...and sometimes do so before the Democrats and their lock-step allies in the RCM can promote their twisted narratives around the globe.
Trump counters the Democrats' lies before these lies can more firmly take root. Sure, the lies still germinate and take root. But unlike during the George W. Bush years, Trump actually pulls up some of these germinating weeds before they can take over the field.
Which is why a number of Democrats, many members of the RCM, and a non-trivial number of other Left-leaning groups have behaved in some ways that may be characterized as unhinged. Trump is simply not cowed by the Leftist bullying that previously kept Republicans in line. This drives Leftists to distraction.
Bottom line, Trump, like Nixon, is not a perfect President. Far, far from it. But just as it took a Nixon to go to Communist China, perhaps it took a Donald Trump to go to collectivist Washington, DC.
Time will tell, won't it?
What follows is a bit of a departure for me. Up till now I've been more than just a little hesitant to publicly blog about specific instances of Left-leaning individuals vomiting their bile upon me. One of the reasons why I've long been hesitant to "go there" is that I knew long, long ago--years ago really--that the very moment I began writing conservative-leaning political commentary, I was crafting a very large invitation for abuse to pour out upon me. I knew the risks, and proceeded anyway. That is, I own up to this whole deal. It goes with the territory, as they say.
Thus, for me to express (feigned) surprise at the volume of vitriol heaped upon me by various members of the self-professed "tolerant" crowd would be a bit disingenuous. I knew going in to this whole hot mess that I had better go garbed in a high-grade flame-proof suit.
Today, however, I think the time has come to modify my hesitation. No, I won't name names. If you really care to learn some of the names, just go to my Facebook page...and it won't take you long to unearth a few of them. Alternatively, scour the Disqus comments on the AmericanThinker.com site for my TwoShoes moniker, and bask in the (complete absence of) tolerance demonstrated by the replies that Left-leaning folk disgorge there.
In my defense for my decision to blog about these specific oh-so-tolerant Left-leaning individuals, I will say this. It is precisely because they've routinely vomited their bile in public forums (AmericanThinker.com, spectator.org, or on Facebook), that I think I can be excused for "writing behind their back(s)" as it were. And this, in spite of the fact that I still consider at least a few of them (on Facebook in particular) friends. I know that I risk damaging whatever remains of these friendships by composing this post. I think it is a risk worth taking, so here goes.
My motivation for writing this blog post is that I now face a bit of a conundrum. For all the self-restraint I've exercised, I've seen very little self-restraint demonstrated by some (but certainly not all) my Left-leaning friends. The conundrum arises because I want to lead by example. I want to lift others up, not lower myself to what may be characterized as wallowing around in the gutter.
But after this morning's interactions on Facebook, I'm now very close to concluding that those who do not exercise even a microscopic portion of self-restraint have forfeited the right to be shown decorum. (I'll again parenthetically note that not all of my Left-leaning friends pummel me in public. There is a non-trivial number who do, in fact, demonstrate decorum and restraint. That is a very good thing.) Yet, despite my desire to "lead by example," there may come a point where my example is not only ignored, but is trampled underfoot by jack-booted Brownshirt-wannabes.
Yes, this is a harsh characterization. Well, if you find it too harsh, please tell me where I'm wrong with formulating my harsh characterization. Please demonstrate to me where, exactly, I've erred: please show me how I've somehow missed the subtle tolerance of some of the more vocal Left-leaning individuals out there. I really want to know. That is, I'm not indulging in pretense here: I'm not using rhetorical devices to pretend to be mystified when I am not, indeed, puzzled.
Those of you who know me know just how loyal I am to the idea that "we're all in this together" here on Spaceship Earth. Those of you who know me know I don't care if you are white, black, Latino, or Asian; I don't care if you ideology is on the Left, in the Center, or on the Right; we each and every one of us must choose to live with one another, or else we each choose a different course.
But what are those of us who cherish the benefits of living in a Civil Society to do when a large number of our fellow Spaceship Earth passengers refuse to be even the least little Civil?
What if Trump pardoned Hillary?
For all you animal lovers out there. I are one too. :-)
Former United States Attorney General Michael Mukasey tells MSNBC that not only is Hillary Clinton's private email server illegal, it "disqualifies" her from holding any federal office. Very specifically points to one federal law, Title 18. Section 2071.
Here's what 18 USC § 2071 says:
"(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
"(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States."
Yes, it explicitly states "shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States."
Last time I checked, the Office of the President is, in fact, an "office under the United States." Hillary is, in a word, unqualified for holding that (or any other) office. Period.
The Espionage Act of 1918 makes no allowance for intent. Noodle on that. Whether or not Hillary intended to break the law, she did. Whether or not THE SMARTEST WOMAN IN THE WORLD™ had any desire, wish, hope, or dream to violate the law, the fact is that she did, flat-out, run afoul of the Espionage Act. Period. To argue otherwise is pure and unadulterated sophistry. (Can I use the word "unadulterated" in reference to the Clintons, I wonder? Without causing an uproar of laughter to erupt, that is?)
The fact is 18 USC 93, 793 and 1924 simply do not require intent. But even if intent is what you Hillary supporters require, consider that the latest Wikileaks revelations in this whole sordid mess—and more recently, the repulsive Anthony Weiner's part in all of this sordid, filth-filled brouhaha—proves that Hillary did have intent. See 18 U.S.C. ch. 37 (18 U.S.C. § 792 et seq.).
For those of you who passionately support Hillary Clinton because you fervently assert that she's The Most Qualified Person Running for President™, I humbly ask you to consider:
Intensity of emotion isn't evidence. Activity isn't accomplishment.
Grace and Peace. Cheers.
To save time, for both you and for me, please go to my landing page at WesternFreePress.com by clicking here.
I am a happily married middle-aged man who served his country as a nuclear-trained US Navy sailor during the peacetime years of the late 1980s. I re-entered civilian life before the First Gulf War. Though I trained for war as part of my military duties, I saw no combat during my service. War games were as close to combat, and its perils, that I ever got.