"The rich he sent away empty"

I'm just a Catholic out here with an opinion on Eucharistic coherence, which has been in the news lately. At their recent conference, the American bishops agreed -- although not unanimously, sadly -- to have a discussion about whether public figures who profess the faith (Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Lieu, Joe Manchin, . . .) yet remain in obstinate and very public disagreement on fundamental teachings of the Church maybe sorta kinda should be denied Holy Eucharist. It seems pretty obvious anyone not in communion with the Church should not receive Communion (that's why non-Catholic Christians are denied Eucharist after all). Simple. What's to discuss? A basic requirement of being a Catholic in good standing is to submit to what the first Church of Christ teaches. All of it. Whether one knows and understands all the whats and whys, or not. We are called to obedience -- to seek understanding in faith -- to trust that Christ established His Church and has protected it from the gates of Hell prevailing over it for more than two thousand years.

Catholic apologist Trent Horn has a good video on the tactics used by pro-abortion Democrat politicians (but, I repeat) to elide and obscure their heretical positions. 

The six tactics he identifies, in brief:

1. They double-down on professing their Catholic faith (invalid argument from authority) while denying the Faith's core tenets. 
2. They express false humility with the "I can't impose my views on others" lie. They would impose their views on the death penalty by abolishing it, if they could. They believe (hopefully) that infanticide should be illegal, etc.
3. They accuse pro-lifers of having double-standards by not opposing the death penalty, for example. But, would they submit to the Church's teachings if it prohibited the reception of Communion for both pro-abortion and pro-death penalty public figures?? To ask is to answer.
4. They bring up the "ensoulment" canard. I agree with Trent that the soul is the animating principle of life and, therefore, when a living body exists a soul exists. A precious, God-created, unique and unrepeatable person exists at conception. Personhood is science.
5. They appeal to "free will." But, they can't possibly believe it. My free will says we should outlaw abortion, but they don't believe my free will is correct, do they? I know with an uncommon certitude that their free will is malformed by the belief that it's ever morally acceptable to set out to kill innocent human beings, wherever they're located (in the womb, for example). 
6. They argue from the "primacy of conscience," but they don't believe that either. They believe pro-lifers' consciences are mistaken. 

But, I have a gripe with most apologists arguing this issue as well. They seem to argue from the philosophical/legalistic point of view while completely missing the pastoral aspect of denying someone in grave error Communion (with one exception being a woman over at CRISIS Magazine, who writes passionately on the subject). The bishops' vocation is to guide the flock to heaven. Why, then, for Pete's sake (irony alert), would they even think for a split second of allowing someone to eat judgment upon himself? Even a Democrat politician? It is deeply unloving.

And, so, I come to Mary's Magnificat, where she says, "the rich he sent away empty." If one were to interpret this as an uncaring and indifferent God who favors the poor at the expense of the rich, one would have an erroneous view of who God is. He sends the rich away empty because He loves them! It is meant as a corrective, and a call to conversion. Our decadent culture is a sure sign of what happens when we become too rich and comfortable (in Old Testament parlance: we have too many horses, too many wives, and too much gold). God doesn't want us to be comfortable; He wants us to be holy. 

Whenever I pray the Magnificat, I place myself in the role of both the sinner and the saint, because I have had the experience of God in both ways in my life. Try it for yourself:

My soul proclaims the greatness of the Lord,

my spirit rejoices in God my Savior

for he has looked with favor on his lowly servant.

From this day all generations will call me blessed: 

the Almighty has done great things for me, 

and holy is his Name.

He has shown the strength of his arm,

He has scattered the proud in their conceit.

He has cast down the mighty from their thrones,

and has lifted up the lowly.

He has filled the hungry with good things,

and the rich He has sent away empty.

He has come to the help of his servant Israel

for He has remembered his promise of mercy,

the promise He made to our fathers, 

to Abraham and his children for ever.

Do you sometimes (daily) proclaim God's greatness in His Goodness, Truth, and Beauty -- in His infinite Perfections? Do you oftentimes rejoice in being a precious child of God, for whom He was willing to humble Himself to suffer and die for your salvation? Has He looked with favor on you in your lowliness? Do you call yourself, "blessed?" Has God done great things for you? Has He scattered you in your conceit? Has He cast you down when you attempt to exalt yourself? Has He lifted you up when you're suffering? Has He filled you with good things? Has He sent you away empty? Has He come to your help when you are in need, and shown you mercy?

Yes, yes, the bishops should deny the Sacramental Presence of Jesus to those who bring scandal upon the faithful. But, these dissenters should be sent away empty because God loves them. He wants them to come Home to Him, and to do that, they need to repent and to correctly form their consciences in Christ, with the moral guidance of the Church He established. And mostly they need to stop advocating for and enabling the killing of God's other precious children. 

Amen. Alleluia!

Gay Rights Advocate Has Trans Regrets

Author and expat gay rights advocate, Bruce Bawer, has written a lengthy lament on the history of gay rights advocacy turned queer activism and, finally, transgender ideology in The Great Consonant Shift over at American Greatness. I skimmed the history parts to get to his main complaint because, frankly, I don't care about the minutia of how we got here -- only that we're here, at the end of western civilization. I'm more of a big picture gal when it comes to my love for the West.

Mr. Bawer is upset that "transgenderism" was attached to his noble pursuit of "equal" rights for gays by queer activists, since sexual appetite isn't the equivalent of gender identity. He acknowledges that leftwing queer activism was always about tearing down the longstanding institutions of the West and argues . . .

. . . indeed, that the gay-rights movement and the transgender movement are utter opposites: while the former is rooted in the objective reality of homosexual attraction, the latter asks the general public to acknowledge an objective impossibility -- namely, the fanciful notion that subjective feelings alone can determine gender. The moment a person declares that he's now a she, or that she's now a he -- no hormones or surgery required -- one is supposed to respond with immediate and absolute affirmation.

Oh, dear. I think Mr. Bawer has missed the forest for the trees. Respectfully. His "equal" rights advocacy (of which he was an early promoter of SSM) has asked something very similar of the public. Namely, that we "acknowledge" the objective impossibility that two men or two women can be married to one another. In fact, gays insist on overthrowing reality, they don't just "ask." Because "equality" -- 'er something.

I've long argued that SSM advocates weren't asking for "equal" rights for gays. Persons who are same-sex attracted always had the "equal" right of legal and social acknowledgement of marriage to someone of the opposite sex. Heck, they even had that right within the Church! And the union of two men or two women isn't the equivalent of a married man and woman. What homosexual advocates laid claim to with SSM was a special right -- the "right" to overthrow the reality of marriage.

To recap: marriage has the dual purpose of 1) unifying a man and a woman for the (hopefully) intended purpose of 2) procreation. The unity piece is so essential not just for the couple's happiness, but because of the procreation piece. When mothers and fathers divorce, they "blow up their kids' planet," as Andrew Klavan says. And you should see what happens when homosexual couples with kids divorce! It's doubly confusing and tragic. This is no way to form a happy and healthy society.

While gays may find unity in a homosexual relationship (although the rates of promiscuity among gay men and domestic violence among lesbians as compared to heterosexuals would seem to suggest a problem), their relationship is intrinsically sterile. In short, marriage wasn't made for them either by nature or nature's God. If it's discriminatory to say so, it's discriminating an objective truth, which Mr. Bawer seems to be passionate about when it comes to transgenderism coopting his pet cause.

All of this societal degradation was totally predictable and was, in fact, predicted by opponents of the SSM cause. The slippery slope argument isn't always fallacious. Once we insist on lying about fundamentals such as what marriage is, it follows pretty naturally that we'd lie about other basic truths such as gender identity. 

When I was a lefty I used to complain about conservatives wanting to "get into our underwear" on sexual morality. Now I wish gays had gotten out of their own underwear long enough to see the big societal/cultural picture. 

My advice to Mr. Bawer? Never ever side with the Left -- not on feminism, not on economics, not on nationalism, not on social causes -- not even the ones you think are in your self-interest. That way leads to destruction. It always does, as that's the Left's objective and competence. The Left is very good at destroying, and I'm of the opinion it's too late now for the West. What we will have is anyone's guess, but I'm confident in saying our society will be neither free nor respectful of human dignity, as the one very much depends on the other, and we can have neither when we're lying to each other on the essentials of human anthropology. 

Extraordinary Suffering, Amazing Grace

The spiritual advice often given to Catholics is "to unite your suffering to Christ's." I've struggled with  the Church's theology of redemptive suffering through many years of my children's, my husband's, and my own suffering. I've had a shallow understanding of our "participation" in Christ's suffering until recent news about someone else's suffering cast new light on the subject for me. 

I haven't allowed myself to think of my nuclear family's suffering as "unfair," although it clearly has been extraordinary (that is, out of the ordinary) compared to most families I know. Not many families deal with two children with rare conditions causing life-long travails. It's painful to contemplate the (possibly) lost potential of my beautiful, brilliant girls. 

Nor do many people live a charmed life with little suffering, although it's better for everyone's character to be grateful for our blessings rather than bemoan our curses (Jordan Peterson says "better to think of yourself as a perpetrator than a victim). We're friends with three couples who have also experienced extraordinary suffering through the tragic loss of their children. But, something about this recent example allowed me to "go there" and to finally see how unjust suffering changes the world for the better, and how the sufferers really do participate in the redemptive suffering of Christ. It's one of those mind-blowing paradoxes of the Christian faith.

Let's face it. No one is moved by the suffering of people who get their well-deserved comeuppance. Can anyone say they feel compassion for Hitler in a burned out bunker with a bullet in his brain? Or Mussolini shot and hung upside down from a girder over a service station? Or does anyone have a conversion experience because heartless bastards like Mao and Fidel Castro die peacefully in their beds at a ripe old age? We may feel angry toward God for the temporal injustice of such undeserved endings, but we have some consolation in believing God will have the final say about these killers' eternal destinies.

But, it's unjust suffering that changes hearts, both for the sufferers and those who love them. I write this on Good Friday, when Christians observe the Passion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ. As part of the Liturgy of the Word, Catholics will recite the Passion narrative, with the congregation taking the part of the crowd shouting, "Crucify him! Crucify him!" It's terrible -- my least favorite observance of the liturgical year -- and it's meant to be. It's meant to finally impel us to turn away from sin and be faithful to the Gospel, as we were instructed upon receiving ashes on Ash Wednesday at the beginning of Lent. Because anyone of good conscience who participates in the re-presentation of the Passion will be heartbroken about his sinfulness leading to the torture and slaughter of the Innocent Lamb of God. It's painfully apparent to me, God wants us heartbroken, because that's how He finds His way in and redeems us. 

I've been heartbroken by my little family's suffering. So has Mr. Chauvinist. And the softening of our hearts has drawn us closer together -- and closer to God. Sometimes I'm startled by how tenderhearted Mr. C is toward others who suffer. It's not unmanly -- in fact, it's a sign of being more fully human. More Christ-like. 

I finally appreciate Saint Paul's rejoicing in  his suffering for the sake of souls. My pastor once told us that we "are at the very heart of the Church" because of our suffering. Now, because of this other innocent's suffering, I can see how he is united in Christ's suffering -- how his suffering will move hearts toward God -- for the sake of the whole world. Pope Saint John Paul II once said, "suffering unleashes love." My loved one may not know it yet, but he's been privileged to share in Christ's suffering -- and so have we. 

Let us bear all things thankfully, be it poverty, be it disease, be it anything else whatever: for he alone knows the things expedient for us. . . Are we in poverty? Let us give thanks. Are we in sickness? Let us give thanks. Are we falsely accused? Let us give thanks. When we suffer affliction, let us give thanks . . . Affliction is a great good. "Narrow is the way," so that affliction thrusts us into the narrow way. He who is not pressed by affliction cannot enter. 

-- Saint John Chrysostom 

(Corrupted) Words of the Day

I suppose we should first define what we mean by "corrupt." This is what I intend when I say these words are "corrupted:" debased or rendered impure by alterations or innovations (from etymoline.com). My selection of these (corrupted) words of the day is based on the change of their meaning from something originally intended by their definitions to something now used as a slur. I'll be working my way backwards in time based on how recently these words were corrupted. Let's begin.

nationalism (n.)

1844, "devotion to one's country, national spirit or aspirations, desire for national unity, independence, or prosperity;" 

"Nationalism" has gone from a positive good (willing the good of one's fellow countrymen in a free and prosperous country) to something even conservatives use in a derogatory way (Jonah Goldberg). It used be okay to be a fan of America back when America was the land of opportunity and not "systemically" hateful and hated, whatever that means. But, now, to be an American nationalist is to be inordinately and unjustifiably proud of one's homeland, at best. At worst, and now that "whiteness" is a thing (and totally not racist -- /snark), "white nationalism" is implied. Never mind that Donald Trump's policies did more for black and Latino employment and wage increases than has been seen in my lifetime. He's such a terrible racist (meaning the opposite). 

discriminate (v.)

1620s, "distinguish from something else or from each other, observe or mark the differences between," from Latin discriminatus, past participle of discriminare "to divide, separate," from discrimen (genitive discriminis) "interval, distinction, difference," derived from discernere "to separate, set apart, divide, distribute; distinguish, perceive," from dis- "off, away" (see dis-) + cernere "distinguish, separate, sift (from PIE root *krei "to sieve," thus "discriminate, distinguish").   

Back in the day, when someone was described as "a discriminating man," it was considered a compliment. It meant he showed good prudential judgment. Now we're not even supposed to notice differences as fundamental as those between men and women. Unless it's a trans-woman and then she/he/they is totally different from a man! And if you deny it, you're a bigot. That's some fancy lexicographical footwork. Try to keep up.

cult (n.)

1610s, "worship, homage" (a sense now obsolete); 1670s, "a particular form or system of worship;" from French culte (17c.), from Latin cultus "care, labor; cultivation, culture; worship, reverence," originally "tended, cultivated," past participle of colere "to till" (see colony). 

The word was rare after 17c. but it was revived mid-19c (sometimes in French form culte) with reference to ancient or primitive systems of religious belief and worship, especially the rites and ceremonies employed in such worship. Extended meaning "devoted attention to a particular person or thing" is from 1829.\  

As Catholics, it's not unheard of that we're accused of belonging to a cult. To which I say, "Indeed! I belong to the cult of Jesus Christ and his one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church!"  Which puts a whole different spin on the second paragraph describing a cult as an "ancient or primitive system of religious belief and worship." Ah-yup! Catholics have an ancient system of religious belief and worship, although I doubt most honest critics would call Catholicism "primitive" -- read Augustine and Aquinas through John Paul II and Benedict XVI for non-primitive Christian thinking and belief. In fact, Catholicism goes right back to Jesus Christ and his apostles, thank you very much. But, even some Catholics are susceptible to the misuse of the word "cult" and become defensive about it. They shouldn't. It's similar to the message of the cross being a sign of foolishness for some. Being a member of the cult of Jesus Christ and the church he founded is no shame. It's just the opposite. 

That's all for today. I encourage everyone to start using words correctly according to their intended meaning and take back the language from the Left.

Speaking of: Stop the World, I Want to Get Off

I get a laugh out of the absurdity of the human condition as much as the next cynic average American. But, the world stopped being funny sometime last year in the midst of the plague and the political collapse of the country (but, I repeat).

Let me get this straight (probably should have saved that for the bit on transgenderism). Joe Biden bombed Syria in retaliation for Iranian actors killing an American contractor in Iraq. That would be the Iran of the "Iran Nuclear Deal" that Biden says he wants us to rejoin which would have, at best, if you believe the Iranians are honest negotiating partners (LOL), delayed Iran getting a nuke with which to intimidate everyone in the region (and Europe), and potentially bomb the "Little Satan," Israel, into oblivion.  And since everything is blamed on racism, I'm sure Iranian hatred of Jews is because they're "evil" white people -- even though everyone in the region is ethnically Semitic. You can't make this shite up. 

Do you miss President Donald End-Foreign-Entanglements-and-Unleash-Israel-to-Defend-Itself Trump yet? I do. 

And speaking of entanglements in Iraq, did you hear Pope Francis visited that brutal and benighted country and met with the Shiite Grand Ayatollah Sistani for "dialogue?" Of course, Pope Francis never once publicly uttered the name of "Jesus," because whenever politically correct Christians "dialogue" with Muslims, they always bow to Allah rather than the Savior of the World. In case I wasn't clear, I do not believe Christians and Muslims worship the same god. Go ahead and call me an Islamophobe, but I will oppose any religion that treats women and religious minorities the way "faithful" Muslims do with my dying breath -- let's just hope it isn't brought on by the blow from a scimitar. 

And since we're speaking of Muslim mistreatment of women, did you know adherent Muslims believe Mohammed is "married" to the Virgin Mary in heaven? What a repugnant thought. The whole thing about Muslim men satisfying their sexual appetites in heaven is bad enough (what other appetites do men get to indulge in the presence of Almighty God?). But the idea that Jesus would tolerate the sexploitation of our Blessed Mother goes beyond blasphemy.* Yet Francis believes if he just dialogues with Sistani, conditions for Christians under Muslim rule in Iraq will improve. Makes you wish for a return of Pope Urban II, doesn't it?

Hey, what about the mistreatment of poor "Princess" Meghan Markle, you ask? I'm with Ben Shapiro that the real villain in the pathetic saga of the rrrrrracist rrrrrroyal family is "Prince" Harry. I mean, I feel sorry that "Princess" Meghan suffers from narcissistic personality disorder and became suicidal because she had to learn to curtsy to the Queen like every other female subject of Her Majesty. . . (ahem, cough) . . . but Harry would have us believe  his lefty father, pathetically "trapped" in a life of privilege and leisure, will not come to the aid of the damsel in distress, "Princess" Meghan, because she's light brown, and not because she's an obnoxious brat. Puhleaze. Way to smear your family, Harry. 

Besides, how do we know Meghan is really a black "woman?" Has she "identified" as such? Has anyone asked her in the last five minutes? Maybe she changes her mind periodically! And just what does it mean to "feel like a woman?" I'm ostensibly a woman and I'm not sure I could describe it outside of the, uh, you know, biological woman stuff. Bruce Jenner seems to think being a woman means wearing dresses, stockings, and high heels. By that measure, he's more of a woman than I am, that's for sure! I haven't dressed up like a "woman" in more than a decade. I guess I should turn in my woman-card.

Speaking of the Equality Act, now that biological males can compete with biological women and enter their bathrooms and locker rooms -- and dissident doctors and hospitals can be penalized and driven out of the medical field for refusing to mutilate perfectly healthy bodies of tragically unhealthy minds. . . what happens when a compliant primary care physician does a (virtual) pap smear and breast exam during an annual physical on a trans-woman, but fails to detect the prostate or testicular cancer that could kill him -- er, her? Can said physician be sued for malpractice, and on what grounds? The whole trans ideology would be laughably absurd if it wasn't such a damnably destructive lie. Sort of like same-sex "marriage."

Speaking of -- did you hear about the gay throuple listed as three fathers on their children's birth certificates? Absurd and sickening for those poor children.

Stop the world, I want to get off.

------------------------------------------------------------------

*For my non-Catholic Christian brothers and sisters, if you find the idea of Mohammed defiling Mary in heaven repulsive, you might wish to consider the Church's teaching on Mary's perpetual virginity in the context of any man having the b.b.b.bal. . . temerity to have relations with the spouse of the Holy Spirit, let alone the righteous and Blessed Saint Joseph. Some things you can know by faith and reason.

The Despicable, Despotic "Consensus"

Mr. C and I watched Eric Weinstein interviewed about the Intellectual Dark Web last night. I highly recommend it. 

I'm not in full agreement with "progressive" Weinstein about everything. I think it's been clearly demonstrated that the only way to promote human flourishing (make real "progress") is to acknowledge broken human nature and try to tame it and direct it toward the good. There's nothing better for a) defining "the good" objectively (on the premise that there is objective truth and good) and b) inculcating virtues of chastity, prudence, self-control. . . than religion, and in particular, Judaism and Christianity. Weinstein seems to think human flourishing is dependent on technological and scientific advancement. As a mathematician and physicist, he would. But, I'd argue that's demonstrably untrue. Read Alexander Zubatov's We Are Living in the Ruins of Our Civilization. 

But, one thing Mr. C and I agree adamantly, passionately, vociferously with Weinstein about is the utter civilizational destructiveness of the "consensus," group-think orthodoxy that's taken hold of our society. As Weinstein says, "consensus" is all about incentives, and more importantly, disincentives to openly expressing novel ideas -- many of which turn out to be exactly the kind of innovative thinking that advance the common good. At minimum, even wrong ideas can stimulate the kind of conversations that lead to good and true ideas. But, only if we're allowed to have those conversations. 

While Mr. C and I are just now becoming fully aware of the strength of our aversion to the "consensus," we realize it started some time ago with the "scientific consensus" on Climate Change. The phrase always rubbed us the wrong way, given that "consensus" is not how science works. It doesn't matter what "most scientists" think if they're wrong. In the pursuit of scientific truth, a hypothesis is proposed and tested. If the hypothesis fails to pan out under scrutiny, it is adjusted and tested again. If testing seems to confirm the hypothesis, and repeated testing by independent parties comports with earlier positive results, it may become a theory over time. But, the inquiry never ends. The hypothesis/theory is either repeatedly challenged under new conditions or is disproven and scrapped. Climate Change "science" is a mess due to its untestability (complexity and expansive time spans) and corruption by political actors (ahem, Al Gore).  Computer models are not data, and computer models which fail to be predictive like the ones we have now, are only useful in that they show scientists they're on the wrong track. But try telling that to "believers" in climate "science."

So why has "consensus" thinking become so prevalent in our society? It's only recently infected the scientific community by comparison to public policy, economics, and politics. Think how long the progressive policies of FDR have been mistakenly credited with helping Americans through the Great Depression when the opposite is true. Progressive policies contributed to and prolonged the Great Depression. But that consensus has been held by people going back to my Greatest Generation parents and is still widely believed today. Same with LBJ's Great Society legislation, which decimated the black family and continues to damage black culture and the rural poor in America to this day. 

"Capitalism has failed" says AOC and her crony capitalist allies at Amazon, Google, and Twitter. Really? Failed who? But, that's the growing consensus, leading to America-privileged, young, white fascists in the streets threatening to burn it all down. Half the country has Marxist sympathies, if not professing outright allegiance to the most murderous ideology of the 20th century, evidence be damned -- or, at least, ignored or memory-holed. 

But, I haven't answered the question "why?" It's apparent to me the "consensus" is just one more bullying cudgel in the Left's arsenal. It's intended to shut up dissenters and stifle discussion. Because the Left isn't interested in persuasion -- it's only aim is power, which it currently has in abundance, God help us. It's what they mean when they say "our democracy" (is under threat from Trump and his supporters in dissent). It's what Hillary meant by her campaign motto, "stronger together" (subtext: join or die). It's why Michael Anton (and the rest of us election skeptics) is being persecuted for not agreeing to the 2020 election being "free and fair," despite acquiescing to the Biden presidency. Shut up. Shut up! Shut up!! 

This will not end well for any of us, even those who currently support the Left's effort to declare independent thinkers "domestic terrorists." The Left is insatiable in its quest for power, and ambiguity in defining its opponents will eventually lead to former allies becoming enemies of the state. It's impossible to keep up with the demands to conform when the definitions are constantly changing. They'll all become summer soldiers and sunshine patriots to the would-be tyrants of the Left sooner or later. 

The rest of us shouldn't be surprised by any of this, though. We know where we stand right now in relation to the lefty Elect, and our position is precarious, my friends. We're very near the precipice.

------------------------------------------------------------------

For an extra dose of doom and gloom, here's the Weekend Long Read at American Greatness:

https://amgreatness.com/2021/02/27/the-narrative-the-coup-and-the-bourgeoisie/

BMGAA

The Imprudence of Joining the Mob

I know of no Trump supporter who believes President Trump is a paragon of virtue, despite all the accusations of a Trumpist cult of personality. I'm sure there are people who love him for his Honey Badger ferocity toward the globalist, status quo swamp creatures and are therefore forgiving of much of his boorishness. I might even be one of them. Does that make me a cultist? I appreciate the man, but I don't worship him, so I think not. However, this post is not a defense of Trump from Trump critics Left and Right. It's a criticism of conservatives who foolishly feed the Left's narrative and are therefore a drag on the efforts against the corporate fascist takeover of the country, at best, or are complicit in it at worst.  

None of us like to have our actions described as foolish or a betrayal to the cause. But, conservatives, particularly religious ones, have a realistic take on broken human nature, and understand that we all have failings which mature and virtuous people have to fess up to at times. Three of the most important words strung together in the English language are, "I was wrong." This understanding of the human condition is the very ground of the separation of- and limitations on- the powers of government enshrined in the American Constitution that conservatives claim to love so dearly.

Which is why Ben Sasse, Mitt Romney, and Liz Cheney among others were so very wrong to align with Democrats on the impeachment and removal of former President Donald Trump. In fact, anytime a conservative finds himself in agreement with the Left on any issue, he should reconsider his position or finally admit he's changed his affiliation, a la Arianna Huffington and Joe Scarborough. I can think of nothing which leftists have gotten right, from solutions to racism (personal virtue) to social justice to immigration to abortion to the minimum wage to climate change to free speech to gun rights to foreign policy. . . There's nothing notable leftists and conservatives can or should agree on. 

There's nothing leftists have admitted as failures of their ideas nor is there any destructive policy for which they've suffered political consequences either, no matter how damaging to people they're ostensibly trying to help. Thomas Sowell identifies the root of this obstinate denial of reality as the enormous "ego-stakes" of intellectuals, whose "end product is ideas." And as Fr. Longenecker says, you know the People of the Lie by their refusal to ever admit they're wrong and by their masterful non-apology apologies. Think Andrew Cuomo's "I'm sorry people were lead to believe I did anything wrong" with regard to nursing home COVID deaths in New York. Shamelessness is a feature of the Left, not a bug. 

Now, I understand Decorum Conservatives' discomfort with Donald Trump's rude New York manner and his difficulty (ahem, understatement alert) in fitting into the "presidential" mold. I was one of them, too, when this whole thing began. And I know of the DC's distaste for MAGA Trump supporters' reluctance to ever criticize the man. But, I think we have reached the point where it must be acknowledged Donald Trump received a tsunami of criticism, repeatedly daily -- hourly, minutely! -- from the People of the Lie. You could even say the frenzy of criticism -- obscuring anything he ever accomplished, which was a lot -- was/is an ugly mob of sanctimony and deceit (Russia Hoax, Charlottesville, fascist dictator, Capitol "insurrection," . . .). And it's never wise to join a mob, even one with which you agree ideologically. Just ask the Capitol trespassers. 

Speaking of which, have you ever known an insurrection to take place within the velvet rope lines of a Capitol building? Did those "insurrectionists" look like your typical MAGA patriots? Did you see Viking Man occupying the dais and think to yourself, "Yep, there's yer standard Trump supporter in action?" My engineering background makes me a "show-me" skeptic about most things. But, witnessing the repeated lies about Donald Trump (plus "climate change," Bill and Hillary's innocence, "systemic" racism, failures of capitalism, America as a 1619 slave state, "peaceful" BLM/antifa protests . . .) leads me to believe nothing presented by the corporate fascists in media, academia, Big Tech, and government upon first (second or third. . .) inspection. After the last five plus years (decades) of leftwing lies aimed at grasping at power, and largely succeeding, I'm in agreement with Jesse Kelly that The First Step Towards Righting America is Refusing to Believe the Left About Anything.

It's finally coming out that the "five people murdered" at the Capitol on January 6 stemming from the "deadly insurrection" for which Donald Trump was impeached weren't actually "murdered." Surprise! Even the Capitol Hill cop who died (cause of death remains unannounced, suspiciously) was confirmed not to have died from blunt force trauma (the fire extinguisher lie). You would think it significant that he died the next day, after texting with his brother the night of the 6th. But, that little factoid has been obscured, too. 

I'm not defending what happened that day as a good thing or even morally acceptable. I am saying the reaction to it, like the whole of Trump's presidency, was hysterical and is being used as a cudgel to beat President Trump and his 74 million voters into submission. I'm also saying, given the events of the 2020 summer of lawlessness, and the corporate fascists' tacit if not outright support for it, the Capitol trespass was totally predictable. Whenever tens of thousands of "mostly peaceful" protestors take to the streets, there will always be a few lunatics who make everything worse. And I'll add, it could have been a lot worse (and would have been if it had been Antifa's protest). After all, it's not like four Puerto Rican separatists stormed the Capitol and shot up a bunch of congressmen, as happened in 1954. The only gun I know of that was discharged was the law enforcement officer's pistol that killed Ashli Babbitt, tragically, but not without justification. She was in the wrong place at the wrong time. 

Which brings me finally to the politics of prudence and Rand Paul, as discussed by Jeremy Carl's excellent, In Undermining Trump, GOP Senators Rejected the Politics of Prudence. Would you have guessed Senator Paul, who's been an outspoken supporter of the President at key moments and who has literally been attacked in the streets of DC for it, would have a lower "Trump Score" (538's measure) than Ben Sasse, based on his voting record? Have you considered also that Rand Paul got more of what he wanted from President Trump policy-wise (troops out of Afghanistan, tax and healthcare reform, . . .)? I'm libertarian-sympathetic, but not a Rand Paul libertarian (I don't think), in that I'm not a free-market fundamentalist and I don't think all wars are unjust, but rather I'm concerned with how they're conducted and what the end goal is. But, the wisdom of Rand Paul in knowing his enemy (the Left) and refusing to kneecap his party's leader makes me admire him and want to take a closer look at his positions. I have no use for the "Sanctimonious Seven." As Carl says,

Contra the NeverTrump Lilliputians, getting along with Trump required sacrificing neither one’s integrity nor one’s vote. It simply required using political intelligence and prudence—understanding where, and how, one could push on an issue without feeding the ravenous Anti-Trump media, which is always happy to trade a patina of temporary “respectability” (witness their recent fawning coverage of Cheney) to any politician willing to undermine the core interests of GOP voters.

Trump supporters should get a good laugh out of Liz Cheney being the new media darling.  We might if she and the other useful idiots weren't so damaging to the cause, pissing away our liberties for their sanctimonious virtue signaling. I repeat, it's never wise to join the mob -- particularly if it's a lefty one.