Art of Conservatism---You've got to be kidding, Hillary!!!

August 25, 2017

Has anyone heard the little excerpt from Hillary Clinton's new book, “What Happened”, the one about Trump 'creeping her out' at the second debate? If not, how could you not have?? It's gone viral! If you're just hearing about it now, well, welcome back from vacation!

How much of a lie is this so-called 'excerpt'? C'mon, let's get logical here.

First of all, there are the pictures. And there are plenty of them from the second Presidential debate. They've been all over Fox. (I don't know about CNN or the others. I don't watch them because I don't have time for lies and ultra-low-quality television.) In those pictures, Trump is nowhere near Mrs. Clinton (yes, I won't use the uber-term Ms. She would like it if I did).

Second, anyone who knows Donald Trump knows his taste in women. How could you not, considering the three whom he has married? In my book, they are stunners, all of them. And, they have the brains to match. So, wouldn't you think that Hillary is, shall we say, not quite up his libido alley?

Third, if anyone is uber-intimidating in the political sense, it has to be Hillary Clinton. Her 'testicle lock box', from the phrase coined by Rush, is legendary. Just look at the record! Really, knowing Trump, as especially you Lefties say you do, is there even a shred of evidence that he would be turned on by such a type A+ personality? Really???

No, Hillary, to put it succinctly, you flatter yourself way too much. You really have to be delusional to think that Donny would have anything approaching the hots for you. He has a lot better at home, and frankly, I believe he has reached the age where he knows it. By the way, can the same be said for your husband? Hmmmm???

In short, Little Girl, get over yourself and get real. And, though I ain't holdin' my breath, an apology to The Donald might be in order.

Y'all can stop giggling now.

For Art of Conservatism, I'm Art Reis.

A word about the flaws this country's founding

Art of Conservatism—A word about the flaws this country's founding

August 23, 2017 (the day after the great hoax of the eclipse!)

I mentioned in another episode of Art of Conservatism, that I attend two Christian churches, both liberal in focus, but different in approach. The Episcopal Church, located deep in the suburbs of Chicago, tends to stay out of political discussion of any kind, period. There, it is easier to be a Conservative, and I know who most of the Conservatives there. A few are on the emailing list for Art of Conservatism.

Not so with the Presbyterian Church I also attend, located deep in the heart of the Lake View neighborhood of Chicago---read that, “Boys Town”. The depth of its political activism approaches that of the Miriana Trench in the Pacific, and that activism starts right at the top, with the pastor. This parish is up to its neck in 'social justice' issues, sanctuary cities and churches, and rights for gays, gay marriage, and other hot button Leftist issues. And the parish doesn't shy away from actively trying to shame those who are not of the same mind as they. I know. Some there have tried with me--and failed.

As I said, the pastor of this parish has given whole sermons about the evils of Donald Trump. You know the drill: Hater, Nazi, etc. Recently, the Pastor did a real hum-dinger along that line, as well as writing a similar front page piece in the bulletin. Oh, yes, she got a piece of my mind during the Hospitality Hour that followed---which she rejected. Surprise.

The assistant Pastor of the parish, a much younger lady and a fairly recent Seminary graduate, is more a Liberal and less of a hard lefty, and as such is much more open-minded to arguments made by a Conservative. Surprise again! After the sermon I just mentioned, she and I engaged in a somewhat spirited debate, joined in progress by a fellow parishioner who told us that he is of mixed race Black, with slave blood, and Native American. The subject turned to America's Flaws from its founding, and it was a teachable moment for both them, and me.

The subject of the Flaw of Slavery was discussed there, as it has been previously on this blog. For those who've missed, the Constitution dealt with this Flaw in two ways: first, by imposing an arbitrary, mandatory deadline on the importation of slaves from Africa (the year 1808); and second, with the Provision within the Constitution which stipulated the counting of each male slave as 3/5 of a person for purposes of the census. While there are those who have blatantly lied about this provision by calling it racism, this latter provision was insisted on by the abolitionist North, and had the effect of reducing the population of the South in comparison to that of the North, the goal of which was to increase the relative clout of the North, thus to aid in the process of dismantling slavery in the future. That almost worked, but as we all know, it ultimately took the Presidential Emancipation Proclamation to seal that deal. That knowledge put part of our discussion to rest.

However, there is that other Little Matter (there's that word again!) of the treatment of the Native Americans at the hands of the white man, almost literally from day one. This is a perfect case of me coming up with the clinching argument long after our little three-way discussion was over and we'd gone our separate ways.

My response should have been, and is now, the following: If we Conservatives are going to believe that the founding of this country was aided by the Hand of God, and that, as President Ronald Reagan so eloquently put it, America is “the Shining Beacon on the Hill”, we are going to have to compare the Founding against the settling of Palestine by the Israelites those many thousands of years ago. What did the Israelites have to do in order to make for themselves a nation? The answer is simply, “take over a land already occupied by others”. God promised to Abraham, nee Abram, to make of him, Abraham, a great nation, for the Glory of God Himself. No nation can be considered a nation without a share of real estate. But to do it, the tribes of Israel had to clear out that real estate of everyone else: The Hittites, Elamites, Midianites, and the Phillistines. The Israelites couldn't do that without God's help. And of course, God helped, for as long as the Israelites chose to worship, serve, and glorify Him. That's the key, of ultimate importance. As long as the Israelites chose to stay close with God, they kept that land that they had taken from the other peoples of the Middle East, and prospered on it. When they didn't...... well, you know the rest..... or should. Remember Babylon?

Fast forward to the North American continent, at the time of its first settling by the Europeans. The parallels are clear. The Renaissance was a zenith of the Worship of God. The Reformation, born of the Renaissance, had helped God to better reach the average man, and many of those average men responded. Those who were the thinkers and pray-ers and doers of the Reformation came into conflict with the established churches of Europe of the time (see a parallel with today's political upheavals here?) and that's when God, in my opinion, stepped in. Out “there” (North America) was a possibility of building a great nation, one which would adhere to the Commandments and the Worship of God. It just needed to be settled. And it was.

The major thrust of those who settled this land and made this great nation was both the need to worship God in what was considered to be the most personal way, and virtue. This virtue, wide-ranging, extended even to one aspect of the sin of slavery: Black slaves, back in Africa, came from a wide variety of religious backgrounds, but in the New World, their masters made Christianity the defacto religion for everyone, just as was the case in the rest of the country, and in the slaves God found some of his greatest adherents to the teachings of Jesus. I would suggest that God's will was done here.

All this begs the question of, “How does the White Man's treatment of Native Americans relate to the experience of the Israelites?” That must be answered with its own question: “How much did God care about the peoples that the Israelites conquered?” We don't hear much about how the Hittites, Midionites, et al, fared after they were conquered, do we? They may have done well, relocated to other areas to regroup, but in the main, we don't know. They may have disappeared altogether. While many of the things which were done to Native Americans by the Europeans across the centuries are now considered to be deplorable, and even despicable, some of those who are left have become involved in the American dream.

And again, who is to say that, like the situation with the Israelites and their adversaries, the founding and settling of the North American continent wasn't God's will? And, following the same parallel as was the history of the Jews, aren't we in danger of losing all that we have gained because, in great measure in this country, we as a people have turned away from God, we've lost much of our virtue, and with those losses, we've lost something more important----trust, including in God. And, as I've said before, the operational definition of hell is when no one can trust anything. Without our dependence on God, and without virtue, and with the loss of trust, we as a nation are headed there; indeed, we are at the precipice, just as the Jews of the era of Jeremiah were.

Benjaman Franklin was asked by a citizen, right after the Constitutional Convention, what form of government had been created for the new nation. To which Franklin replied, “A Republic, if we choose to keep it. (Emphasis mine.) It's true, but by the same token, it is just as true that we also have a sovereign nation under God, if we choose to keep it.

Do we choose to keep it? Then, I would strongly suggest that we get over most of our guilt trip as to how this nation came to be and get back to thanking God for the fact that this nation exists. I truly believe that the founding of this nation was of the will of God, period. To suggest otherwise is to push this nation over the precipice.

For more on this, read Michael Medved's book, “The American Miracle”.

For Art of Conservatism, I'm Art Reis

Anybody notice something different about Trump?

Art of Conservatism—Anybody notice something different about Trump?

August 21, 2017 (the day of the great hoax of the eclipse!)

I don't know if anyone else has, but there has been an almost-subtle change in Donald Trump since he has assumed the Office of President. Maybe others have noticed, but I think not many. But though subtle, I consider it to be profound---the change in the expounding of his faith.

During the Presidential primaries and campaign, Trump almost never mentioned anything about his belief in either God or Jesus Christ. I'm suspecting that, at that time, his relationship with God didn't mean much to him. After all, being a self-made man, why would he? Self-made men tend to own huge egos. No surprise there, but upon taking the oath of office, the weight of the world almost literally came up on him. It had to. Even if I weren't a person of faith, such a weighty responsibility would certainly drive me to my knees. I sense that this is also exactly what happened with Donald Trump.

When victory by Trump was confirmed way late on election night, my very first thought was from the Psalms, namely, “This is the Lord's doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes.” My view remains unchanged in the months since. As a matter of fact, I am going to pass along one of my sayings to bolster my belief: “The measure of any person can be seen in the type of friends he or she has, the number of enemies accumulated, and the quality of the questions he or she asks.” In Donald Trump, I've seen every one of those tests passed. He has asked the right questions at the right time. He has collected around him the best minds he could find to go about the running of this country in the right way. And, as we now have all witnessed, he has accumulated exactly the kind of enemies that shows all people who trust in God that he is worthy of the respect that he will never get from them. That these enemies are being incredibly active in trying to destroy him is even more proof that he is worthy of that respect.

I share a kind of kindred spirit of faith with Donald Trump, in that both of us have one foot in the Episcopal Church, and the other in the Presbyterian Church (which wants so much to distance itself from him---to their detriment). He started out as a Presbyterian but his marriage to Melania was in a beautiful Episcopal Church in Florida. I grew up an Episcopalian, and still church there, but I was married in, and also attend, my wife's home Presbyterian Parish in Chicago. So, yes, I find that factoid indeed comforting, but I find even more comforting that, now that he is President, Donald Trump is taking his faith far more seriously.than I have to. After all, look at how dirty his enemies are fighting that war which is called politics.

One more point: I cannot help but note a parallel here, between Donald Trump, and David as King of Israel. David started out as unassuming, from humble background, when he was chosen by God to fight in the Army of Israel against the Philistines, and kill Goliath. Both were chosen in unlikely ways to be the leaders of their respective countries. And, most glaringly, both were human men with human foibles and sins, big time. David went on not only to be the greatest leaders of the one of the great countries of the world, but fathered a son who was even better at it. While Donald Trump hasn't quite done that last item yet, if he's allowed to, he may just become a world leader on a par with a Churchill or Lincoln. There, I said it. But, if God is on his side, and more importantly if Donald Trump will allow Him to be, I truly believe that God will do what it takes in world events to make that happen.

For Art of Conservatism, I'm Art Reis

Comey Gone.....

Art of Conservatism for May 10, 2017

Comey Going....

So, Donald Trump fired Jim Comey as head of the FBI on May 9. So? So what?

On this one, I have to agree with Trump. And he didn't do it out of thin air, either. He had solid advice from someone I trust even though I've only heard of him less than 48 hours (as I write this).

My point is, Comey had it coming. I fall on the side of those who say he politicized the Office of Director of the FBI. Whether he did it by calculation or by just being caught up in the events of the moment makes no difference. He did things that made me wonder about what the FBI was coming to and, more importantly, question his own judgment. Any head of the FBI must not have that baggage. That's enough for me to believe that a Jim Comey had outlived his usefulness.

And the process was both swift and sure. The Statist Party screams that the timing of the firing was not by accident, that this was planned to happen at this time to further Trump's political agenda. BS. Double BS, actually. The Statist Party's own actions was the source of the timing of what happened.

Why? Because of the Senate's molasses-like sloth in dealing with Trump's nominees for their own political gain. The statists spent over two months fighting the nomination of Jeff Sessions as Attorney General, so that he didn't get to take the reins at Justice until late March. They've been even more obstructionist with Trump's nominees to the lesser offices in the various cabinets, and that included Ron Rosenstein, who by all accounts is a man of incredible integrity and is, also by all accounts, as non-partisan a man as can be found in government service. So politically pastel is he that, when he was nominated for US Attorney by both Presidents Bush and Obama, his confirmation sailed through the Senate with considerable bi-partison support. How does a final vote of 94-6 look to you? 

The thing that shows the Statist Party for what it is, came when, as Trump's nominee for Deputy Attorney General, the Senate refused to confirm him until just a couple of weeks ago. Once confirmed and in the saddle, Jeff Sessions gave Rosenstein the assignment to evaluate Jim Comey's performance as Director of the FBI and to report his findings to President Trump. 

On Monday, Rosenstein's report was complete. Both his evaluation letter, and the letter from Sessions on the same topic, reached the President's desk by Tuesday. The difference was that Sessions merely informed the President that Comey should not be retained. Rosenstein's letter actually told Mr. Trump why. Apparently that letter was so compelling, that Mr. Trump had little choice but to act swiftly on the matter, and the rest is now history. The Statist Party, which had blamed Comey to the skies for poisoning the election waters for Hillary Clinton, and who six months ago were demanding his head on a stick in retribution, are now screaming that his firing was politically motivated, in order to take the heat off of Donald Trump in the investigation of the Russian thing. Sorry, folks, but you can't have it both ways, even though you feel you can. 

No--In this instance, Donald Trump did the right thing to let Comey go. In my mind, there was a question regarding Comey's impartiality from the moment he opened his mouth during the election campaign. I know that I was nowhere near alone in that feeling. Comey's departure, and a worthy replacement of him, will give the FBI the aura of impartiality that it needs to get back. And, as to the question of the investigation of the Russian matter, Comey's departure will most likely have no effect on that grinding of the wheels of justice.

Now, who can best replace Jim Comey? I have two ideas, one of which is plausible. My first choice is the one who is not: Ron Rosenstein. His reputation for impartiality is impeccable. He'd be a boon to law enforcement in this country. The problem is that it is not considered good form to give the job of anyone whose head was just chopped off, to the person who handed the ax to the executioner.

My second choice is an ultimate law enforcement man: David Clarke, Sheriff of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin. Anyone who doesn't know him, should simply get to. He's a down-and-out conservative when it comes enforcing the law, which will likely be a problem when his nomination gets to the Senate. Yes the obstructionists must, after all, have another day in the limelight, but once in office he will be the kind of bulldog on crime that will ultimately endear him to the Conservatives in this country, then to more than just the Conservatives, with the result that there will be yet another feather in Trump's crime-fighting hat. 

 

It would be interesting to find out what other nominees are out there. If you have any ideas, I'd love to hear from you. You can comment here at Art of Conservatism.

For Art of Conservatism, I'm Art Reis

Art of Conservatism---What Was He Thinking?

So the FBI spent literally months and megabucks of taxpayer loot, pursuing an investigation of Hillary Clinton, including all of her 'business' deals, her so-called 'charitable' organization, her use of unsecured computer servers, and on and on. We The People have had to endure endless instances of what we all know is bald-faced lying on her part, and that of her husband, himself a person who is way too tawdry to even mention further. Except I have to.

And then the FBI investigation concluded. Then there's the spectacle of that husband of hers, caught in a supposedly legal, not sexual for once, tryst with the Attorney General (herself a terribly doctrinaire and corrupted person) on an airplane on the tarmac of an airport in a place where only hell is hotter (and I say that advisedly).

And after all that, Jim Comey, the current FBI Director, announced his conclusions of the investigation: What Hillary did, though certainly tawdry enough, was not up to the level which deserves any indictment. Really??!!?? The reaction was immediate, uniform and expected, something along the lines of “Gag me with a spoon!!”

And then, in the next breath, Mr. Comey did something which has never been done before in the annals of the FBI in any similar circumstance: After exonerating her, he began a quarter-hour-long litany of the things the Agency's investigation found. And it was damning. It was jaw-dropping. And the immediate question was, “How could Hillary Clinton not be indicted for doing what Jim Comey had described for doing all that ? Where's the justice in all of this? Is this more proof that the world has gone to hell in a hand basket, and a dirty hand basket at that?”

Well, hold the phone. Let's look a little closer at this, and see if we can discern what Comey's intent was. There are several possible scenarios in play here:

First, suppose that an indictment had been called for at that news conference. Such a recommendation would mean that the Justice Department would be left with the decision on whether to indict, or not. There are two possible directions that can take.

What if Justice decided to not indict? Most like, that would let Hillary off the hook, perhaps forever. Under that scenario, at least in the short term, it would mean No Hillary in prison, most likely. That's what has happened.....thus far.

But what if Justice decided to indict? In that case Hillary would most likely be forced to end her run for the Presidency before, or maybe just after the Democrat National Convention, leaving a gaping political hole to be filled. Who would fill it? Well, who has the phone and the pen around here? Why, it's Barack the Magnificent, who would be all too ready and able to Do The Right Thing, and anoint a certain Special Someone to fill that vacancy! And, who is now emotionally ready and waiting in the wings for a 'draft', a request, a plea, an entreaty, a phone call, to please take that job? Why, of course, Joe Biden! And would he accept? What do you think? And would he win? He'd have a better chance at that, even with all of his mental gaffes and foibles, than would Hillary. Bet the rent on that horse.

And, what if Hillary, indicted and thus politically wounded as she would be in this case, were to face trial during election season? That would be a Gross Divisive Distraction at a time when We The People would least need such a G.D.D. What would be the chances of her being convicted in such a trial to follow? Given that the entire jury pool (comprised of that pesky We The People, again) has been tainted by the revelations brought to light by Jim Comey, and thereafter screamed to the skies by every Republican who isn't a RINO, the chances are high that she would be convicted----only to be pardoned for all of her crimes in a heartbeat by Barack of Pen and Phone (just ask him!), who by that time would be either welcoming his veep of eight years to the throne, or in the case of a dreaded Republican victory, supervising the implementation of martial law over the entire country.

But, I believe Jim Comey has intentionally planted a seed. Maybe enough of one to make a difference on Election Day. That is key. Of course the Trump campaign will take full advantage of the ammunition it's been given. But, can it, will it, translate into a Trump win, which would almost certainly mean a forthcoming Hillary indictment? Remember, double jeopardy applies only to convictions. Jim Comey knows that, of course---that's what he's betting on. And if it's not the way to bet, it is indeed the way to pray. And should all of this come to pass, then Comey's move to forego recommending the indictment of Hillary Clinton now will not be a capitulation. It will be a strategy. As Paul Harvey said many times, “Evil is its own undoing”. Pray for that to be the case this time. Jim Comey is.

Then think, “national hero”. Please. But only if it works. And that's up to us.

For Art of Conservatism, I'm Art Reis.

Art of Conservatism---Pre-Requisites for Governing? Why not?

March 29, 2016

Here's a Universal Truth that maybe you readers haven't seen put into words before: The more responsible a job position is, the more training that it requires in order for the holder to be effective at holding it. Most everyone who has held a job within the private sector will understand this, and most will agree. What executive worth his salt doesn't know his company's business inside out, or at least how to lead it?

 

That belief is not nearly so universally held in the area of government. And that, I believe, is how and why this country has been going wrong.

Outside of age, what are the qualifications to become a United States President? Congressman? Senator? State Legislator? A governor? A judge? Not much. Hardly any, actually. 

Of all those representatives of the three branches of government at the two levels of government in this country, only the judiciary has a tacit requirement that those who sit as judges have a goodly knowledge of the Constitution and/or laws with which they are to render their judgments. That's because almost all of them come to the bench as member of the Bar.

The only eligibility requirement to hold office in the other two branches of government at either the Federal or State level, is that candidates for those offices must convince the majority of voters that they have the competency to do it. When the electorate often doesn't know what it takes to be a competent legislator, governor, or President, it comes across to the above-average observer like a recipe for disaster.

There, that should pretty well explain it.

So, how does one train to be 'one of the above'? For quite a few years, many thought that being a lawyer was an adequate prerequisite for the job of governing. But being a lawyer is a career in itself, with many specialties, and not necessarily adequate training to govern. Besides, We The People have had to learn the hard way that the most often-seen outcome of lawyers in charge, is the creation of legislation favoring lawyers. In Illinois, for instance, lawyers who are headed to court are absolved of all speeding tickets.

For extra credit, see what other instances of such laws you can find for your state.

Besides, it is my considered opinion that those who create the laws which we all must obey must be taken from many, many areas of expertise, so that the common sense situations which govern the various endeavors of life may have voice in the legislative process. Yes, there are always 'expert witnesses' testifying for and against particular points of view, but they don't get to vote on the legislation thus created.

Here's my point (aka idea): I believe that all candidates for public office at both the State and Federal levels, at minimum, must be adequately trained and tested in the 'ins and outs' of the State and the Federal Constitutions, not only as to what is written on the page, but also why these documents are written as they are. The purpose of this is not only to make sure that potential legislators and executives understand, but that they have an appreciation for the means by which the various Constitutions, state and Federal, are created, not only to provide support for it, but to see to proper Amendments. Such test scores would be made a part of the public record, and if the prospective candidate so desired, he or she could re-take the battery of tests to improve their scores.

Where would prospective legislators and executives go to learn the Constitution, and to be tested for their knowledge and skill in this area? 

At the Federal Level, the Heritage Foundation is the first obvious choice, since it is not politically active for or against candidates---it exists only to support the Federal Constitution, and the history and process of how it came to be. Other entities would be schools of higher learning such as Hillsdale College, or Grove City College. Other such schools exist, I'm sure, and would make good resources for such training. At the State Level, institutions of higher learning, both public and private, could be enlisted to provide resources for the various state Constitutions. A good learning experience would be to compare and contrast the various State Constitutions, to glean from all the best ideas.

Here's an example from my limited experience: Were I to become a member of the Illinois General Assembly, I would make it a priority to amend the Illinois Constitution in the area of pension protection for State workers. I wouldn't remove the provision---I'm married to a County Government employee, who is covered under that state constitutional provision---but I would change it to remove pensions from the collective bargaining process, and replace that with a provision giving individual employees the power to self-direct their pensions into IRA's, at their own risk, while prohibiting the legislative process from touching any funds associated with it. That's just one idea. 

 

Does this sound like a Conservative idea? Yes, since the entire thrust of this idea is to make the United States Constitution, and its state level counterparts, the core of the legislative and executive process at both of the higher levels of government. After all, the core belief of Conservatism is the adherence to the Constitution. And, the more you know about the Constitution and the (temporary) job of being a Legislator or Executive, the better Conservatism looks.

Requiring all State and Federal members of the Executive and Legislative Branches to know and understand those documents is the key to adhering to them in their work. Otherwise, what we get are a bunch of charlatans whose only credentials are how to make themselves rich at the public trough, and create laws from which they will be more than willing to exempt themselves.

We can do better.

For Art of Conservatism, I'm Art Reis.

Art of Conservatism---Micro-Aggression?

March 28, 2016

One of the problems which Conservatives deal with on an almost daily basis, is the left's virtually unstoppable zeal to shut them up. Rush and the other Conservative commentators are right when they state that the left certainly knows that it's ideas can't begin to compete with those of the Right, so they seek to stifle any opposing views through many methods aimed at controlling the flow of information, and as such, the dissemination of those Horribly Politically Correct ideas. One of these tactics is in use of 'weakness'. Perhaps we Conservatives should start cataloging and categorizing these methods, with the aim of creating effective antidotes to them---and I use that word, 'antidotes', advisedly.

While I'm sure you all can think of a lot of ways in which the left seeks to control information and minds in this world (and I've already mentioned the use, or rather the misuse, of the word 'racism' in an earlier blog) I'd like to start with the term 'micro-aggression'.

Imagine a child of, say seven or eight, who hears something that said little kid doesn't like. It matters not whether what the weak little tyke hears is the truth about him, her, or it---whatever. The point is that the first inclination of said little person is to suppress it. So, the little person runs to the 'safety' of someone in charge, or that failing, running to the safety of the herd, the crowd, mob, or sometimes the media, to scream to high heaven, or to the masses, whichever comes first, that “so-and-so abused me” even though that the nasty, mean 'beast over there' did nothing more than to tell the Poor Little Person something that said PLP didn't want to hear. Thus either the authority figure or the mob or the media cudgel is incited to take out revenge on that nasty micro-aggressor and figuratively, or sometimes literally, beat it into submission, even sometimes to death. Now imagine that same sort of thing happens but instead of a seven- or eight-year-old, it's a seven- or eight-year-old mind, within the body of an alleged adult, such as a young adult on a college campus.

That's the essence of the process of political correctness. It's right out of the 'Rules for Radicals' playbook, it's called 'marginalizing', and it's a form of tyranny. Thankfully, We The People are beginning to awaken to just what's going on with political correctness.

So.... let's see how to combat it.

First of all, there's the term 'micro-aggression' itself. Anyone who is supposedly 'intimidated' by anything 'mico' is a mental small-fry, and shouldn't be trusted with sharp objects or matches, let alone anything approaching anything having to do with leadership of anything. Such self-made 'victims' of 'micro-aggressions' conveniently forget that the operative part of the term is the 'micro' rather than the 'aggression'. By its very construction, a micro-anything can and should be ignored, but it's not. 

That the 'abused' have to run to the local authority figure, or the mob, to get proper 'justice' (read that, 'punishment) against the 'accused', is in itself far more aggression rather than micro, since often the alleged aggression is based on the truth rather than aggression, the truth is overwhelmed, and the result is abject tyranny against the alleged 'aggressor', who in truth becomes the actual victim---especially when the herd is brought to bear. It's all out of the 'Rules for Radicals' playbook, and there's a word for it---marginalization. The truth-teller or inadvertent 'micro-aggressor' is thrown out of the circle, society, or worse yet, imprisoned or made to pay a heavy financial penalty.

All of this is because the left knows that, in the arena of ideas, their ideas cannot stand the scrutiny of those who know the truth, so those nasty old bullies must be driven out of existence by those who are themselves the true bullies. What the left tends to forget, however, is that the 'arena of ideas' implies an audience, a crowd looking on, a crowd which is likely to see the alleged micro-aggression and the reaction to it for what both are---and who are more and more likely to see the side of that alleged 'accused' more sympathetically than they are to the side of the 'abused'. That's starting to become apparent to We The People now. How better to explain the rise of Donald Trump than as a negative reaction to the ascendancy of political correctness in this country? I can't help but wonder if he saw 'paying to play' as a form of 'political correctness', and just got fed up with it. 

Even so, I believe that the shining of the hard light of The Truth on Political Correctness is how the concept is going to best be defeated. After all, the more exposed it becomes to enough people who are truly grown up, and who have been through the school of hard knocks, the more likely that it will become seen for what it is, and thus repugnant enough to fall out of the main stream of political thought. 

I realize that it will take a great deal of time to defeat the political correctness which has pervaded this country. After all, political correctness is a major component of that War by Other Means. The thing is, We The People are going to have to start to recognize that political correctness is far more pervasive than most of us believe, and that much of the power of political correctness revolves around the ability of the left to control the language, and thus our rhetoric. Once that is recognized, the next step is to call out any signs of political correctness for what it is, and attack them, just like would be the case with any other form of tyranny, or lies backed up by aggression. 

Political correctness can also be attacked by calling it a form of weakness, which it is. Make sure that that those who practice political correctness are made known to the community for what they are, so that they can be thwarted in their ability to gain or maintain any kind of political power. It means learning how to be educated consumers of information---including removing support from those members of the news media who practice political correctness. It will also mean getting more and more Conservatives elected to our state legislatures, with the aim of taking back control of our institutions of higher learning from those who are indoctrinating our children with Left Wing political correctness. Don't get rid of all of them. Just get control of the colleges and universities away from them. 

As I said, it will be a long, hard fight, but it is a major step which needs to be taken if Conservatism is going to win back this country from those who would destroy it.

For Art of Conservatism, I'm Art Reis