The New Language of the Left

In the past few days, I have been presented with two op ed pieces that are representative of a changing of the guard, so to speak, in terms of the leftist tone.  During the Bush administrations, the "Progressives" of the time, screeched at the top of their lungs that dissent was patriotic.  Under Obama, we were told that you must support your leaders.  You may remember being told by a certain opportunistically racist comedian that Obama is like your father and you should listen to him.  Even the Daily Kos was confused.  Such has been the tone of the socialists of last eight years.  But all of that ends with the RNC convention.  It is, after all, someone else's turn in 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.  That's how it works, right?

Now we have two puff pieces from two ends of the leftist political fourth estate.  These are by no means representative of the minds of the elites that are making the real moves towards their own ends, but it is a good indication as any into the mind of the rank-and-file.

From the Gawker, I present you "Who Will Win the Upcoming Civil War?" .  A note before you proceed: I will advise you  first to remove any beverages from around your electronics.  I come to know this from experience.  There is so much that is wrong with this article I can scarcely find the time to go into significant detail.  The presumptions that war is a "you have all of the green guys, and I have all of the blue" is as absurd as it is infantile.  I will not offer any additional commentary but if you want a real knee slapper, please do yourself a favor and read the comments.  I had originally given thought that this was satire.  No, gentle readers, it is truly the work of a true believer. 

The next one comes to us from the LA Times, If Trump wins, a coup isn't impossible here in the U.S.

It starts out: "Trump is the most brazenly authoritarian figure to secure the nomination of a major American political party. He expresses his support for all manner of strongmen, and his campaign manager, Paul Manafort, has actually worked for one: former Ukrainian president and Vladimir Putin ally Viktor Yanukovich."

That's interesting.  I only wish their microscope had been a little more inward focused when we raised concerns that Obama's ear whisperers were filled with an assortment of advocates of the worst sort of communist, identity politics, and muslim expansionism this side of GITMO. 

"In [the case that Trump gives unlawful orders], our military men and women, who swear to uphold the Constitution and a civilian chain of command, would be forced to choose between obeying the law and serving the wishes of someone who has explicitly expressed his utter lack of respect for it."

The Oath of Enlistment states: "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

"According to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice".  There is the onion in obeying unconstitutional orders.  Upon looking at it, I had not realized that you will not find the same verbiage in the Oath of Office that commissioned Officers must take.  I can assure you, however, that they are also under the same rules of UCMJ that everyone else must abide by. 

"But what about Katrina"?  I agree that the National Guard was completely wrong in what they did, however well meaning it may have been at the time.  Keep in mind that the military authority was under civilian direction.  They were an instrument of the terminally incompetent and corrupt state and local government.  It is not an excuse, but lessons were learned.  Education of what the Uniform Code of Military Justice is and how it relates to disregarding an enumerated right in the Constitution is why groups like the Oathkeepers are so important.  If no one is told it is wrong, how will they know?

And he concludes: "Trump is not only patently unfit to be president, but a danger to America and the world. Voters must stop him before the military has to."  Both salacious and thought provoking, but for me, it does not invoke terror given the present occupier-in-chief.  He expanded the Patriot Act to dizzying heights, bombed on behalf of Al Qaeda, and established ISIS which cascaded into flooding Europe with Jihadi terrorists.  Then there is all of the economic warfare he has waged with all of the expansion and creation of new government entitlements and power grabs.  I do not see how much more an administration can undermine the West, but we still have some months.

There is a common thread between the two articles.  The left has understood that they cannot win this by themselves.  As with any argument the left has produced, it always comes from a place of perpetual victimhood and weakness.  For their success they must have another group to do what they know they cannot, namely win against the American conservative gun owner in a stand up fight.  This should be of no surprise to anyone here.  If you want to know why they are after your semi-autos, this is it. 

"Now what we need to do is take away their guns..."