In almost any issue at controversy in the sphere of domestic politics, you can invariably forecast what the radical left is doing, has done, or plans to do by simply listening to what they accuse the Republicans of doing, having done, or intending. When Howard Dean proclaimed on the eve of the election that the only way Mitt Romney could win would be to steal it, I knew without further deliberation that this was precisely what the left was doing. When Barack Obama accused Mitt Romney of politicizing the Benghazi attacks, what any observer who had been as astute and sophisticated as a twelve-year-old would have recognized is that this had been precisely what Obama and his administration had already done. If the mainstream media were half as objective or one-tenth as honest as they pretend to be, they would have noticed this trend long ago, and used it as a “hot tip” on where to focus their investigative talents, but since they’re in league with the left, they merely joined in on the fun. Whatever a leftists say in public, when they allege some ill motive of their adversaries, you can dependably assume they’ve already done what they now decry.
If you think about it carefully, it extends into every political debate and issue before the country. Who will forget the obscenely dishonest television commercials that depicted Paul Ryan as wheeling Granny to a cliff and then pitching her over the precipice? Yet with the advent of Obamacare, who really threw Grandma and Grandpa to the wolves? The simple fact is that the Affordable Care Act, apart from relying on a three-quarter-trillion dollar cut to Medicare, also put into law a panel made up of people with no medical expertise whatever who would determine what procedures seniors could receive as a matter of economic cost-benefit analysis. These were appropriately termed “Death Panels” by Sarah Palin, who was again spot-on about both the intentions and the effects of the law, but she was derided as a lunatic by the mainstream media and popular culture for having pointed this out. The problem is that she had been right, and as the law now edges toward full implementation, the facts have become apparent. Once again, what we can learn from this debate is that the left would do what it accused others of intending, and that the media would predictably help to cover this up.
You can apply this to virtually every argument the left initiates with its accusations of vile intentions on the part of some conservative or Republican. This election season, the left spent a great deal of time and energy pushing the farcical notion of a “Republican war on women.” The problem with this is that one party has been undermining women for generations, and it isn’t the Republicans. More women than ever now live in poverty. More women than ever must now rely upon government to feed their children. More women than in the history of America have found themselves unable to maintain independence despite extraordinary efforts to do so. More women find themselves facing six-figure debt burdens in pursuit of education that provides them with fewer available opportunities. They see their children less. They have less time for the things important to them. How is it possible for Democrats and associated leftists to proclaim that there is a Republican “war on women” when the conditions and culture in which women must now live is worsening? The real “war on women” has been waged endlessly by Democrats who work to divide families, and who use the whole of their machinery to drive as many women as possible into their welcoming arms. Look at what they’ve done to wreck this economy. How can it be that they are permitted to get away with this narrative?
It’s not possible to ignore that whatever the Democrats allege, the reverse is almost invariably true, and the ill will they project upon conservatives or Republicans are really simple confessions of their own. Another area in which this is undeniably true is the matter of race. No party in history has been so consumed with racism as the Democrats, and no other ideology so thoroughly lends itself to racial demagogues. They can’t wait to use the race of Susan Rice as an excuse to forgive her of any wrongdoing in the matter of Benghazi, but I am certain that race had absolutely nothing to do with the outcry against Rice’s misleading of the American people. Whether she was merely following orders, or had been a co-conspirator who had known the truth, her race was no part of the outrage against it. How am I so certain? Apart from the fact that I had been outraged by it, but never considered her race, the simple fact is that when Democrats used race as the basis for dismissing criticisms of Rice, I realized they were simply confessing their motives in selecting her for the untidy work from the outset. I don’t think this way, but I’ve come to learn Democrats do. They put her out front because she was a woman, and black, and it was expected that they would use this defense when later challenged. Had they sent Axelrod or Gibbs to the Sunday shows to profess a lie, they could not now hold forth a defense based on race. Many had wondered why Rice had been made the face for this discussion at all, and herein lies the reason.
This ought to tell you a good deal about the real motives and thinking of the left. They chose Rice as their patsy, if she was one, precisely for her race and sex. The media would naturally follow the lead as soon as they cried foul on the basis of race or sex, so it could be counted on that what you would have is the spectacle of Lindsey Graham and John McCain, two “old white guys” ganging up on a young black woman. Naturally, the media cleverly omitted Kelly Ayotte from the picture, despite the fact that she too was a participant in the criticisms from the Senate. She wouldn’t have fit so neatly into the narrative of racism and sexism. No, two “old white guys” would suffice. This is the manner of everything the left does, so that when they come along with an argument or accusation, you can flip it and examine them under its light, nearly always discovering the real truth of the matter. People of a more conservative viewpoint need to do a better job educating those who don’t know how to recognize these hucksters for what they are, and teach them to perceive it on their own. People are always a bit skeptical of any politician, and it’s time we exposed them all. When a Democrat proclaims: “My opponent wants to feed children dog-food,” it isn’t an exaggeration so much as a confession that if left to his agenda, that’s precisely what he will do.
As published at: Mark America