What Shouldn’t Oughter

This is already a very cheerful time of the year, but the Lord apparently thought I needed to be cheered up even a little bit more, and so He very kindly arranged to have the Democrats start yelling at us over the startling news that the Russians hacked our sacred electoral processes.bear-putin

Now I do need to emphasize at the outset that it is our electoral processes that are sacred. As in, America’s electoral processes. It is quite important not to make a mistake here. When it is other nation’s elections we are talking about—those very pedestrian kind of foreign elections—it is simply the case that the same kind of civic dignity and majesty are not exuded by them. It doesn’t waft off of them, the way it does off of ours. I say this merely out of a desire to use off of twice in one sentence. These are antinomian times.

This is why, for example, there is no problem with President Obama interfering with the British Brexit vote, popping up during their campaign in order to do his sanctimonious professor thing—which he admittedly does very well—so that he might inform the benighted British public that a yes vote on Brexit would have DIRE consequences. This was okay because their elections are not sacred the way ours are. And remember that time when Obama sent a bunch of taxpayer money—as in, hundreds of thousands—over to Israel in order to get Netanyahu frog-marched to the nearest electoral curb? Good times. This was okay because Israeli elections are ordinary schlub-like elections, participated in by foreigners. They are not Americans, a point that is often overlooked. These foreigners buy their democracies in bulk at warehouse discount houses. They don’t have the expensive high-end kind of democracy like we do, the sacrosanct kind. And besides, Netanyahu was being annoying to our president, and not annoying our president is another one of our sacrosanct values.

So the current story is that Putin “hacked” our sacred space election in order to help Trump, a candidate who didn’t appear to want war with Russia. Why would he do something like that? But let us leave aside for the moment the question of whether or not this is true. I mean, this is the last month of 2016—why should truth start mattering now? Let us assume for the sake of argument that Putin is guilty as charged. He was behind an operation that broke into the emails of some American operatives and politicians, and then through Julian Assange—say, has anybody seen him recently?—supposedly had these damaging emails leaked to the American public. This had the unsettling effect of revealing the truth about these politicians—in 2016, remember—and nobody quite knew where to look. American voters usually know the truth about their leaders, but not out there in its underwear like that, covered in goose bumps.

And so, even taking the account at face value, we are talking about a leak, not a hack. Leaking is where you obtain access to some documents and let a bunch of people see them what shouldn’t oughter. Hacking is where you send your cyber-pirates after the electronic voting machines themselves, jiggering the ones and zeros so that your favored guy in the election comes out ahead. But, you see, Putin’s forces didn’t do that. Hillary’s people did.

Thanks to the quixotic recount efforts spearheaded by Jill Stein, we discovered that there was in fact massive voter fraud in—for starters—Detroit. No Russians there though . . . just a lot of imaginary Democrats voting. Like magic. They didn’t even have to go down to the polls. They just stayed at home, and their wishes went down there and voted. Several times. Now since they were imaginary voters, one could make the case that they were imaginary Russians, but—Occam’s razor—I prefer the theory that the imaginary voters were natives of Wayne County.

So for the Democrats to be yelling about a rigged election right about now is why we need words like chutzpah. Before the election, back when Donald Trump declined to say whether he was going to accept the results of the election—knowing, for example, that precinct workers in places like Detroit had been limbering up—he was given a national Lecture by the Appointed Scolds, and they were Insistent that it was Necessary to accept the Results of our Free and Very Fair (and Sacred) Elections. Otherwise, Democracy would Fail from the earth, and we would become as the Beasts that Perish.

Of course, the election then went the other way (Rom. 9:17). This was because Putin had spies on Hillary’s staff, and because her medicos were giving her these weird injections all the time, what with one thing and another, it was a matter of no consequence to sneak in an extra injection that made Hillary allergic to cheese, which ruled out campaigning in Wisconsin, as much as she wanted to. There are layers to this, people. Didn’t you know that Putin used to be KGB?

But when the election went the other way, somebody flipped a switch. What was unpatriotic to the core to question in October became the highest civic responsibility to question in December. The election surprised the Heck out of the Hubris of Hillary—such that the candidate treated her hotel room like she was Keith Moon, or maybe even Keith Richards. Then rioting mobs freaked out, then it was James Comey’s fault, and then delegates to the Electoral College were threatened, and now it is the Russians threatening the sanctity of our hallowed democracy.

These are the same people who will ensure you are branded on the forehead with an R for Racism if you support Voter ID laws that would help eliminate voter fraud. “Our electoral process is secure. Nobody is committing voter fraud. How dare you require picture ID for voting? There is no need for identification security at the polling stations, you bigot.” I mentioned earlier our need for words like chutzpah. We also need words like schadenfreude.

And because this election has been the fruit-of-the-month club selection, with all the cherries, these are the same people who set up an unsecured cardboard box server for Hillary so that she could run her dirty foundation email business while she was Secretary of State and not have the American public, at the end of the day, be aware of said business. Those who are as concerned about cyber security as they are now pretending to be—just a suggestion—ought not to set up a system where the Russians could just stop by and pick up whatever they wanted. The Russian defense could be, “We thought she wanted us to take the emails. They were all right there. She practically left them out on the front porch.”

Boil it all down. The Hillary case amounts to this. The Russians had no right to reveal how corrupt and dirty they were being. And if the Russians did reveal it, they had a moral responsibility to be even-handed, and do the same thing to Trump. But maybe they tried to do it to Trump, and there was nothing there but pictures of beauty contest contestants. Or maybe all the dirt on Trump had already been revealed. Or maybe the Russians don’t have the obligation to be bipartisan whistleblowers. It is Putin, after all.

So the Democrats are all about accepting the results of the election. Unless they lose, and they think that the shameless media is willing to be just as shameless as they are. Then they do . . . well, what they are currently doing.

Skip to 113 Comments
Letters
Submit A Letter to the Editor. Well-written, fair-minded letters may be interacted with in featured posts. Also, please mention the title of the post which you are addressing.

113
Leave a Reply

avatar
 
19 Comment threads
94 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
29 Comment authors
mktkatechoJonathangenesis123Farinata degli Uberti Recent comment authors

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Linda Mock
Guest
Linda Mock

First laugh of the day! Thank you……so needed! Merry Christmas ~

bethyada
Member

I’ve found discussions with Democrats interesting over the last several days interesting. At least it is helpful that we can acknowledge Trump’s faults but they are slower to see issues with Hillary or the Democratic party. And they buy all this fake news stuff the media is selling us. I mean a completely bogus site I get. But any news site centrist or right? They are setting themselves up to only believe reporting that they want to believe. A very dangerous place.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

You might have gotten confused by a small sample size. Donald Trump literally accusing CNN of “fake news” today. Some of the loudest conservatives on Twitter have been claiming that the mainstream media is publishing “fake news” about Aleppo – even to the point of accusing them of being the reason that Russia’s ambassador just got shot. And my facebook feed has had numerous people saying general things like, “It’s MSNBC and CNN and the New York Times that push fake news.” Outside of complaining about actual bogus sites and false memes, I’m hearing Republicans call mainstream media “fake news”… Read more »

adad0
Member

Well, “red herring” news could be a more accurate term!
????

insanitybytes22
Member

In the US we call those squirrels. Only the Russians like red herrings.

adad0
Member

; – ) Memi, you might have missed my previous inside joke with Jonathan!:
“So…….,
If the red herring population in the oceans, is expanding exponentially, couldn’t that also account for a small rise in sea level?
????”

ashv
Guest
ashv

It’s time to outlaw journalism.

bethyada
Member

I mean my actual friends. My otherwise intelligent American Democrat supporting friends and colleagues.

But my complaint would theoretically be to both sides. I read left and right.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Yes, I have no doubt you’re talking about your actual friends. Not sure what you’re responding to in my statement there that made you think otherwise.

bethyada
Member

I guess because there are fake sites to get hits (not parody) that is what is meant. But when the left news starts calling out its ideological opponents as fake news it is pathetic. Of course people have different takes. But to accuse legitimate site of fake news because they are not left!

I read the Guardian despite it being way left of even left citizens and despite it thinking itself unbiased. But even though it publishes some questionable articles it is not a fake news site.

John Callaghan
Guest
John Callaghan

Does anyone else remember watching old episodes of “Mission Impossible” on TV?

Every week, a highly skilled team of U.S. agents would steal secret information from a corrupt foreign politician in order to expose his misdeeds to an unaware populace. This was considered a noble and heroic service to the targeted country.

Now the shoe is on the other foot and it was the Russians (or perhaps a concerned DNC insider) who exposed the corruption of some of our politicians. That revelation was, likewise, a noble and heroic service to us.

jigawatt
Guest
jigawatt

I long for the days when consistency was something that people at least pretended to value.

jigawatt
Guest
jigawatt

I’ll also note that I’m not hearing the progressives shout charges of HYPOCRISY! at Christians as much these days. Perhaps inconsistency and hypocrisy are on their way to becoming actual out-of-the-closet virtues in the secular worldview.

So 2016, … 1984 much?

adad0
Member

Consistency, as an sjw fashion statement, appears to be going the way of uniformity, the hobgoblin of sjw minds. ????

jigawatt
Guest
jigawatt

+1 for Emerson!

(Edit: I’m not a fan of Emerson, but I do like that particular quote. Mostly the word hobgoblin).

I’ve actually had somebody quote that (“a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”) to me when I pointed out a double standard on his part. I wish I had replied, “Well then I guess Emerson had nothing to say to you unless he also said something about a foolish inconsistency.

adad0
Member

Jig, when your opponent goes the “appeal to authority” route, and the “authority” is Emerson, that means you won the dialogue! ????????????

Jill Smith
Member

I still urge on my aging body with Emerson’s poem to youth:

So nigh is grandeur to our dust,
So near is God to man,
When Duty whispers low, “Thou must,”
The youth replies, “I can.”

Katecho
Member

Unfortunately, that poem was a call for the young to fight and die in Lincoln’s war.

Jill Smith
Member

Oh dear, I had no idea. I used to make my students write lines, using it.

adad0
Member

Thanks Jilly! Somehow, neither of us are 18 yrs. old anymore, but we still say “I can” when we hear “Thou must.”
Also, last Wednesday seemed to go well enough, now more waiting.
Do keep Justice for my family in your prayers, we will have to wait a few more months yet. Also FYI, There is a St. Anthony’s shrine in Boston, near where I work. It is a pretty good quiet place for a quick prayer during lunch! ; – )

Rob Steele
Guest
Rob Steele

That’s so over. They really don’t care, and, to be fair, hypocrisy has always been a weak charge, however true it happens to be. We all excel weaving fantasies in which we’re perfectly consistent and righteous. Then we believe the fantasies. The left is bingeing on it right now.

Capndweeb
Guest
Capndweeb

And for this, Pastor Wilson, a tip of the dead animal hat to you.
Well done indeed.
Meanwhile, Trump is busy leaving underwater drone egg on the face of the Chinese.
Fun indeed.

Eagle_Eyed
Guest
Eagle_Eyed

Well done. Chutzpah indeed.

In order for the email leaks to have been damaging to Clinton’s chances, they actually had to be, you know, damaging. The only way the Dems can blame Russia is by first indicting themselves.

adad0
Member

” but not out there in its underwear like that, covered in goose bumps.” ?????

You are being too kind Wilson, “goose bumps” yes, “underwear”? Unfortunately, no.

Can’t be “unseen” either .

This is cause for a class action lawsuit, if ever there was one.????

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

On one hand, I rather liked the public getting to read all those emails. On the other hand, I rather dislike Russia trying to hack our elections. If they had released the RNC information they hacked too, I’d almost consider the whole duel endeavor a public service….but that’s certainly not how Putin intends it. So not sure what to think about the whole thing. Is it okay to like when a good thing happens by a devious person’s devious means? Last note though, I think that those claiming hypocrisy are silly here, especially all the mockery in Pastor Wilson’s post.… Read more »

Arwenb
Guest
Arwenb

I’m going to guess that they didn’t actually find anything interesting on the RNC servers, because apparently Rebublicans are smart enough to not leave incriminating evidence out where anyone with the right script can get to it. If only they’d been smart enough to not make deals with the Democrats….

As with everything about this, all the good dirt was in the DNC’s care. Even the dirt on Rebublicans.

Katecho
Member

I understand that the FBI has asked the CIA to produce proof that Russia was involved in hacking. Has any such evidence, let alone proof, been supplied? Does Jonathan have the missing proof, or is he just going along with the mainstream media narrative?

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

“The first thing we want to establish is, ‘Did the Russians hack into our political system?’ Then you work outward from there. I have a high degree of confidence Russia did this.” – Lindsay Graham “I don’t know what to make of it because it’s clear the Russians interfered. Whether they intended to interfere to the degree that they were trying to elect a certain candidate, I think that’s a subject of investigation. But facts are stubborn things. They did hack into this campaign.” – John McCain I don’t believe it likely that Graham and McCain, privy to far more… Read more »

Katecho
Member

From this response, I think we have our answer. Like the CIA, Jonathan does not have any evidence, let alone proof, to incriminate the Russian government, and is simply left to believe and repeat a narrative; in this case a political one. On the technical side, what evidence do people suppose that our government could even have to incriminate the Russian government? Do they suppose that the hackers dialed on from a land line in Russia that showed up in phone records, like it does in the movies? Do they suppose that hackers used a Russian government IP address to… Read more »

insanitybytes22
Member

“I don’t believe it likely that Graham and McCain, privy to far more information than you, are “just going along with the mainstream media narrative”.

That’s an error no one should make. Trust me, congresscritters are often the least informed people of all, whose very existence revolves around “going along with the narrative.”

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Now that the FBI (as well as the DHS) has agreed that Russia indeed was the source of the hacking, and House Majority Leader Paul Ryan as well as John McCain and other Senate Democrats have agreed, and offered the reports, are you willing to change your tune?

http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/fbi-dhs-russia-election-hack-full-report/

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan
Katecho
Member

Jonathan wrote: Do we recruit spies in other countries? Do we imprison and even execute our own people when we find them spying for someone else? Until you call that hypocritical, I see little business calling the political reaction to this hypocritical. And I haven’t seen anyone here making passionate calls for us to end our spying, or to stop punishing people who spy on us. Jonathan’s entire criticism turns on the assumption that the use of spies is categorically immoral. Caleb and Joshua may beg to differ. Jonathan’s simplistic approach to the issue of spying does not detract from… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

No, it doesn’t. You need to read it again if you took it that way, because you are confused.

Katecho
Member

This is a non-answer from Jonathan. It doesn’t address the morality of spying, and simply resorts to ad hominem dismissal.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Of course I didn’t address the morality of spying, because the morality of spying was never part of my criticism. My criticism clearly holds whether you find spying proper or improper, which is why both sides of the coin are presented in both dichotomies. You claimed that I assumed the use of spies is categorically immoral. I didn’t. Since absolutely noting in my statement assumes that spying is categorically immoral, in fact, since such an assumption would actually be obviously at odds with what I actually said, thre is nothing more to say. “You are confused” is not an ad… Read more »

Katecho
Member

Jonathan wrote: You claimed that I assumed the use of spies is categorically immoral. I didn’t. Jonathan attempted to use the mere fact that the U.S. employs spies as prima facie evidence of hypocrisy. But such use doesn’t function as evidence of hypocrisy unless Jonathan assumes that the use of spies is categorically immoral. Jonathan can’t have it both ways. On the other hand, the hypocrisy that Wilson pointed out is specific and direct. It has to do with the notion that our elections are sacred, and to be free of foreign influence, yet Obama permits himself to interfere in… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

No, I didn’t Katecho. You are speaking falsehood. I have given you the chance to try to ask me what I meant, repeatedly told you you were wrong, but you insist on repeating falsehood. Try again: Do we recruit spies in other countries? Do we imprison and even execute our own people when we find them spying for someone else? Until you call that hypocritical, I see little business calling the political reaction to this hypocritical. And I haven’t seen anyone here making passionate calls for us to end our spying, or to stop punishing people who spy on us.… Read more »

Katecho
Member

Jonathan wrote: Do we recruit spies in other countries? Do we imprison and even execute our own people when we find them spying for someone else? Until you call that hypocritical, I see little business calling the political reaction to this hypocritical. And I haven’t seen anyone here making passionate calls for us to end our spying, or to stop punishing people who spy on us. Unless Jonathan assumes that spying is inherently and categorically immoral (which it is not), then he has simply not demonstrated the issue as an example of hypocrisy. A nation that executes enemy spies may… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

We spy on our allies, yet we are upset when it happens to us and do everything possible to stop it. The statement “And I haven’t seen anyone here making passionate calls for us to end our spying, or to stop punishing people who spy on us”, obviously embodies both sides of the duality, pointing out that we engage in something illegal in other countries while making it illegal here. In the same way, we interfere with other countries’ elections, yet we are upset when it happens to us and do everything possible to stop it. You want more? We… Read more »

Katecho
Member

Jonathan wrote: We spy on our allies, yet we are upset when it happens to us and do everything possible to stop it. Jonathan seems to be jumping all over the map now. Spying on our allies is not the same as spying on our enemies. I find it odd that Jonathan doesn’t make that distinction. Jonathan appears to be getting sloppy in order to muddy the waters further. In any case, we may not wish to be spied on by our enemies, and do everything we can to stop it, while we pursue our own spy program. That, in… Read more »

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

You’re lying about me again Katecho. I don’t think such hypocrisy is acceptable. I think it is horrible and one of the reasons I so soundly and consistently reject both parties. I am pointing out the ridiculousness in pretending that it is a left-right issue or anything remotely unique to the current administration. This exact same issue, Russia trying to interfere in elections in exactly this way, would create a massive response whether it had been Trump or Obama or Bush or Gore that they had been assisting. And it clearly would have been the losing end that would have… Read more »

Katecho
Member

Jonathan wrote: Last note though, I think that those claiming hypocrisy are silly here, especially all the mockery in Pastor Wilson’s post. Jonathan also wrote: But it mostly seemed like a “get in my digs on the guys I don’t like by accusing them of hypocrisy” post. Just a bit hypocritical. If Jonathan thinks the hypocrisy of the left is real and so horrible, why does he use the phrase “claiming hypocrisy” as if he doesn’t think Wilson has correctly identified any actual hypocrisy? Why was Jonathan rebuking Wilson for even pointing out the hypocrisy if he thinks it is… Read more »

bethyada
Member

Don’t think spying is a helpful example. It is not that people get upset when spies are caught. That is the nature of clandestine operations. It is more the condemnation that another country would even have spies while we insist on them.

Your tariff example is better. And while we may not like retaliatory tariffs, it would be hypocritical to condemn them.

It is not that America doesn’t like others interfering in their politics. It is that they condemn others while doing it.

Katecho
Member

I’m happy to grant the example of hypocrisy and double-standard regarding tariffs, but any actual examples of it would only go to support Wilson’s point against sanctimonious politicians. In other words, it does nothing to support Jonathan’s rebuke or misrepresentation of Wilson.

doug sayers
Guest
doug sayers

Even I had to chuckle at the Rom 9 reference. Can’t remember who else was running in that election.?

Blessings BJ

ashv
Guest
ashv

Once you start cheating it gets to be a habit. Importing several million Hart-Celler Americans as a loyal voter base wasn’t enough, apparently.

ashv
Guest
ashv

Meanwhile, at the Electoral College:
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/810948943001612290

Rob Steele
Guest
Rob Steele

What if the Russians blackmailed H and the DNC instead of just exposing them? Is there any depth to which Dems would not have plunged to keep that stuff from us?

I’m guessing the Russians couldn’t use the material for blackmail because every intelligence service in the world had it, except for maybe ours.

Now imagine the opposite. What if the Russians did blackmail the Dems and the dems courageously, selflessly, and patriotically refused to be manipulated. No, really. Stop laughing.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

What do you think the Dems might have done?

Possibly considered dropping sanctions on Russia, turning a blind eye to Russian atrocities and human rights violations, recognizing Crimea, and even abandoning NATO commitments so that eastern Europe is even more vulnerable to Russian aggression, all the while denying that Russia had accessed servers or done anything at all?

Oh, hmm, see what I did just there. ;)

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Wait, you sure the question wasn’t, “What would Trump have done to keep Russia from exposing his actual bank account figures and hand size?”

Rob Steele
Guest
Rob Steele

Wait, are you suggesting that the Dems got taken? Does the timing work? I mean, those emails are not that old.

insanitybytes22
Member

I’ve been busy trying to figure out how all the “uneducated,rural, racist” people were able to consume all this fake Russian news? Can we read? Access the intertoobz?

Nathan Smith
Member

There are layers and layers of irony here. Good synopsis. I don’t know where I would even start.

Matt
Guest
Matt

Surely there is something more interesting to say about all this than “lol dems are stupid”?

I don’t have the slightest sympathy for John Podesta or any of these DNC people, but I hate this email hacking crap. It’s just a race to the bottom now.

And just to be clear, if the Russians or anyone else did interfere with the election in some underhanded way, this is not even in the same galaxy as a public figure such as Obama going off to some other country and trying to convince people to vote a certain way.

mattghg
Guest
mattghg

So, in that case I’d be worried that the Russians do have plenty of dirt on Trump, which they might try to use later on…

melody
Member
melody

It occurred to me today that what is causing the left to come so unhinged by this election is that the baby boomers (of the sexual revolution types) had actually come to believe that they were the moral high ground and that virtually all of us from that generation were firmly with them – not to mention the younger generations. They got a very rude awakening. We have been tolerant an generous to a fault. We are now done.

Jonathan
Guest
Jonathan

Whatever ideas this election proved, I’m sure that convincing those who opposed Trump that they no longer have the moral high ground was certainly not among them.

And on that note, your reference to the sexual revolution is especially ironic.

gerv
Guest
gerv

Other than the fact that the Brexit vote wasn’t an election, but a referendum, this is spot on :-)

genesis123
Guest
genesis123

Be aware, fellows, this piece comes from fake Moscow.