How Can We Discern the Truth Behind Actual and Manufactured Hate Crime?

How Can We Discern the Truth Behind Actual and Manufactured Hate Crime?

—February 26, 2019

Truth has been a moving target ever since the Chicago Police were called to the home of Hollywood actor Jussie Smollett on Jan. 29, to investigate the report that two white men had attacked him at 2 a.m. on what was one of the coldest nights in that city of the last 100 years. Not to question that there are racist and homophobic Americans who might be prone to engaging in the violent behavior as described by the gay, black actor in his account to police, but that such might be a rare one-out-of-a-million exception rather than the norm.

In fact, when was the last time a black or gay man (or woman) ended up with a noose around their neck or had bleach thrown on them as the result of a racist or homophobic attack? This author would suggest that such attacks are exceptionally rare in modern American times, and that the vast majority of straight, white Americans (and pretty much everyone else, too) are appalled that such could happen in today’s enlightened times.

Nevertheless, and despite the apparent horse feathers weaved into Jussie’s account of the alleged attack, numerous politicians, members of the mainstream media, and celebrities of all stripes jumped on the hash-tag “Justice for Jussie” bandwagon to decry the rampant racism and homophobia that is reputedly roiling our country. Decry the alleged rampant racism and homophobia while obliquely and directly ascribing a significant portion of blame for the attack on President Donald Trump and anyone who supports him.

Easy to do, as the attackers were described by Jussie as shouting “this is MAGA (acronym for Trump’s signature “Make America Great Again” slogan) country,” and many in the media initially reported that the attackers were wearing MAGA hats. In fact, the addition of those MAGA details to the alleged attack is likely the only reason that the story went viral, given that Jussie is only a B-list celebrity, and one that many Americans had never heard of until the alleged attack became A-list news.

And perhaps the alleged details regarding MAGA are why so many mainstream media journalists, politicians, and celebrities were willing to overlook some questionable details about the attack that belied the truthfulness of Jussie’s account:
—Given the extreme temperatures that night, Jussie and his alleged assailants were probably the only people out on Chicago’s streets that night.
—Chicago is definitely not MAGA country, and one would be far more likely to run into an attacker in that area claiming that it was “Obama country.”
—Hard to believe that Jussie held on to his Subway sandwich during and after the attack, especially when it might have been tainted by the bleach thrown on him.
—Why did Jussie leave the “noose” (reportedly, a clothesline) around his neck long after the alleged attack?
—Jussie’s unwillingness to provide police with complete access to evidence that could be gleaned from his cell phone.

As Commentary Magazine editor Noah Rothman noted in a New York Times op-ed, despite details of the alleged account that “strained credulity from the very start,” numerous “politicians and journalists seemed to suspend all critical thought in a campaign to indict not just Mr. Smollett’s attackers but the country as a whole.” Furthermore, and as suggested by Rothman, in their rush to judgement many within this campaign doubled down against those who started to question the original narrative, insinuating that such questioning was just bigoted salt being poured into Jussie’s wounds. Jussie himself said as much when he publicly discussed the attack for the first time on Good Morning America, noting that those who doubt his account of the attack are causing him as much pain as the actual assault.

Ironically, Jussie’s narrative started to formally collapse as the Good Morning America episode aired on Feb. 14, at the same time news was emerging that Chicago Police had arrested two suspects who may have been involved in the attack. Two “black” suspects who were later released along with a police statement that the scope of the investigation “had shifted.”

Chicago Police detectives were reportedly skeptical about the alleged attack from the get go, and, with some good due-diligence investigating, have apparently determined that the entire incident was likely a hoax constructed in great detail—complete with rehearsals with the paid attackers—by Jussie himself. Chicago Police are now seeking a follow-up interview with Jussie, but the actor’s defense attorneys say that Jussie has no intention of speaking to police, and that the attorneys will speak to the police on his behalf. In a statement released over the weekend, Jussie’s attorneys also said that the actor has been further victimized by claims that he played a role in his own attack. “Nothing is further from the truth and anyone claiming otherwise is lying.”

We will just have to wait for the Chicago Police to discern this truth, or lack thereof.

In the meantime, what of real hate crimes that occur in America? Is it at epidemic levels as suggested by the mainstream media and others? And, more specifically, what of hate crimes that can be directly linked—as with the alleged Jussie attack—to Donald Trump and/or his supporters?

Well, a progressive group called America’s Voice has an online “Trump Hate Map” that purportedly tracks all Trump-inspired hate crimes against immigrants, minority groups and other marginalized people. Initiated with Trump’s campaign launch in June 2015, the map highlights less than 100 Trump-inspired hate incidents. While some of the incidents include murder and assault, most involve vandalism and/or harassment, with some not even rising to the level of an arrestable offense.

The relative low numbers of Trump Hate Map incidents must be a bit disappointing to progressive activists who are convinced that the millions of Americans who supported Donald Trump for president are rabid racists and homophobes. And this lack of substantial evidence supporting the notion that Trump supporters in general are racist homophobes leads some folks—such as Jussie Smollett—to manufacture their own hate crime incidents. In fact, the number of Trump-inspired hate crime hoaxes since 2015 might even outnumber actual Trump-inspired hate crimes.

—Originally published in Discernible Truth

Time To Talk About the “P” Word!

Time To Talk About the “P” Word!

—October 9, 2016

OK, kids, let’s just cut to the chase: “I love pussy!”

Whoa!

If you’ve been reading the news media lately, you’ll know that I just used a word equated with “vile,” “disgusting,” “revolting,” “lewd,” and “shocking,” among other excessively negative descriptions. The press and political establishment’s “shock and revulsion” reaction to Donald Trump’s use of the word seems akin to how the Muslim world might react should the ayatollah or other high-ranking Islamic clergyman refer to Muhammad as a dog.

Frankly, I’m finding it all a bit overdone.

But, for the record, The Donald’s banter with Billy Bush was downright moronic.

Don, you don’t just “grab ‘em by the pussy”—you’ve got to warm “‘em” up with foreplay first.

And yes, Donald Trump’s statements as recorded in 2005—and in all likelihood expressed at othertrump-cat1 times during his life—were definitely chauvinistic, misogynistic, sexist, demeaning to women, immature, and totally disrespectful to his then-new wife, Melania. In fact, she, more than anyone, should be taking him behind the woodshed for a beating. And yes, women across America (and beyond) have every right to heap scorn upon him and refer to him as a “pig.”

But all those male holier-than-thou politicians disavowing themselves from Trump for his remarks—as well as just about any other straight man calling for The Donald’s head on a stake for this latest transgression—need to shut their hypocritical selves the fuck up.

Because we men are “pigs,” and the vast majority of we straight ones talked about “pussy” all the time in our youth. In fact, from about the ages of 15 to 24 “pussy” is right up there with sports as a primary topic of conversation among men. With age, marriage, children and responsibility, the topic becomes far less discussed, but if you don’t think it comes up from time to time on the golf course, fishing boat or anywhere two or more men are congregating in the absence of women, you are seriously deluded.

Mind you, Trump’s braggadocio was quite a bit over the top, but would you expect anything less from his overinflated ego? So, no, most men don’t think that we can just “grab ‘em by the pussy,” or that women—and their pussies—are just objects for our enjoyment, but sometimes our “pussy talk” might make it sound that way.

In fact, we revere “pussy.” And in this reverence and banter we do generally talk about the entire female package, but “pussy” is akin to the “Holy Grail.”

And why not? What’s not to love about it?

Without “pussy” life just wouldn’t be as joyful.

Without “pussy,” I would have to use “Vagina,” which just doesn’t roll of the tongue as smoothly—or, have to resort to that “C-word” that rhymes with “runt.”

Without “pussy” I would not be writing this blog, and you would not be reading it.

So let’s lose those unearned vulgar connotations of the word and apply reverence to it instead. And yes, if you are female, you can chastise The Donald for how he used it, but let’s not vilify the word itself more than it already unjustifiably is. 

“Pussy”—C’est la joie et le catalyseur de vivre!

Announcing 2016’s “Word of the Year”—“Racist!”

Announcing 2016’s “Word of the Year”—“Racist!”

—September 26, 2016

If “Word of the Year” nominations by the various entities that name such are based on usage, then 2016’s Word of the Year has got to be “racist.” From what I can tell, everyone is either a “racist” or declaring someone else to be “racist.” It is, without a doubt, 2016’s catchall word that defines exactly who one is. If you’ve been called racist, then you must assuredly be one. And if you’ve called somebody a racist, then it obviously (logical fallacy aside) must be assumed that you are not a racist.

So, go ahead, make sure you’re not tagged with 2016’s epithet of disdain and launch a pre-emptive strike by calling me a racist. Hell, I’m questioning the usage of the word, so by golly-gee I must be one.

Still hesitating?

OK, well, I think Black Lives Matter is a flawed organization that has way overstepped its original point of being and led by a group that relies on the promotion of logical fallacies to inject the idea of “racism” into just about every facet of Black American life (Black Life Difficulty Equals Whiteys’ Fault).

Consider: Black cop under tutelage of Black chief o’ police kills Black man who may or may not have been armed and BLM helps incite two nights of rioting over what it deems yet another case of “systemic, institutionalized racism.”

Yeah, that makes sense….

Call me racist, but I believe the BLM mantra that there is widespread systemic, institutionalized racism in America is horseshit. No doubt that pockets of it exist here and there, but if it was in any way “widespread” or “systemic” there is no way that Barack Obama would have been elected to serve as the President of the United States of America for not just one…but two terms in office. Think about it, Black folks only make up about 13 percent of the U.S. population, which means that we supposedly widespread systemically institutionalized racist Mofos put him into office…twice.

Awkward (yeah, the phrasing, too)…

Can’t dwell on that fact now, can we? So guess you’d better shout out “racist” so as to stifle this line of thinking. 

What, still hesitating? Can’t call me racist quite yet because there just might be some element of truth in my argument?   

OK, “All Lives Matter!”

That usually works. According the BLM and its supporters that statement marginalizes and tries to co-opt the BLM cause and is thus racist.

If you still haven’t called me racist, let me try one more incitement: “Black Lives Matter is Racist!”

Tch-Tch-Tch!

From what I understand that’s a big no-no. According to BLM proponents, People of Color cannot be racists—only Whitey can. Being a dumb Cracker I don’t quite understand the logical reasoning behind this, but it has something to do with “White Privilege” and the belief that “oppressed” people can’t be racist.

check-logicI believe the whole political correct construct of “privilege” represents an ad hominem fallacy, or, to put it more plainly, is donkeyshit squared. As for being oppressed, well, if there truly is widespread, systemic institutionalized oppression of American Black folks, you’re just going to have to blame that Black guy living in the White House, cause he’s been in charge of the institutions for almost eight years now.

—M.J. Moye, likely now deemed a “racist,” but personally believes otherwise….

“Can We All Just Get Along?”—Absent Debate Apparently Not!

“Can We All Just Get Along?”—Absent Debate Apparently Not!

—June 22, 2016

“Can we all just get along?” Great words from a man seeking calm in the midst of a tempest. This from a Black man who had received an unjustified severe beating from a gang of white cops. A man who likely had every right to harbor hatred and thoughts of revenge, but instead urged peace during the Los Angeles riots of 1992.

A man who, like all of us, was flawed. But, apologies, I digress. I just re-watched the video of the Rodney King beating and want to sidetrack into the minutia of his story—examine its nuances and fathom its meaning. But not now. No, let’s stick with:

“Can we all just get along?”

Given the current levels of animosity between all of the different competing factions—whether Democrat versus Republican, Left versus Right, Black versus White, Christian versus Muslim, Gay versus Straight, Pro-gun versus Anti-Gun, etc., etc., etc.—Probably not. Especially given that the extreme wings of each side are so intransigent and full of venomous abhorrence towards their respective opposition.

In fact, I don’t believe the level of anger between the various competing factions has ever been so high, as it seems to have reached “Defcon 1,” or the former Homeland Security “Code Red.” In short, too many of us, no matter from which faction, are one insult away from throwing that first punch. And, as seen in Orlando last week, the crazies among us might resort to bullets rather than a fist. 

But we should be able to get along…. 

So, it’s time to figure out how to get along.

Let’s start with a basic premise: We are all human, and thus deeply flawed.

Yeah, that’s a tough one. I mean, sure, I can see the flaws in everyone else’s positions, mindset, lifestyle, beliefs, etc. but I’m pretty much perfect…don’t ya know?

Wrong! I am human and deeply flawed. As are we all. It’s just very difficult to perceive one’s own limitations.

Try it right now. Can you pick yourself apart and honestly detail your deficiencies? And I’m not talking about what might make you mildly irritating, I’m talking about what might make you unsuitable for whatever heaven your chosen God lords over. 

Not easy is it? Keep trying, though, because unless you’re of the “Mother Theresa,” “Gandhi” or “Jesus” ilk, then you, too, are most likely deeply flawed.

So perhaps Step One in getting along while “arguing” with the competition, whoever they might be, would be to always keep in mind the fact that: “We are all human, and thus deeply flawed.”

5237fa14ca758cf188c479a15c3ad311Step Two might be to keep in mind that as “humans” we all have more similarities than differences. Consider your lifetime interactions with the “opposition,” whoever that might be. Do not the positive interactions outweigh the negative ones? Of all the competing groups I am most likely to have had a difference of opinion with, I have historically experienced more positive interactions than negative. Consider:

  • I am White, and the majority of personal interactions I have had with Black folks has been positive. Ditto with Hispanics, Asians, and people of all other races and ethnicities I’ve met over the years. 
  • I am Straight, and the majority of personal interactions I have had with LGBT folks has been positive.
  • I am Pro-Gun, and the majority of personal experiences I have had with Anti-Gun folks has been positive (and no, not because I was packing .357 caliber worth of heat).
  • I am Christian, and the majority of personal interactions I have had with people of other faiths has been positive (though would probably sing a different tune were I to visit Afghanistan, Iraq or Syria).
  • I am Male, and the majority of personal experiences I have had with Feminists has been positive (though I have yet to personally encounter any “ThirdWave” Feminists).
  • I lean to the Right, and the majority of personal interactions I have had with people on the Left has been positive, though I cannot state the same in relation to those on the far end of the spectrum.
  • When I leaned to the Left during my youth the majority of personal experiences I had with those on the Right was positive. Perhaps of note, interactions I had with the Far Left encouraged my movement to the Right.

Bottom line is that on a personal basis It seems that I can pretty much get along with most of these folks. Granted, this may not hold true for everyone else, but I trust—or perhaps, hope—that it holds true for most of us.    

Step Three would be to acknowledge that we all have grievances. Black folks have plenty of reasons to be pissed off. As do Native Americans. Muslims?—no doubt! Hispanics?—Yep! LGBT?—sure, they still have legitimate gripes. Feminists?—OK. And I could go on and on and on….

And as a Straight, White, Privileged, Conservative Male, I’m kind of pissed off that so many of you Far Left mo-fos spend so much energy blaming me and my cohorts for all the problems of the world instead of trying to address your own contribution to the problem(s). I am also fearful that proposed Far Left solutions for addressing their grievances lead to an Orwellian future.

At this juncture it would be easy to get into a pissing contest to see who has been most egregiously aggrieved, but I don’t think we want to go there as it would undoubtedly just exacerbate the animosity. 

We do, however, need to listen to and acknowledge each others grievances, as well as be willing to debate their significance and potential remedies. And yes, some grievances are petty and some ludicrous, but many are fully legitimate and worthy of being addressed.

Unfortunately, Step Three appears to be a zero-sum game with many of the issues that divide the Right from the Left. Pardon me while I turn completely partisan in order to explain:

Folks on the Far Left are unwilling to debate…period! As soon as anyone starts saying anything thatFree Speech conflicts with their creed regarding feminism, race, LGBT, multiculturalism, religion and other pet issues, they do everything in their power to shut it down immediately. They bully the opposition with cries of “Racist,” “Homophobe,” “Misogynist,” “Islamophobe,” “Hate Speech,” etc., and then shout louder and louder to drown out the words they find so threatening despite in many cases not even having heard what they might be. They refuse to listen to anyone who’s opinion might differ from their worldview and label most such opinions expressed as “Hate Speech.” Social Justice Warrior (SJW) Lefties are the most censorship-prone gang of political activists America has ever seen, far surpassing the 1980s/‘90s Moral Majority activists in their disdain for free speech and the First Amendment. This makes Step Three a non-starter because those on the Right are certainly not going to listen to the grievances from the Far Left absent some hint of quid pro quo. 

As for my friends on the Far Right, I suggest that they need to tone down the vitriol in their rhetoric, as some of it clearly does come out as hateful “Hate Speech.” While humor serves as a good foil of refutation within the context of debate, personal insults do not add validity to the points of view. There is no valid reason or excuse to use the “N” word, nor any need to disparage other marginalized groups with the many epithets used to insult them (yeah, I know, I’m sounding like a nagging old school marm).

For example, while I believe the transgender movement with its delusional beliefs about what comprises “gender” is full of goatshit, I will try to refrain from personal attacks on them as people, say by referring to them as “Its” or “Trannies.” I will even use whatever personal name a transgendered person might want to be called, though will continue to assert that because Kaitlyn Jenner still sports a Johnson and the Twins he remains very much a man. Also, there is absolutely no way I’m going to use one of those made-up pronouns like “Ze” or “Vre.” Thus, while I’ve toned down the vitriol, my argument remains intact and hopefully I have expressed it with a touch of humor.

Speaking of which, I am sorry dear Lefties but those of us on the Right are going to continue to make fun of you. And no, making you the butt of a joke does not constitute “Hate Speech.” Unlike you, many on the Right have a sense of humor, and Left-Wing antics, ludicrous demands and avoidance of legitimate debate opens you up to deserved ridicule. 

And for clarification, here’s a real-world example of the difference between “Hate Speech” and “Humor:” The current SJW poster child is Cora Segal, who was aptly named “Trigglypuff” after she tried to disrupt a Conservative panel—Milo Yiannopoulos, Steven Crowder and Christina H. Sommers— of speakers at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, who, ironically enough, were discussing censorship.

The numerous memes, videos, Tweets, and satirical write-ups making fun of “Trigglypuff” constitute humor, and Cora is 100 percent responsible for making herself the butt of the joke. The numerous Tweets, Facebook posts and other comments calling for Cora to “kill herself,” “die,” “get raped,” etc. constitute “Hate Speech.” The latter is not cool, not funny, and totally unnecessary.   

OK, So, there you have it, the nascent MJM code for how to get along. Perhaps not as succinct as Rodney King’s plea, but it’s a start. Unfortunately, that pesky Step Three appears to be a sticking point. I believe that those on the Right would be willing to acknowledge and listen to grievances coming from the Left; however, SJW Lefties are unwilling to debate or compromise and thus will continue their attacks on free speech. In turn, those of us on the Right will undoubtedly continue making fun of them.

Nation’s Moral Fabric, Very Soul, in Peril

Nation’s Moral Fabric, Very Soul, in Peril

Ed. Note: The below blog is a piece I originally wrote in the 1990s when I worked for a small-town newspaper in North Carolina. As you can probably surmise from its tone and sarcastic content I leaned more to the left of the political spectrum at that time. I believed that the extreme right and adherents to the “Moral Majority” were a bunch of nutcases, and, to some extent, still believe this to be true. However, today, some 26 years later, I find the extreme left wing to be far more scary and apt to do irreparable harm to the country of my birth, as well as the world at large.

What I also find interesting is how prescient (albeit by accident) some of my thoughts were back then—the moral fabric of America is truly getting torn asunder….

—Originally published in the Johnstonian-Sun, Circa 1992. 

According to all right-wing radical groups, many conservative groups, the “Moral Majority” (which is neither), many religious leaders, Jesse Helms and most other Republican politicians, the moral fabric of our nation is under attack by various enemies and is in danger of being torn asunder.

Do you know what will happen if the nation’s moral fabric is torn asunder?

Well, depending upon whom you listen to, the following scenarios are likely to result from a torn-asunder moral fabric:

—Communism

That’s right, Communism! Once the moral fabric gets ripped up America will become a nation of Godless Communists. Half of us will be working on the collective farm and the other half in the collective factory. Red will be the predominant colour of our nation and Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Fidel will be the equivalent of Gods. This and all other newspapers will carry only Communist theology and official news releases from our great Politburo up in Leninton (the former Washington, DC).

—Sex-Crazed Deviance

You betcha! We’re gonna become a nation of sex-crazed deviants. Once that moral fabric that has protected us for so long is shredded, sexual deviation will become the norm. We will all indulge in sadomasochism, fetishism, pedophilia, necrophilia, bondage, homosexuality, bisexuality, voyeurism, bestiality, cross dressing, sodomy, incest and a host of other warped sexual acts that would make even the most hard-core porno dealer cringe. 

—Godless Heathenism

Once the moral fabric is gone we’ll become a nation of Devil-worshipping Satanists and other religious deviants. Those of us who aren’t worshiping Satan will be bowing down to the altar of Belial, Beelzebub, Eros, Dionysus, Bacchus, Odin, Vulcan, Isis, Thor, Spock, Batman, Anubis, Captain Crunch, Ishtar, The Bagwhan Shree Rajneesh, Apollo, Zeus, Tribbles, Golden Calves, Silver Goats, Aluminum Kangaroos or any number of other Gods and Idols.

—Foreignerism

Once that moral fabric is torn up this nation will lose its white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant heritage and culture and become a nation of Nigerians, Vietnamese, Mexicans, Sudanese, Albanians, Algerians, Chinese, Japanese, Palestinians, Israelis, Bolivians, Burundians, Burmese, Cambodians, Columbians, Cubans, Gabonese, Turks, Gambians, Hondurans, Haitians, Indians, Iraqis, Koreans, Lebanese, Liberians, Malaysians, Mongolians, Nepalese, Pakistanis, Omanians, Senegalese, Vulcans, Somalians, Taiwanese, Tunisians, Arabians, Yemenese, and every other un-American non-white, non-Anglo-Saxon, non-Protestant race infesting God’s great earth.

—Drug-Crazed Lunatism

Yep, once the moral fabric is all in pieces we will be a nation of druggies. Yeah boy, we’re gonna be popping pills, smoking crack, toking dope, shooting heroin, snorting coke, freebasing embalming fluid, smoking banana peels, shooting speed, snorting tranquilizers, popping downers, eating quaaludes and ingesting all kinds of chemicals and substances not lawfully prescribed by a doctor.

—All-of-the-Abovism

That’s right, all of the above. Some folks are convinced, heaven forbid, that once the ol’ moral fabric gets torn asunder all of the above will come true. Of course, the majority of these folks relate the destruction of the nation’s moral fabric with Armageddon and the Second Coming of Christ.

Now that we all know what will happen if the moral fabric of this great nation gets torn asunder, we need to determine who, or what, is responsible for this dire threat to national security.

The list of potential moral fabric destroyers is long, and the roster of enemies entirely contingent uponimgres which purveyor of “Right” you might be listening to.

Most right-wing, Moral Majority, conservative and religious leaders would undoubtedly put a scissors-wielding Bart Simpson high on the list.

Heck, Bart could probably shred the fabric in record time.

So, there’s one for the roster! A complete list of potential moral fabric enemies will be included in next week’s Biting the Bullet.

Closing Ed. Note: Not sure if I’ll be able to find that follow-up column, but sure would be interesting to see who I listed.

Better Learn How to Speak Transgender!

Better Learn How to Speak Transgender!

—May 19, 2016

The rise of the transgendered movement has occurred so quickly that some people remain clueless as to exactly what this whole “trans” business is all about. In less than a year the issue has become a media darling and you can hardly read a daily newspaper, watch network news, or follow an online news feed without seeing mention of “trans”-something.

This movement has become the primary love-child of the Far Left, which has instigated the federal government, along with many state and local governments, to pass rules and regulations designed to ensure that transgendered folks of all stripes, colors and identities enjoy all of the civil rights accrued to the rest of us. A noble and appropriate gesture; however, in their rush to protect the rights of this marginalized group, governments are passing measures that sometimes make the rights of all us normal people subservient to theirs.

Screen Shot 2016-05-19 at 12.28.20 AMAnd, oops, I just made a politically incorrect faux pas by suggesting that transgendered folks aren’t “normal.” Apologies but transgenderism represents a deviation from the norm. Most folks looking at this photo of what appears to be a member of the trans-movement would heartedly agree that he/she ain’t normal. And while the LGBT community and many on the Far Left assert that it is “Normal,” you folks are definitely in the minority.

But hey, freedom of speech and thought are supposed to be the law of the land, so think (and promote) whatever you want—however, please extend that same courtesy to the majority of us who might disagree with you.

The primary tenets of this transgender movement seem to be that biological determinants of one’s sex are meaningless and that people should be allowed to “self identify” their gender. Or to put it another way, even though Bruce Jenner was born with Johnson and the twins, fathered multiple children and still retains his child-making Johnson and the twins, the rest of the world now has to accept him as a woman because he self identifies as such.

Likewise, should a woman who was born with a honeypot decide she is now sporting a John Holmes-size Johnson, the rest of the world should just accept her belief because she self identifies as such. The fact that she has no Johnson, can still give birth, and is biologically a woman is absolutely meaningless, according to those in support of the movement.

And while some in the transgendered community undergo various surgical procedures designed to make themselves more manly or womanly, whichever the desired case may be, any such efforts also mean nothing in the grand scheme of transgenderism, as self-identity trumps all else.

The federal government is certainly buying into this BS, given that the Obama Administration has determined that all public schools must now allow students to self identify their gender without consideration of biological factors, and—even more disturbing—parental knowledge or input.

And then we have New York City, which now requires all employers, landlords, businesses and professionals to use whatever identity, name and pronoun requested by employees, tenants, customers or clients. Failure to abide by this directive will subject violators to legal sanctions based on the city’s amorphous gender-based harassment laws. Such sanctions can include civil penalties of up to $150,000 for standard violations, rising to $250,000 for violations considered “willful,” “wanton,” or “malicious.”

Can you spell “Un-Fucking Real?”

Little doubt that Obama Administration bureaucrats are now working on the Federal Transgender Newspeak regulations.

And kids, we are so fucked! 

It’s bad enough that a large number of transgendered folks consider themselves “gender fluid,” and thus can change their minds at will about exactly what gender they are at a moment’s notice, but the whole movement believes that one’s gender identity can be chosen from a broad “gender spectrum.” Most of us are familiar with “man,” woman” “androgynous,” and “hermaphrodite,” but the transgendered folks have reportedly identified 50-some gender identities on the spectrum.

Even worse, though, is that aforementioned gender-fluid trans folks have come up with more than 70 (and rising) terms to describe the basis for, and reasons behind, their ever-changing gender identities. So instead of identifying as a “non-binary demigirl,” a gender-fluid trans might identify as a “contigender demigirl” one moment, and then switch over to a “firegender demiboy” the next.

Thus, in order to speak transgender we’re going to need to learn all the various gender identities and then learn the pronouns that go with them.

Heck, I can’t keep straight whether a “transgender man” is a woman who used to be a man, or a man who used to be a woman, and am befuddled by what exactly “cisgender” is supposed to mean.

Screen Shot 2016-05-19 at 12.19.49 AMSo how in the hell am I going to figure out the more-than 100 different transgender identities and then try to fit them with the appropriate made-up and yet-to-be-adopted-by-major-lexicon pronoun?

Anyone?

Or should I ask faer, aer, em, per, ver, xem or hir?

Self-Identifying as My Former 19-Year-Old Self in Order to Rant on Behalf of Those Under 21

Self-Identifying as My Former 19-Year-Old Self in Order to Rant on Behalf of Those Under 21

—May 15, 2016

If I were under the age of 21 I would be one pissed-off mother-fucker.

So, bear with me for a moment while I turn 19-years-old.

There.

Done.

I am now politically correct (not!) and can therefore self identify. As such I am now 19-years-old.

Got it? I am 19.

And don’t fuckin’ argue with me, because that will force me to pull out all kinds of political correct bullshit such as self identification and other fallacies designed to force you to concede to my viewpoint or shut the fuck up. And if you don’t concede to my viewpoint or shut the fuck up I will shout louder than you and drown out any of your pithy arguments. And trust me, we folks of the politically correct persuasion know how to drown out the opposition with noise….

Wow, I’m feeling kind of powerful in my new, politically correct, 19-year-old skin!

And for just this moment…for this ensuing rant, I’m going to really enjoy the specific “self identification” perk of being politically correct.

Here goes:

The governor of California earlier this month signed into law legislation that makes it illegal for me and everyone else under the age of 21 to enjoy tobacco products, whether smoked, dipped, chewed or vaped. This follows on the heels of Hawaii, which made such acts illegal for those under 21 in April.

R U F’ing Kidding Me!!!

You technically make me an adult at age 18 by giving me the vote and forcing me to file (and perhaps—eeek!—pay) tax returns. And you’re willing to send me off to foreign countries where I might be forced to blow a man’s head off, or where my head could be detached from my body by the crazy people you are expecting me to subdue on your behalf…..

And you are telling me that I am not legally allowed to enjoy partaking in activities that the rest of you allowed-to-vote clowns can partake in at whim???

Yeah, well fuck you!!!

OK, that’s it. Rant over. Boy, that was fun!

For the record I don’t even smoke (any more), but that’s pretty much the same rant I made back in my youth when states started raising the drinking age to 21. Of course, as I grew older and became able to legally drown my ire, I lost my passion for fighting what was such an obviously hypocritical and unjust legal construct.

And yes, these laws governing “underage” drinking and smoking admittedly save lives; however, they still fall under the rubric of “tyranny.”

Perhaps a couple of years of tyranny is worth it. Still, I am truly glad that I am no longer under the age of 21 and under the thumb of such….

—Originally published May 6 on behalf of Hash It Out!