Hypocritical Cow-Napping and Liberal Moral Decrepitude

Friends, Whiggy has made his fair share of poor decisions. I haven’t always behaved in a way I would like my children to behave. Let me share an example: One time in college, I decided that my dorm suffered from an extreme bovine deficiency. In order to rectify the situation, I decided to liberate a cow from my university’s farm in the ag program. The liberation did not go well at first. The cow I chose, I will call her Hillary for the purposes of this story, had acow theft bit of a Theon Greyjoy moment and did not want to leave. After a long discussion of bovine rights and systemic subjugation, I convinced her to follow me up to my dorm. Back then, “see something, say something” had not yet been coined and therefore, everyone who saw something, waved and offered me adult beverages but said nothing to the authorities. Whiggy was a Poli-Sci/English major back then. Had I been a math or science major I may have realized that a full-grown cow could not fit through the singlewide door in the back of my dorm. After several attempts and a few more adult beverages, I gave up and decided that my Bovine Liberation Society would be short lived. I subtly made sure a friend of mine in the Ag program knew about the cow by running down her hall screaming “The cows are coming; the cows are coming”. It was important to me to ensure Hillary would be returned by someone more able and sober than I. I mean, I did all that work to free her and get her up the hill. I wasn’t about to return her too. Geesh, I can’t do everything!”

“Whiggy,” you are saying right about now “you are doing it again. Can you get to the point and tell us why you are telling us this story?”

Indeed, I will. But first let me tell you what I learned from this experience: absolutely nothing. Well, expect that cows are fat and don’t fit through human sized doors. I paid no consequence. I got a ton of laughs. And I was legend on campus for about a week (although that may be only in my head). But here is the thing: I knew then that what I was doing, while funny as hell, was wrong. I know now that it was wrong. If I heard a story of someone doing something similar today, I could not stand on my high horse, call PETA and excoriate that person for animal cruelty … or cownapping … or racism. I would be a hypocritical ass. See where I am going now?

Kidding aside, there are a number of morally dubious decisions I have made in my life that I would not dare to judge someone else on if they made a similar decision. Any decently honest person should feel the same. That is not so say that you cannot learn from your mistakes and try to pass that learning on to others. Rest assured, my daughters know that cows cannot fit into singlewide doors and will, most likely, not attempt to recreate my hilarious folly.

This brings me to my main point: I call the liberal elite class the Moral Aristocracy because they have taken the role of the moral majority over the past few decades. They decide what is morally acceptable based on the direction of the wind on any given day. If you do not agree with what they say, you are evil. Notice I said, “what they say” and not what they do. Liberals have long ignored the behaviors of the compatriots. Words matter – behaviors are ignored. Let’s look at a few examples, shall we?

One of my favorite examples of liberal hypocrisy is the Lion of the Senate himself, Edward ‘Ted’ Kennedy. Lest anyone forget, Teddy killed a woman. He left a party with Mary Jo Kopechne, drove his car off a bridge and swam to safety as she drown in the car. Oh wait, there is more.  He returned to his hotel and went to bed. In the morning he called his friends for advice, went back to the scene and then, 10 hours later, reported it. What deep penalty did he pay? How did the moral aristocracy judge him? He received a 2-month suspended sentence and couldn’t run for president for 10 more years. That’s it. Worse yet, he became the symbol of the Democrat party over the next few decades. He was dubbed the Lion of the Senate. Anyone who was anyone attended his funeral. He was laid to rest in Arlington Cemetery. Not bad for a remorseless killer.

William Jefferson Clinton (I wonder if his name will be protested), the 42nd President of the United States has been accused rape and sexual assault for much of his career. Like so many famous men, he has denied these claims while paying settlements to make many of them go away. Rapey McPotus, at the age of 49, had an affair in the White House with a 23-year-old intern and then perjured himself in a court of law during a what? A lawsuit for his rape of another woman. This affair included oral sex while ordering a military bombing and a deeply disturbing misuse of a cigar. His wife went on to attack his accusers. What deep penalty did this savior of the Democrat party pay? Well, if he had an actual soul, he would have been humiliated publicly for months. That was not the case. He was only the second President impeached yet not removed from office. Instead he was censured. He went on to earn hundreds of millions of dollars for speeches to donors to his foundation.

hillary-harveyPoliticians are not the only members of the left moral aristocracy to display deeply disturbing behavior while suffering little to know consequences. The Hollywood elite are the darlings of the Democrat party as well as its major benefactors. The paragons of the Hollywood left bring a whole new level of depravity. Roman Polanski raped a 13-year-old girl, made a plea bargain and then fled the country. He has since be accused of rape no less than four times. Surely Hollywood would reject him! Nope, he has since made millions directing movies. He has been nominated for several Oscars and his movies have won eight. Actors from Johnny Depp to Whoopi Goldberg have defended him. When he was named Best Director at the Oscars he got a standing ovation. Woody Allen, Hollywood resident genus, married his girlfriend’s adopted daughter with whom he was having an affair. Sounds rather “Hollywood” right? Slight problem: Soon-Yi was a teenager when they started their affair. Further, he was, no doubt a father figure to her. He was also accused of sexual assault of his girlfriend’s son. What terrible price did he pay? Since the affair came to light he has made countless movies, been nominated for eight Oscars and won one. And our newest High Hollywood Hypocrite … Harvey Weinstein: facts are still coming out on this one. This much is clear: He is a sad pathetic man who got off on masturbating in front of those who were powerless before him, all the while extoling the virtues of the liberal elite and raising millions for them. How was he judged by the moral aristocracy? He wasn’t – for thirty years! Only now will we find out if he’ll pay any penalty.

These examples shine a spotlight, not only on depraved sick men but on the complete and pervasive hypocrisy of the left. Kennedy was lauded as a liberal god. Clinton is a democrat savior and great man. Polanski and Allen are creative geniuses and paragons of liberal virtue. Weinstein was a political and industry powerbroker until it caught up with him. And now all the woman, who railed against the President publicly are seen as brave for coming forward decades later after they have made their millions and, lest we forget, after so many others were allowed to suffer at his hand. Hillary, the political relic not the cow (ummm…), is the poster child for this hypocrisy. She did everything she could to destroy the lives of her husband-of-political-convenience’s accusers. Then she said all women’s allegations must be taken seriously. Then she attacked the women who accused her husband again while accusing Donald Trump of misogyny and male-evil. Then she stood as the defender of all women while feeling entitled to all their votes. All the while, she took money from her great friend Harvey who was a well know serial-sexual harasser.

“But Whiggy, certainly the republicans have their fair share of inappropriate behaviors?”

Very true. No one is without sin. This submission is not about the sin, but about the hypocrisy. Republicans are quick to discard of members, even leaders, when similar allegations come to light. Larry Craig was caught doing some unsavory things in a men’s room – He resigned. John Ensign resigned after admitting an affair. Chris Lee send pics to a woman on Craigslist, got caught and resigned. Herman Cain stopped running for President after allegations were made of sexual harassment. Denny Hastert, that sick bastard, was instantly shunned by Republicans once it came to light that he was a pedophile. Liberals surround each other with protection and excuses when they get caught. Conservatives either quit or are forced to walk the plank.

My mother used to say that she never trusted the words of anyone. “Only their actions tell the truth” she would say. The Moral Aristocracy spends an inordinate amount of time telling us all the proper way to live and think. Their words establish their stance at the top of the moral high ground. Their actions betray something far more sinister. They protect child rapists as long as they donate to their cause. They venerate men who use power to subjugate women sexually as long as they support the progressive cause. Their silence allows women to be continually victimized so they can continue to make money, get donations and claim power. They continue to criticize the behaviors of others, all the while setting a new standard for amorality. The have descended from the moral high ground to moral decrepitude. The only sin left in the liberal world is disagreement with their party line.

Gun Toting Midgets Riding Chocolate Goats

Friends, let us begin with a small history lesson, shall we? A long long time ago, to the land where Ted Kennedy would later kill a woman and get away scott free and where Elizabeth Warren proclaimed her indigenous credentials, there came a revolution. Soon, thirteen colonies rose, took up arms and beat back their former rulers. Key to this revolution was the act of taking up arms. The revolutionaries understood that fact. So too did the Crown. In fact, one of the first things the crown tried to do as signs of unrest became evident was to confiscate arms and gun powder. The Crown recognized that, to keep power, they needed to be the only ones armed. You see where I am going here, right?

When it came time to create the new government of The United States of America, the founding fathers understood that the government could not be the only ones with guns. The second amendment was written specifically to make sure that did not happen. It was not written so people could hunt or sport shoot. It was not written for home defense against burglars, gangs or Antifa. It was written for the sole reason to make sure the citizens could never be made completely subservient to the military of the central government. In short, the constitution keeps the stage set for another revolution when a revolution is needed.

Now lets fast forward to the world in which we live today. Tragically we have a number of batsh@t crazy, radicalized and/or evil people in the wogun controlrld. From time to time those people commit horrifying crimes. In the United States, many of these crimes are committed using guns. All people of intelligence and with a good heart can agree that these crimes are terrible and must be stopped. Unfortunately, that is where the agreement ends. As to what needs to be done to stop them, there is no agreement and there is, indeed, deeply rooted disagreement.  The loudest faction likes to blame the guns themselves for hideous murders. They instantly call for gun control because we all know that laws are 100% effective. After all, look at how well they work when it comes to drugs!

Within hours of the Las Vegas tragedy, Hillary Clinton removed her head from her rectal cavity where she has been searching for What Happened long enough to essentially blame the NRA for making the shooting happen. Soon, everyone in Moral Aristocracy climbed upon their glass pedestals and sang in unison “Gun Control, Gun Control”. When asked what specific gun control idea would have stopped this attack many slipped off their pedestals until those pedestals became firmly entrenched beside Hillary’s head. Watching the news was like watching a two-year-old argue. (I am sorry. That was offensive to two-year-olds). The arguments they did make made no sense. There was no specificity. And I am pretty sure I watched three people on the floor kicking and screaming. Since none of them could offer specifics let’s explore some of the most common gun control ideas.

Back Ground Checks: Depending on who you listen to, somewhere between 85% and 132% of American believe that background checks need to be done before someone can purchase a gun. No doubt background checks would stop all gun-related crime. The moral aristocracy would have us believe that 40% of guns purchased legally in the US are bought without a background check. According to Politifact, that claim is false and the actual number is between 14% and 22%. Certainly, most gun-related crimes are committed by people who fall into that percentage.

Actually, when researchers asked convicted criminals where they got their guns, they found something that is certain to stun us all. They found, in separate studies, that only between 3% and 11% of guns used in crimes were obtained legally! Whoa! Mind blowing isn’t it? I mean, what kind of criminal would use an illegal gun? The nerve! The audacity! Where’s Hillary? It might be time to have all these criminals suicided for not fitting her narrative. Where’s Debbie? She can have them Seth Riched.

Continuing my “fun with gun math” segment, I will use the numbers that best fit the moral aristocracy’s story: Of the 11% of the people committing crimes using legal guns, 22% did not get a background check. Using that logic, in the worst-case scenario it would be somewhat fair to say that 2.42% of all crimes committed with guns are committed by people who skirted background checks by purchasing guns privately or at gun shows. How can there be any doubt that closing the “Gun Show Loophole” would solve all gun related crimes?

Oh wait, I forgot one last little tiny detail. The Las Vegas killer (who’s name I will not utter or type) had more than 30 background checks. They all came up clean.

None of this is to say that I do not believe in background checks personally. I do. But the fact of the matter is, ensuring the extra 2.42% get checked really wont accomplish a damn thing.

So, what have we learned about background checks? 1) Most gun purchases are made with them; 2) Most criminals don’t actually buy guns legally (I’m still in shock); 3) Even with a background check, crazy @ss evil morons still get through.

Mental Health: The moral aristocracy’s narrative goes something like this: “Our mental health system is broken because we don’t have national healthcare and because republicans are all racists. If everyone took a mind-numbing drug, got therapy 23 hours a day and had a designated governmental minder to hold their hands at all times, there would be no crime at all. Additionally, no one with any sort of mental disorder should be allowed to buy a gun.” I may have paraphrased a bit but I believe I have hit all the relevant points.

I have to be honest with you, friends. This one upsets Whiggy the most. It’s the last bit. The whole concept that anyone who had a mental disorder would not be permitted to purchase a gun. Where do I start? You all know I am a former psychologist. Anyone who would suggest such a thing has no concept, whatsoever, of how mental disorders are diagnosed or treated. Let’s start with the most basic question and then move to the more worrisome concepts.

Which mental disorders would lead one to have their second amendment right taken from them? For how long would they have to suffer from it? Would they be banned for life? For how long would they have to be in recovery or symptom free before they could have their second amendment rights back? Do certain behaviors need to be associated with the diagnosis or is the diagnosis itself enough? What severity of disorder symptoms would be needed? These questions are endless and could fill volumes. One final question: when exactly did the moral aristocracy decide it was ok to discriminate against someone based on a pre-existing medical condition? BOOM! Mic drop … how you like them apples you hypocritical @sshats?!

*Pics up mic … I’m not done yet.

The aspect of this concept that most concerns me is the complete and total surrender of personal privacy to the government. For the government to deny someone’s rights based midget with gunon a pre-existing medical condition, they must be made aware of said condition. Think about that for just a minute. This would get rid of the concept of clinical confidentiality. Your government would have to be made aware, not only of your condition, but of the details of your condition. Where does that end? What other rights could they deny you based on their assessment of your mental health. And further, how long would it be until Wikileaks publishes the notes about that dream you had of that midget riding the goat covered in chocolate toting an AR15 with a melted silencer? And there’s my title!

So, what have we learned about denying a person his/her second amendment rights due to a pre-existing medical condition? The answer is in the question.

(I know this is getting long, but it needs to be said. Go pour yourself a drink. I’ll wait. Back? Ok. Let’s continue)

Ban Assault weapons: A good friend of mine and Mrs. Whiggy has the unfortunate luck of suffering from liberalism. Before the Las Vegas shooting, he was over to our house for dinner. The conversation eventually came around to guns and the concept of an assault weapon ban. My dear intellectually-deficient friend knew his liberal talking points well.

“You don’t need a semi-automatic weapon with a 30-bullet clip to hunt deer. Why does anyone NEED an assault weapon?” He said with the smugness of Harvey Weinstein defending his Clinton BFFs.

“You are right,” I responded “I don’t need it to hunt deer. I need it to assure that anyone (citizen or government official) who enters my property with intent to hurt my family or steal my treasure does not leave my property with air in his lungs or thoughts of returning in his head.”

Silence. There was no response. There could be no response. All too often, those who defend the second amendment try to use logic based on the moral aristocracy’s code. Its time for that end. I agree with those on the left that claim that assault weapons are solely intended to kill people. YES, THEY ARE. And your point is? I do not hunt. I have no interest in hunting. I’m kind of a wuss and couldn’t imagine dealing with a dead bloody deer. Anything I may own is owned expressly to remove from the earth anyone meaning to hurt me, my family or my property. Period.

Oh … and by the way: According to the FBI, there were approximately 15,000 murders in the US in 2016. About 10,600 of those were committed using guns. Data is not available yet for 2016 but in 2014 about 70% of those guns were handguns. 2% involved rifles and assault weapons. Yes, that right. I said 2%.

And one more by the way: the constitution grants gun ownership as a right, not as a means of meeting a need and only if that need is present. Oh, and the intent was of the second amendment was to ensure that the citizenry could stay armed in case the need arises to defend against the government. So, there’s that.

So, what have we learned about an assault weapon ban? Like the whole Background Check red herring, banning assault weapons would impact approximately 2% of murders. Then there is that pesky little fact that the constitution makes gun ownership a right. A small side note: Neither health care nor education are mentioned as rights by the constitution yet gun ownership is. Interesting.

I could go on and on about other concerns such as magazine capacities, types of ammunition, types of sights, gun licensure and weapon modifications but I think I have gone on long enough.

I want to leave you with this thought: the deadliest domestic terrorist attack in the US involved a truck and tons of fertilizer and killed 168 people. Where there is a sick will, there is a sick way.