Zombie NeverTrumpers

For anyone who has been reading this blog for a while, or has had the fortitude to look back into my pre-election archives, or is familiar with my comments on Twitchy, you know that #NeverTrump and I have not been on very good terms.  For some, for many, I tried long and hard to reason with and treat like the friends and allies I always thought they were, I myself being a diehard Ted Cruz supporter right up until the last domino fell.  I’ve always acknowledged that President Trump is not a doctrinaire conservative and has some disturbing tendencies in his past but I balanced that with the fact that he’s not a liberal either, he’s a businessman (or as I often put it, Trump is simply Trump), and frankly anyone was better than Dr. Pantsuit.  And I made myself hoarse arguing to people that you have a binary choice and voting for someone like Evan McMullin or Gary Johnson or leaving the presidential box blank was not going to “send a message” to anybody, and God help you if you actually checked the box for Dr. Pantsuit.  For many folks, I agreed to disagree and moved on after making my points.  For the few reprobates who actually thought President Pantsuit would be preferable to President Trump and who attacked me as “not a conservative” for thinking otherwise, I actually blocked people.  I NEVER block lefty trolls, but people who pretended to be friends who could not see this distinction, I wanted to remember, and I want nothing more to do with them.  May they live forever.

I think my last full-on post about the NeverTrumpers was right after the election, where they had failed and so had the Pantsuit drones, and I said look, I’ll take responsibility if this guy turns out to be a disaster.  I voted for him, I said over and over that if he loses it will be #NeverTrump’s fault, and I’ll gladly accept the consequences of my actions.  I said it way back in November.  I also said that I don’t need a mea culpa, I don’t need an acknowledgement of error, much less an apology, just for anyone who was NeverTrump before the election, if you’re ready and willing to move on and be friends again, let’s do it.  I’ll forget it if you will.

Obviously more than a few are not willing to forget and move on.  Ben Shapiro softened his stance but it has morphed into President Trump is a bumbling fool rather than a stealth Democrat who tricked us all, and he’s not the worst of them by far (please note, I don’t even consider Shapiro a zombie NeverTrumper, I am just using him as an example of the halfway-there not-quite-sold-for-some-reason mindset).  The so-called “Reagan Battalion” who seems to owe allegiance to Evan McMullin (the piece of crap spoiler who claims to be a “principled conservative” then says Republican economics and policies are rooted in racism…yeah that doesn’t go together son) was a major player in the downfall of outspoken Trump supporter and snowflake melter Milo Yiannopoulos earlier this year.  Conservative news sites like Shapiro’s Daily Wire and Erick Erickson’s Red State are outright infested with what I have called zombie NeverTrumpers since shortly after the election–so called because they’re dead but they just keep coming.  Instead of moaning and mumbling about “braaaaains,” these zombies’ chant seems to be, or want to be, “we tollllld you sooooooo…”

The problem with zombie NeverTrumpers is that before the election, sure, you could have your concerns about what a New Yorker who has been chummy with the Clintons and Jesse Jackson in the past will do once he’s elected.  You can worry about whether his comments about how great his flaming liberal sister would be for the Supreme Court are just a random Trump comment or an actual “I might nominate her.”  You can question whether he’s all that great for property rights with his history of getting eminent domain used in his favor.  The list goes on.  All of these and more were legitimate questions to ask before the election, and the best reply Trump supporters could give was that we were willing to roll the dice on him because for God’s sake man, the alternative is the evil Dr. Pantsuit.

That was last fall.  We’re now in month five of the Trump presidency and boy what a ride it has been.  We’ve seen action taken to repeal the Unaffordable Don’t-Care Act–and where it’s jamming up is either to get it right or opposition from establishment types, but the President is pushing it hard.  We’re seeing budget outlines cutting spending on stupid stuff and bolstering the defense budget (I’ll grant we didn’t get nearly as good a deal as we should have in the last continuing resolution but I blame that on Congress).  We’ve seen executive orders to reduce regulations and allow reallocation of money from Planned Infanticide.  We’re seeing the beginnings of the draining of the swamp and the only reason it’s not going faster is that swamp does NOT want to be drained.  We have the most awesome Cabinet in decades.  We’ve seen decisive military action where it was called for.  We’re watching the lunatic left, the dinosaur media in particular, melt down on a weekly basis.  We’re seeing illegal alien crossings decrease dramatically before the wall is even funded, let alone built.  We’re covfefe, whatever that is.  We’ve reasserted our friendship with Israel and told the deadbeats in NATO to grow the hell up and start carrying the load.  We’ve gotten Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court and we’ve gotten out of the insane Paris Accords, and despite the howling from the left President Trump just keeps right on rolling.

In other words, everything President Trump has done has been fiercely conservative.  He is the leader we have been hoping and praying for since President Reagan left office, bold and decisive and unconcerned with what the press is saying about him because he knows they’re his enemy and the enemy of all Americans.  He is finally not worrying about what Hollywood and the dinosaur media say.  He sold himself as a product and he knows who his customers are.  In other words, those of us who chose to believe in him and bet on him have already won the jackpot, and there’s still over three and a half years of just his first term to go (and don’t kid yourself, Mad Maxine can croak all she wants, there will not be any impeachment).

But in spite of all of this, the zombie NeverTrumpers are still here.  And really, there’s no excuse for them at all anymore.  If President Trump does not do one more good thing over the course of his presidency, if we never see a tax cut or even the wall built, that’s okay.  He’s accomplished more than both Bushes even tried to already.  I have absolute faith and confidence that he will, of course, but for whatever reason these idiot NeverTrumpers are clinging to their bandwagon and convincing themselves that this is all for show, the old Serbian-Jew double bluff, just you wait you Cheeto-Man cultists, he’s going to…I don’t know, replace Mike Pence with Ivanka and resign or something and then won’t YOU be sorry!

I will not now nor will I ever say I have no concerns.  I do not like the influence people like Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner and the Cole-Powell duo from Goldman Sachs seem to have with President Trump.  But really, the NeverTrump zombies still refusing to see what’s right in front of them are every bit as deranged as the Antifa goons out to punch Ann Coulter.  I won’t say they’re every bit as dangerous, but what they lack in threat they make up for in raw, blind, irrational stupidity.  They’ve demonstrated with sad clarity that they really never were our friends and allies.  I don’t really know what they are to be honest, but I know they’re not worth listening to or arguing with anymore.  President Trump has given conservatives everything we could ask for and is pushing for more every day, and all they can say is “just you wait, he’s gonna turn on you and you’ll see how stupid you were, Trumphumper!”  It’s like “I told you so” is more valuable to them than the principles they claimed to uphold.

May they live forever.

The next series

So I have two ideas for the next weekly installment series here at Wanderer’s Way, now that my tour through well behaved women making history has come to a conclusion.  The first is to do a weekly post about “Words That Leftists Should Not Use.”  This is because, to paraphrase Mandy Patinkin’s immortal line from The Princess Bride, they do not mean what they think they mean.  And of course this is not an accident–the left takes words and corrupts them in order to try to take over their meaning.  An example of this would be the word “bully.”  A bully uses direct or indirect threats of force to intimidate and scare weaker people without justification but solely for their own amusement.  Sometimes that force may be applied via social ostracism in conjunction with other bullies or through coercion of other people who are also in fear of the bully.  Bullying is not, however, a statement of objective fact directed as a criticism against a person or group of people, nor is it a promise to enforce the law.

Nor is it an eleven year old boy seeing a picture of his father’s severed head being held by an unfunny witch on television and getting upset, or said eleven year old boy’s half-brother and the remainder of his family expressing extreme displeasure with that image.

The other idea is to do what I would call “Wanderer’s Manifesto” in an installment form.  This would be going through point-by-point on both abstract foundational stuff and specific individual issues what I believe and why, and in the process hopefully giving my readers a few quick and easy-to-remember points that ought to eviscerate just about any “counterargument” (as if the left actually makes those) leveled against them.  The best arguments are the ones that can be made simply, with as few moving parts as possible, and since conservatism is firmly grounded in reality and truth, it’s important to stay on target and not get sidetracked into trying to debunk every last little piece of nonsense a leftist can vomit up.  Stay on the rails and you’ll win every time–which remember, does NOT mean you’ll convince the person you’re arguing with.

Anyway, I intend to do both of these in some form or another in the near future, and right now I’m leaning towards making the Words series the new weekly, just because like Well Behaved Women it lends itself more to a repeating installment format.  It’s also more similar to Well Behaved Women in that it’s as much for entertainment value as it is to make actual points.  Whereas the Manifesto is something I am thinking ought to be done on an as-I-can-get-to-it basis, since these posts are going to require a little more thought and will probably run a bit longer.  So to anyone who is reading this, if you have any thoughts about where you’d like to see things go next, please weigh in in the comments.  The new series will start either this coming Sunday or the next.  Thanks for stopping by.

It’s simple really

As the left loses its mind (yet again) over President Trump pulling us out of the Paris malarkey (still grinning, it’s so awesome) one of the things the wailing fools are screaming is “how will we explain this to our grandchildren!?”

It’s not hard.  You tell them “hey kids, we’re not going to spend hundreds of thousands of your dollars that you haven’t even earned yet on a fairy tale just because the rest of the world and some crazy elitists really wanted us to.  We’re also not going to make it harder for you to get a job when you grow up for no reason other than you happened to be born an American.  You’re welcome.”


Also, the world isn’t going to burn or drown.  Really, it’s not.  You want to scare your kids into thinking that, that’s on you, retard.


Done and done

Well, America just got a good chunk of greatness back today, thanks to President Trump.  We are officially out of the Paris Accords (and no, there was nothing about a four-year withdrawal period, sorry cackling fools).  The leftist meltdown is reaching new heights and it’s a joy to watch.

This was a great enough move just by virtue of being a campaign promise kept and a piece of envirofascist nonsense done away with, but what it signifies is what truly makes it a great moment, and what is really making the lefties lose their crap tonight.  Because in pushing back the Paris agreement, President Trump not only saved millions of American jobs and trillions of American dollars (and not a small amount of lives) that were going to be wasted on a fairy tale, but he showed you can push this stuff back.  He knew the consequences, he knew they would scream bloody murder, and he did it anyway–and the crowd went wild.

We conservatives and Republicans (not always the same, remember) have grown unpleasantly accustomed to our political leaders railing against the goofy, destructive, insane, unconstitutional malarkey perpetrated by the Democrats whenever the Ds have power and the Rs can’t do anything but fuss, but then when they finally win a massive wave election like 2016 they stare at the mess for a few minutes with a scowl and a “tsk tsk” and sigh like it’s a damn shame, then go on to explain to their voters that there’s nothing they can do.  We can’t uproot this monstrosity now, they claim with a shrug, without even making an honest try.  They do this because they would rather go back to face their voters with a condescending explanation and an undertone of “what other option do you have?” than face the rabid left and their accusations of racism or sexism or you-just-destroyed-the-world or other retarded nonsense.

But President Trump did it.  He pushed them back.  I don’t care if he’s “not a conservative,” he just piled more win into one day than we’ve seen since Ronald Reagan.

I can already hear the concerns about how in the same breath as pulling us out of the Paris Accords, President Trump said we’d renegotiate and see if we can get a better deal.  Having listened to a lot of the speech that followed, I’m not concerned that that is even possible and I’m pretty sure this was President Trump’s media judo in action, flipping the onus for the USA getting out of the deal onto the parties that wanted to put so many onerous restraints on the United States.  Since the intent of the deal in the first place was to cripple the American economy, I’m sure that the “renegotiation” will go nowhere fast and I’m confident that President Trump means it when he says he’ll take no deal rather than a bad deal.  Seriously, he went into details about the Paris Accords that are all true, that most people don’t know (because the dinosaur media won’t report on them), and that you typically can’t find until you get almost to the tinfoil hat level of the alternative media on the internet.  I think the most powerful point he made was that all of the sacrifices and constraints that the United States would have to put up with for years to come, all the effect of that would be wiped out by TWO WEEKS worth of carbon emissions from China.

America got a lot of greatness back today, and what’s more is, America learned a lesson that no squishy establishment Republican or smug leftist will ever be able to erase: we CAN push the left back.  We CAN fight back.

The sound of a logic bomb going off

Andrew McCarthy was recently being interviewed about the latest pseudoscandal du jour, featuring President Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and allegations that he may have been involved in trying to set up “back channel communications” between the Russians and the incoming administration.  Which even if it turns out to be 100% true is neither unusual nor is it a crime.  He pointed out that by taking this tangent the dinosaur media and the impeachment hit squads are inadvertently destroying their whole “Russian collusion” nonsense narrative.  Because if the Russians were already in cahoots with the Trump team to influence the election, and we still haven’t found any evidence of how they were communicating, then obviously there already were back-channel communications going on (and some pretty damned good ones too).  Therefore, there’s no reason they would have wanted to try to set up such communications with Kushner.  In other words, they can’t have it both ways.

Boom.  Logic for the win.

I’m debating whether or not to declare check mate on this.  Leaning towards no because this is too minor a detail to really get through to people, despite that from a logical standpoint this is the fatal flaw that ought to bring the whole house of cards crashing down.  Sadly, logic alone is seldom enough to convince people these days.  So for now I’m going to take it as a good sign–they’re so desperate that they’re making even stupider mistakes than usual.

“Because Jesus” is not an argument

I want to start off this post by making it clear that I am a lifelong Bible-believing Christian.  Not going to hide from that either–I’ve toyed with the idea of trying to pass myself off on anonymous forums as a homosexual atheist woman with a multicultural heritage to rival Kamala Harris but I don’t figure I could pull that farce off, and it’d only get me a tiny bit more credit with people whose opinions aren’t worth caring about anyway.  I can discuss exactly what I mean by that in more detail but for the moment my point is that, if you’re just trying to convince me of something, the classic “God said so” is more than likely going to be good enough for me, or at least will weigh favorably on my personal scales.

That said, you’re not trying to convince me.  I’m not trying to argue with people like me.  When I’m making an argument, especially with someone who doesn’t see things my way, I’m not going to hold my Jesus card up my sleeve until it looks like things aren’t going my way and play it like it’s some sort of trump.  This is primarily because, quite frankly, that does not work.  The left has spent centuries trying to discredit Christians and portray them as Bible-thumping know-nothings who are just trying to “impose their morality” on other people, to the point where bringing your religion into a discussion of anything is practically game over–for you.  It’s equivalent to a leftist crying “racist” except that when they call you on it, it actually works.

I’m reminded of a video that went viral of a homeschooled high schooler participating in a pro-life protest outside a high school and being confronted and berated by the high school’s principal.  First of all, good on this kid for standing up for his beliefs, I do not mean to be unconstructively critical.  As the principal got more and more angry and unhinged, the kid stayed calm and made some good points about both abortion and his own right to free speech… and then he said something along the lines of “you need to consider what Jesus would do” (I don’t remember the exact words).  The principal’s whole posture changed and not for the better.  He had been acting all along like he had the authority of his office on his side and not much else, getting more and more unglued as the video went on.  After that argument from the teenager, however, the principal acted like the kid had conceded the point and admitted to being an ignorant reality-challenged dimwit, and thus the principal engaged again with the same derangement but also renewed ferocity.  His arguments were still based in nothing but hate, but now he could attack religion itself instead of confronting the kid’s pretty decent arguments on free speech and abortion.  The principal had a long litany of accusations and vitriol to throw and while they were no less deranged than his earlier nonsense had been they carried with them a tone of smug, mocking superiority.  He basically filibustered the kid all the way from there.  And the fact is the kid opened himself up to that blistering attack by making an assertion that did not help his point at all.  Again, I commend this student for taking a stand and mean this only as constructive criticism.

No, it doesn’t work in reverse when a leftist wails “Jesus was a socialist” or “God doesn’t put up walls.”  That’s just how it is people.  Moving on.

Many if not most Christians understand that sooner or later, what we learned in the Bible gets borne out by history or science.  The kosher code, for example, helped prevent foodborne illnesses in an era where refrigerators weren’t a thing.  We’re at the point in history where we’re able to figure a lot of these things out for ourselves, whether it’s that socialism doesn’t work or that an unborn baby is a baby, but the problem with some arguments (especially the argument against abortion) is that it got framed early on as “you shouldn’t do this because the Bible says so.”  Pro-life rallies and marches end up being revivals as much as they are protests, and who hasn’t seen a billboard on the side of the road with a baby’s face and a verse out of the book of Jeremiah that actually doesn’t prove a damned thing?  The fact is that when legal abortion became a thing in the 1970s, science hadn’t bothered to really look into when human life begins because people just assumed like they had for millennia that a baby was a baby.  Oh sure, we had a general understanding of how that worked but it was more of a curiosity than the centerpiece of a massive unresolved controversy.  We had laws dating back to time immemorial imposing severe punishments for causing the death of an unborn child or harm to a child in the womb, so society’s position on the matter looked pretty clear and not in urgent need of settling.  So science wasn’t ready to say “um, you know you’re legalizing murder right?” in 1973 because that was what rational people generally thought up to that point, until the children of the 60s became the low-information voters and overly vocal minority protesters of the 70s.  And while it was important for good people (which in general does mean Christians) to stand up and cry out against this atrocity in progress when it happened, the problem was that they had a lot of moral authority but not a lot of scientific backup–not that the other side had either one, then or now.  That legacy haunts pro-lifers to this day, not because there is anything wrong with being on the side of God and the Bible, but because arguments like “you make the baby Jesus cry” are as simplistic as they are seen as irrelevant and ignorant by the very people you’re trying to convince.  What’s worse is they make you look stupider than the people who are arguing that killing a baby is okay.

That is the real crux of the problem.  I know people who make these arguments see promoting their religion as every bit as important as promoting their politics, and while I agree with that, my point is that these arguments fail to do either.  You discredit your own argument and your faith when you try to use Jesus as an I-win button.  All that tells people is that A: your argument is based on mindless religious dogma, and B: your religion creates people who apparently can’t think.

The way out of this is not to use your religion to sell you beliefs but use your beliefs to promote your religion.  To continue to use the abortion argument as an example, science has conclusively proven that human life begins very early in pregnancy if not at conception itself, the unborn baby is not part of the mother’s body, and many other points that are compellingly convincing (I’d get into them but that’s not the point of this post).  Make your arguments based on them.  Sooner or later someone will notice your calm, logical, levelheaded response to the frothing harpies screaming about “their bodies” and making internally inconsistent farcical statements full of words they don’t understand.  They’ll see your composure and willingness to take a verbal (or even a physical) pounding on behalf of the innocent and some may eventually be moved to ask what motivates you, or might notice something like a cross on a chain on your neck, or they may simply associate you with Christians because that’s what pro-lifers tend to be.  Remember that you’re not arguing to convince the harpies, most of the time they are beyond all hope of redemption, you’re trying to sway bystanders and people who are just listening in.  In other words, however the opportunity presents itself, don’t use your faith to promote your beliefs, use your beliefs and how you live them to promote your faith.

To use one of the silliest things ever put into an overused phrase, What Would Jesus Do?  Well, under the right circumstances he’d grab a whip and clean house, but most of the time, he’d just be nice and calm and civil and do good things for people.  He would NOT go around saying “because I said so, THAT’S why.”

I guess we WON’T always have Paris…

In the latest installment of the multivolume series “Reasons Why President Trump is Awesome,” after telling Europe it’s time they grew up and took some more responsibility for handling their own messes, reports are that President Trump is officially withdrawing the USA from the bogus envirofascist Paris Accords.  Which of course Whatshisname put us into without Congressional approval in the first place.

Whatshisname had a pen and a phone.  President Trump has Twitter and an industrial size barrel of white-out.

And let’s be clear here: the Paris nonsense was not about clean air and water.  We have those.  We’re capable of making our own laws about that stuff and quite frankly we don’t even need to do that.  The envirofascists like to pretend that if we were to do away with environmental regulation that we’d go back to dumping toxic waste into water reservoirs and pretty soon the whole country would be Los Angeles at rush hour.  That’s not going to happen, ever.  We’re just not that stupid (or at least the people who will be trying to make money and grow their businesses aren’t).  Basic principles of tort law make that impossible now that there’s a better understanding of how such things work.  And when you consider that the horror that the Paris agreement was trying to prevent was about half a degree of increased temperature over fifty years (which has neither been proven to be humans’ doing, a net negative, or even happening at all), I think we’re gonna be just fine.

The Paris accords are an attack on American sovereignty and capitalism.  Period, end of sentence.  There’s a point to be made about China and India and other competitor nations not signing on or not intending to comply but you know, I’m just going to rest on the fact that this is all hysteria over nonsense to begin with.  Therefore I don’t care what China or India or any other country does.  I care what we do, and we’re telling the envirofascists to take a hike today.

Well behaved women, chapter 30

So thirty-odd weeks ago (plus a few more for weeks I took off for one reason or another) I started this series wherein I took it upon myself to refute with historical examples the insipid bumper sticker “Well behaved women rarely/seldom make history.”  I know this has been a series for a long time but I kid you not, with only a couple of exceptions for late additions to the list (Kellyanne Conway and Marine LePen), I came up with the entire roster in about fifteen minutes.  The only research I did was after I had my nominees in mind.  I also eliminated over a dozen names from both the good and bad lists and it just so happened that they came out even, otherwise this was going to be a little onesided at the end.  So this series is not meant to be an exhaustive research project, which would end up being dry and boring as hell.  It’s meant to be some pocket ammo, easy to remember and deploy against snarky feminist twits, deliver a quick knockout “you don’t know what you’re talking about” and move on a winner.  They won’t take the bumper sticker off, someone who has gotten to that point is too far gone to be reasoned with.  But maybe someone listening nearby will hear you and wake up before it’s too late.

See, the point I’ve proven here is twofold.  One, yes Virginia, well behaved women do indeed make history, and when women don’t behave well they make history that we’d all just as soon forget.  And two, it’s not women who don’t make history, it’s people in general.  Just because most of history has been made by men (good and bad), does not mean most men make history.  We don’t.  And women aren’t so extra-special awesome that their being nasty and cranky and persisting in breaking rules of organizations they demanded to be a part of entitles them to be “historic.”

That all said, it’s time to wrap up our series with someone who definitely felt entitled to be historic and her only real reason (if it can be called that) was because woman, someone we’re all regrettably familiar with, Dr. Pantsuit herself, Hillary Rodham Clinton.  I and so very many others have yelled ourselves hoarse about this vile, repugnant excuse for a human being and listed both her known and strongly suspected crimes, offenses, and shortcomings ad infinitum as her devoted cult-like followers demonstrated that they simply did not care or were so detached from reality that it didn’t punch through their haze of disbelief.  Incompetence, bias, hatred, abuse of power, arrogance, corruption, dereliction of duty, brazen lying…the list goes on and on next to the trail of bodies following the Clintons’ path all the way back to Little Rock.  Yeah, she’s the first woman ever to get a major party nomination for president.  And also the first person who ever got so close to the presidency while under FBI investigation.

She’s back in the news this past week, having given the commencement address at her alma mater, Wellesley.  As she paused several times amidst her unfunny jokes to indulge coughing fits she blamed on allergies (pollen count for the day: low) the assembled brainwashed millennials cheered like she was making some brilliant point when all she was doing was wheezing up what was left of her lungs.  This woman put in stark relief just how close to the edge we truly are, how sold-out and all-in the dinosaur fake news media truly is, and how depraved the electorate has become.  The history she made could have been much, much worse.  But today, we still have a chance to come back from the brink.  I won’t and never will say President Trump is perfect, nor will I say that we have done anything but buy ourselves some time and a fighting chance to turn this mess around, but I don’t even want to know where history would have gone and would be going now if he hadn’t finally defeated the monster.

So this concludes our series.  Next week I’ll probably share my ideas for where I will go next, since having a weekly post keeps me more or less honest about keeping the posts coming, even if I just stop in to report I’m on hiatus for a week.  Comments and questions are welcome as always.


I’ve already commented about the bogus bird-dogging story out of Montana, where Greg Gianforte is accused of calmly and politely talking to a reporter and then out of nowhere Hulking out and bodyslamming him.  Or clotheslining him so hard his feet flew into the air.  Or grabbing him by the throat before throwing him down and ground-pounding him.  It depends on who you ask and whether they have yet admitted that they “may have embellished.”  Of course if you listen to the audio recording (made in a room with multiple reporters who for some reason forgot their smartphones and cameras and even their names) it sounds a lot more like what Gianforte says it was: the pajama boy reporter kept shoving a recording device in Gianforte’s face, Gianforte moved to push it away, and the reporter grabbed Gianforte’s wrist and a scuffle ensued.  In which case the reporter is the clear aggressor.  And from what Gianforte says on the recording immediately afterwards, it sounds like this is not the first time a Guardian reporter tried to do this.  I went a few rounds with a few trolls on Twitchy about this last night and left them spitting and sputtering, it was fun.

Something else about this is kind of distressing.  There are two more or less appropriate reactions to this situation: first, to believe Gianforte’s account (which I do based on the available evidence) and conclude that he did not, in fact, haul off and slam this reporter.  That’s the more appropriate reaction.  Second, to look at this situation, accept the nonsense account given by the beta douche reporter, and conclude that “well, he did it, but the reporter kinda deserved it.”  This is substantially less okay.  Not nearly as bad as the third option, taken by trolls and leftists and by the pearl-clutching media suddenly treating Fox News as a legitimate journalism outlet, which is “he did it and it’s an outrage against democracy and the First Amendment and proves Republicans are violent and evil and Nazis!!!!1one!!”  That option is just plain stupid, nevermind unsupported by the evidence.  But the second option isn’t a whole lot better.

I was listening to Rush Limbaugh today and he had several people call in and basically express option 2.  Either they were in favor of roughing up rude reporters or they were just willing to give Gianforte a pass, they understood the reporter’s behavior brought on whatever Gianforte felt compelled to do.  People, this is really not okay.  Not only are you essentially saying Gianforte is a liar (and a monumental idiot) by giving Ben Jacobs’ bogus story this kind of credence, but you’re fueling a narrative to come.  You’re allowing yourselves to be drawn into making statements that the dinosaur media will use to equate us with the animals who went out to “bash the fasc” at Berkeley.  It doesn’t matter that all you’re doing is making a few cathartic statements and that all Gianforte did at most, at most, was respond to a provocation (and I maintain, as does the evidence, that he didn’t even do that).  It doesn’t matter that he was provoked–that is the ride you sign up for as a Republican, to be antagonized and have traps laid for you by the dinosaur media.  It doesn’t matter because the sound bites and tweets and other exclamations will be weighed against every violent outburst from the left and will be dressed up to be every bit as ugly as the left’s riots and beatings and acts of domestic terrorism.

I’m a criminal defense attorney by trade, and one thing we learn in law school is that a legal way to finagle a false confession out of someone is to give the suspect a “less bad” secondary option as an “out,” an explanation that fits what the interrogator is going for but isn’t quite so bad as, say, shooting someone in cold blood.  “You didn’t just waste him, I can tell, he must have been coming at you.”  They make it sound like “he was coming at you” is a complete justification when it’s not, at least not as far as they’re concerned.  What the interrogator wants is not the excuse, just the “yeah, I did it,” and they don’t care if it’s the truth.  Well, that’s what’s going on here.  If you call shenanigans on Ben Jacobs’ story, you’ve got to try to defend that position or you get lambasted for “blaming the ‘victim.'”  But there’s another option, and an easy “way out,” and that’s to say something along the lines of “well, he shouldn’t have done it, but I can understand why he did it” or “hell yeah I’m okay with this!”  And just like “he came at me,” that gets you to concede the point they want, and from there the rest is unwanted explanation and is disregarded as such.  They have their sound bite, they have your admission, they have their “X percentage of Republican voters believe Greg Gianforte attacked Ben Jacobs and are okay with that,” and I’m beginning to wonder if that’s what they were after all along.  Just like with the kid in the interrogation room, this “out” leads in.

Don’t.  Give.  Them.  This.  Point.  Greg Gianforte did not do anything wrong.  The audio proves that the three wildly divergent stories from the media goons were substantially embellished if not cut from whole cloth.  The only account that matches the audio recording is Gianforte’s.  I know there’s a feeling of catharsis thinking that someone on our side got tired of being punched for being a Nazi and finally punched back, but that’s not what we do.  Do NOT give them ammunition to portray us as such.  Do NOT call Greg Gianforte a liar AND a fool in the same breath just because you feel a sense of relief watching one of these dweebs get punched.  Repeat after me, my friends: this was a setup, and Greg Gianforte did nothing wrong.  And punching people is bad.

UPDATE: There’s an article over at the Daily Wire (which is infested with zombie NeverTrumpers) claiming that the retraction/walkback by the Fox News reporterette was not actually a walkback.  It’s baloney.  Nevermind that the reporterette’s account does not even match Jacobs’ story.  There is a mile of difference between grabbing beside someone’s neck and grabbing around someone’s neck in criminal law.