When Words are Meaningless, Actions Replace Them

In this age of instant communication, and near instant outrage and counter-outrage it is almost as if we have universally decided that words have no fixed meaning and can be redefined on a whim.  Political activists are great at this, choosing to alter meanings to fit the political attack or defense, but when they do we can look at actions to define their actual positions.

The President is again, supposedly, in trouble for referring to MS­­-13 gang members as “animals.”  The fact he did this a while ago, poses no problem for those seeking to vilify him and claim some sort of moral high ground.  Those who criticize the President’s words range from journalists like Dan Rather to politically inclined (usually Democratic Party-affiliated) individuals speaking with their own moral authority.  They point out evil men like Hitler used such language to create an environment where the population went along with the killing of those who were so labeled.  At times this self-righteous indignation is almost palpable.  But I wonder, do they ever take time to consider the conflicts within their own position.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC for short), likes to paint itself as the party for human rights.  The party that cares about individuals and their human conditions, but history has shown clearly the DNC is not consistent in their support of human rights, rather they use it as a tool in a kind of “bait and switch” operation as they try and determine what will keep or return them to power.

Today the DNC seems to be all about “black lives” and any candidate who claims “all lives” matter will be pilloried until he or she falls in line.  The same can be said for immigrant lives, where illegal immigrant lives are far more important than those who follow the approved processes.  They are vigorous in their condemnation of children being held by the INS, but strangely silent on the fact these children were transported by adults seeking illegal entry into the country.  As we see with the DNC the rights of children aren’t really that important unless they are creating an illusion of caring.

Of course, the issue of “woman’s rights,” which is really a euphemism for “abortion rights” reflects perfectly the difference in the DNC’s view of human rights.  Women can vote, fetuses can’t.  Therefore, the death of viable infants is not so very important from either a moral or political standpoint.  In fact, the more a candidate supports the concept of infanticide the stronger the support of the DNC and its propaganda arms in the entertainment and news industries, as evidenced by the Hollywood led attempted intimidation of Georgia. 

 Finally, and I find this to be pretty funny, we see a growing acceptance of anti-Semitism within the most vocal voices of the party.  The fact they will compare the President to Hitler the same day we the party members call for the elimination of Israel is rich in its irony. Here, once more, the actions of the party count far more than the words.  Who does the DNC look to and who does the DNC embrace when it comes to their position?  When the media covers their rising stars, what coverage is glossed over, and what coverage is brought to the forefront?