It’s frustrating to see conservatives being played again, this time about Jeanne Ives’ campaign ad.
The ultimate cause of the machinations that result in conservative fear and trembling is the always scheming and bustling Beelzebub. The proximate cause are Leftists who are spinning the ad every which way but due North.
The points being made in the ad are easy-peasy to understand, and the ad is neither mean nor disrespectful. Enraged Leftists who can’t believe a conservative would dare make those points with the boldness they believe is theirs and theirs alone are spinning the ad like there’s no tomorrow. Dizzied conservatives can’t think straight when that happens.
In high dudgeon, Leftists shriek “hateful bigot,” and conservatives squirm, tremble, and then begin to see the ad the way Beelzebub and his army of Wormwoods want them to see it: either as a cruel and counterproductive burlesque of poor, pitiful “transgenders” or at minimum as an ad rendered ineffective and distracting because it “has to be explained.”
Trending: Will Oregon Voters Defund Abortions?
If conservatives would clean out the gunk Leftists have hurled in their eyes and ears for almost 50 years, they would realize the ad doesn’t need to be explained. The message is as obvious as a scarlet dress on a big, burly, pearl-clutching man in a ladies’ restroom.
Thirty years ago, two other Wormwoods created the blueprint for destroying opposition to Leftist lies on sexuality in the book After the Ball which urges sexual anarchists to use advertising techniques and psychological processes to make conservatives feel ashamed of their beliefs. And we fall for their tricks every time.
Obsequious conservatives enter the public square like servants entering the great dining hall of their masters, carrying their power to Leftists on a silver platter and relinquishing truth as their fealty. The pathetic thing is conservatives are actually free.
Instead of acting like free women and men, we wake up, grab the bondage ropes we freely purchased at Target, and bind ourselves. Instead of saying boldly something as commonsense and obvious as cross-dressing adult men don’t belong in women’s private spaces or citizens shouldn’t be forced to subsidize human slaughter, I see too many conservatives tremble or, worse, rage at other conservatives that “the ad is bad.”
In 2009 before five presumptuous and foolish Supreme Court Justices imposed same-sex faux-marriage on America, eminent law professor Robert George said this about Leftist intimidation:
Campaigns of intimidation succeed only if the victims of such campaigns permit themselves to be intimidated. They fizzle when people refuse to alter their behavior out of fear. As anyone who has ever confronted a school-yard bully knows, bullies are cowards. When their victims stand up to them, they fold like accordions. My advice to supporters of marriage who are targets of intimidation is this: make clear to the bullies that if they seek to intimidate you, your response will be to ratchet up your support of marriage.
Some have suggested that conservatives lay off the reductively-called but essential “social issues” in order to appeal to moderates. People say, “Don’t talk about those issues during the primary. We have to bring moderates in.” Then they say, “Don’t talk about those issues during the general election. We don’t want to turn off moderates or suppress voter turn-out.” Then, after the election, they say, “Don’t talk about those issues. We’ve got bigger fish to fry, and the midterms are just around the corner, and we’ve got to expand the tent.”
Meanwhile, children are being harmed in incalculable ways–including being taught in public schools that if they don’t want to change clothes around opposite-sex peers, they’re ignorant, hateful bigots. Soon we’ll have co-ed private spaces everywhere, which means no private spaces anywhere.
Marriage is being eaten alive. Religious liberty is eroding. And here in Illinois, thanks to that lying weasel “No-Social-Issues” Rauner, we all subsidize human slaughter.
Yeah, we ought not draw attention to any of those trivial “social issues”—not even in one ad.
How’s that big tent feeling? Can you still breathe in there?
No worries. The tent will be roomier soon, because the GOP is pushing conservatives out. But the air will become even more noxious.
Here’s something conservatives should ruminate on: What will happen when a woman who pretends to be a man and obtains a falsified birth certificate and driver’s license but chooses not to have a mastectomy decides to wear a man’s swimsuit at the community pool?
Or imagine this: A man who pretends to be a woman and obtains a falsified birth certificate and driver’s license, has breast implants, but chooses not to have “bottom” surgery (trust me, it happens). The local health club–which allows members as young as 14 and offers childcare–must treat him as if he is the sex he is not. Therefore, he is permitted in the women’s locker room and must be treated like other women, and, therefore, he may walk around naked.
I recently asked an Ivy League law professor this: If the law prohibits discrimination based on both sex and “gender identity,” is there any legal way to prevent normal men from accessing women’s private spaces? I already knew the answer: no.
Let’s say a university locker room permits an objectively male person who “identifies” as a woman in the women’s locker room, and then a normal man (i.e., a “cisman”) requests access to the women’s locker room. The university can’t say, “No, you can’t go in there. You’re not a woman.” That would constitute discrimination based on sex. And besides, they’ve already admitted an objectively male person.
And they can’t say, “No, you can’t go in there. You’re not ‘transgender.’” That would constitute discrimination based on “gender identity.” As I said, the end of sex segregation everywhere for everyone.
Yeah right, tax rates are waaay more important than those insignificant “social issues.”
Too many people are lemmings or Gumbies. I have heard of multiple people (who shall remain nameless to protect the malleable) who saw the Ives ad and liked it. Then after Leftists started caterwauling “appalling, horrible, blah blah blah…,” those conservatives suddenly thought the ad was problematic. Where is their independence of mind? Where are their spines?
We think it’s just teens who are influenced by peer pressure, but I’ve learned over the past 20 years (10 with IFI and 10 at Deerfield High School) that adults are often as depressingly susceptible to peer pressure and name-calling as kids. Conservatives’ new aphorism: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names are the WORST!”
Through intimidation, the Left persuades us to forsake all the tools of political persuasion, including punchy ads and bold rhetoric.
In campaigns, it would be a very good thing to rely on thoughtful, intellectual discussions on the nature and meaning of physical embodiment as male or female, the relationship of sexual differentiation to feelings of modesty and the desire for privacy, the assumptions undergirding the “trans” ideology, the inherent contradictions central to the “trans” ideology, and the logical implications of widespread acceptance of the “trans” ideology. Try that, and see how far you get.
MSNBC, CNN, Huffington Post, the New York Times, the Chicago Sun-Times, and the Chicago Tribune reinforce the doctrinaire, destructive dogma of the Left to Leftists and hurl epithets at conservatives to silence them. And we bend like Gumby every time. That, my friends, is how the Left wins.
There needs to be more truth-telling from leaders—not more cowardly retreat. Imagine if every person who knows men and women shouldn’t be able to obtain falsified birth certificates, and knows men don’t belong in women’s private spaces, and knows taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to pay for human slaughter were to say “Finally, a campaign ad and a candidate speak truth.”
In the face of epithet-hurling, remember the immortal words of Glinda the good witch:
You have no power here! Be gone….
BTW, does anyone really believe the Left would be in a state of spittle-spewing fury over an ineffective campaign ad?
First published at Illinois Family Institute
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Barb Wire.