I live in a small, fairly rural area of my state and most of the people in the area are conservative in politics and lifestyle. The main newspaper is a county newspaper and consists of eight to 10 pages of news-related items (including arrests and obits), with the remaining 10 to 20 pages being ads from local businesses. It takes hardly any time at all to read it.

This past week, space was given to an individual who is clearly on the Left. The title of his piece was “Thinking for a Change – Resist? If you insist!”

He began by admitting that our current President – Donald J. Trump – was “duly elected.” I appreciate that, though after reading his article, I have to wonder if he said that under duress. As soon as he made that statement he dove headlong into innuendo and really salacious falsehoods.

He stated the following: “The duly elected leader of our nation wants to quash dissent and protest. He whips crowds into furious frenzies, hinting that those who resist are unworthy of respect or citizenship. He instructs owners of private companies to dismiss anyone who fails to toe the politically correct line of compulsory party patriotism or to march lockstep to the beat of his dysfunctional drummer. He demands blind loyalty and allegiance to the ideals and values he personally supports, while impugning anyone who dares bravely (to) stand against injustice and oppression.”

Like many on the Left, while the author makes these statements, he simply assumes he doesn’t have to provide any proof of such claims, but that is part of being a journalist. I realize that his piece is an opinion piece and not hard, fast news. However, even opinions should have at least a bare minimum of factual information included.

For myself, I have seen nothing that would support his opinion. I’ve seen no evidence that our President (and the author does not even take the time to mention his name – Donald J. Trump), is doing what the author claims. Trump does not oppose protesting. He opposes illegal and unlawful protesting. AntiFa has no business being on the streets of the USA because their entire goal is to intimidate, like the brown shirts of Hitler’s day.

We have duly elected people like Maxine Waters caught on video encouraging people to not only resist Trump, but to literally harass, badger, bully and intimidate. President Trump is certainly opposed to these tactics and should be. Conservatives are also opposed to them. People have a right to think and say what they want, however, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the Left will do whatever it takes to shut down discourse with people who oppose their views.

I also find it very telling that this same author who simply accused without noting one shred of evidence quoted Benjamin Franklin who said, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” Then the author added his own comment to that by stating, “(Franklin) understood that democratic republics are among the most fragile forms of government…” Unfortunately, as most on the Left do, our author got it wrong. The United States of America is not a “democratic republic.” America is a Constitutional Republic and there is actually quite a difference in the two, something that our author completely misses.

He does onto discuss his time in the military and how he did not “…promise fealty to a flag or an anthem. Instead I swore to support and defend the Constitution.” The problem with this faulty thinking is that the American Flag is the expressed and outward symbol of our Constitutional Government. In essence, the flag points back to the Constitution. As far as the anthem is concerned, it’s worked because of how this country was birthed by brave individuals, fought for freedom-loving militia and armies, and remains free because of them as well. The anthem for this country expresses the passion that birthed our nation against all odds. Our anthem was fine for over 200 years, but since the last administration, all of a sudden this same anthem is too “violent”? It doesn’t rightly express what our founding fathers envisioned?

The author’s overall main point is that protesting is good. It is what helped make this country. I have no problem with that. In fact, the First Amendment guarantees that continued right. Unfortunately, there is a huge difference between peacefully protesting (which the author never mentions), and radicalized promotion of terror within society to get what a particular group wants to have.

It wasn’t that long ago that protestors stood outside Sen. Chuck Schumer’s home in New York chanting “by any means necessary” in reference to resisting everything and anything President Trump attempts to accomplish. Not soon afterwards, the Democrat Party itself adopted that meme. “By any means necessary” is something that, taken literally, can mean anything.

We’ve seen the Left use violence to shut down free speech. We’ve seen them use intimidation, harassment and bullying to chase Press Secretary Sarah Sanders from one restaurant and then followed her across the street to another restaurant attempting to get her to flee as well. We’ve seen this tactic used on several people in the Trump administration, with one individual finding a dead animal that had clearly been tortured on his doorstep.

When the author of the article in question tries to build a case for “protesting,” he’s actually building a straw man. In fact, his entire article is based on a straw man argument. He never distinguishes between civil rioting, illegal assembly, brutish politicking and what the law calls “peaceful assembly.” There is a huge difference.

In the end, it’s really no different when the Left constantly uses the term “immigrant” as they apply it to people who are here in the United States illegally. For these individuals, under the law, the legal term is “illegal alien.” Though the Left says they’re offended at that term because people are not “illegal,” I would disagree. When people break the law, they are rightfully labeled “criminals” or “lawbreakers.” They often lose their right to vote depending upon their crime.

People who come to America illegally are criminals. They have broken our immigration laws and deserve to be punished and deported. The idea that these people are immigrants is a slap in the face to everyone who came here legally.

But this is the Left, dutifully choosing their own definitions and refusing to acknowledge that they are wrong. They know that if lies are stated often enough, the people they cater to will simply believe their lies as truth.

The author of the opinion piece from which I’ve quoted is doing what the average Leftist does. He spews drivel, lies, and hyperbole dressed up in social justice warrior (SJW) terms. He is all too aware that since too many people in society today are guided by their “emotional virtue” (a nice sounding name for nothing more than Cultural Marxism), they will simply gravitate toward what he says based on their “feels.” It’s all about determining truth not by actual facts, but by ascertaining how one feels about a certain situation.

Leftists are annoying lot because they firmly believe they are fulfilling such a high calling, yet too often, their arrogance finds them out. The only way they can countermand conservative ideals is through bold-faced, salacious lies.

Fortunately, more people are waking up to the reality and are actually walking away from the Democrat Party. If it continues, I cannot see that party remaining viable at all. We’ll see what happens in November with the Midterms, but I seriously doubt we’ll see anything that even remotely resembles a “blue wave.”