News & Politics
Premium

Here's the Most Frightening Moment of Annus Horribilis 2020

AP Photo/Susan Walsh, Pool

You might wonder how in the annus horribilis of 2020 I could pick just one moment to deem the most frightening.

Many candidates vie for the honor.

Would it be the day we discovered Washington State elderly nursing home patients were being wiped out by the Wuhan coronavirus? Was it when we saw Obama CIA director John Brennan’s handwritten note revealing he and the president knew the Russian collusion story was a hoax of Hillary Clinton’s making? Could it have been the revelation of the Oval Office meeting with Obama and Joe Biden discussing ways to discredit and ensnare three-star General Mike Flynn with a perjury trap? Could it be when swing states stopped counting votes at almost the same time on election night, fueling election fraud worries? Kamala as potential veep? Or was it when antifa and BLM protesters seemed to have cops on the ropes at the Portland federal courthouse? The night of the murders at Seattle’s “summer of love”? The night California’s governor showed what he really thought of his COVID rules by breaking all of them in one meal at the French Laundry? Was it the moment you heard that Herman Cain, Eddie Van Halen, and Walter E. Williams passed from this mortal coil?

Each bad story of 2020 felt like a kidney shot. Like the fighters they are, Americans got up from the canvas and urged themselves forward, to stay in the fight.

But there was one moment that worried me more about our country than any other moment of 2020.

Picture this: In October, Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett sits alone at a table. Her hands are empty. A blank notepad and lone pencil sit in front of her. She faces a phalanx of U.S. senators and their aides in front of her. There are no lifelines, no phone-a-friend bailouts. Lights glare and cameras click at the slightest facial grimace or smile.

And here it is, the moment the Left most fears. Another Trump “conservative” judge. His third on the court. There has to be a way to end her.

Democrats, realizing no one will believe their fake stories about red cup roofies and sex trains this time around, desperately cast about for something – anything – to discredit Barrett. They settle on the fantasy that Barrett belongs to a cult, similar to the one depicted in the Left’s favorite TV obsession, The Handmaid’s Tale. When their religious bigotry is effectively pointed out, the Leftists seek another figurative kill-shot.

With every passing hour, ACB parries questions like an Olympic ping pong player—the legal equivalent of Sergey Brin taking tech questions from Chuck Grassley or a scientist trying to explain quantum mechanics to Patty Murray.

Suddenly, in a departure from Corey Booker’s grade-school-level questions and Sheldon Whitehouse’s conspiracy-theory whiteboard, Senator Dianne Feinstein asks ACB about the highest court’s decision that federalized same-sex marriage, Obergefell v Hodges. 

And it’s here that the Left finds the “something, anything” to seize on.

Politico has a synopsis of the moment.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) had asked Barrett, a conservative-leaning judge who clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia, if she shared the late Supreme Court justice’s dissenting views on the case.

Barrett responded by saying she had “no agenda” and that “I have never discriminated on the basis of sexual preference and would not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.”

You’re forgiven if you have no clue what just happened there.

Stick with me though because things get worse, much worse. In my judgment, it’s the worst moment of 2020.

Senator Crazy Mazie Hirono immediately goes into action. She’s the senator about whom most everyone asks at one time or another, “How did that chick ever get elected to the U.S. Senate?” She’s the Senate’s queen of the non sequitur. The woman whom Senator Patty Murray secretly thanks every day for taking her spot as the nation’s dumbest senator.

And who’s dumb enough to take the word of the Offendenistas and be willing to tangle with Barrett? Besides the Washington Post, I mean.

Calls, text messages, and emails to Crazy Hirono’s office demanded she confront the Supreme Court designee for the Left’s newest entry to the makaka hall of fame.

“Let me make clear,” said the sop to the Left, “sexual preference is an offensive and outdated term. To suggest sexual orientation is a choice? It’s not. It’s a key part of a person’s identity.”

I apologize if I suckered you into thinking I was going to talk about Hirono’s other head-shakingly dumb moment, when in the name of equality she asked Barrett if she’d ever sexually assaulted anyone and/or made someone sign a non-disclosure form to remain silent about it. Awkward.

If you check the Obergefell decision, the terms “preference” and “orientation” are both used. Preference refers to a person’s choice to get married while orientation refers to a person’s sexuality, however they see it.

Barrett apologized later and said she meant no offense, but clarified that she was using the term of art referring to marriage preference in the court decision  – you know, the case she and DiFi were talking about.

“I certainly didn’t mean and would never mean to use a term that would cause any offense to the LGBTQ community,” Barrett said, after questioning by Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii). “So, if I did, I greatly apologize for that. I simply meant to be referring to Obergefell’s ruling with respect to same-sex marriage.”

If you were watching that hearing and it was the first time you heard that “sexual preference” had been relegated to the Leon Trotsky Dictionary, welcome to the club. No one else had either except for the very tippy-top of the Offendenista-class of professional protesters.

Speaking of dictionaries, we now come to my candidate for the worst moment of 2020. Fox News was among the many who noticed that because of the Crazy Hirono TV moment, Merriam-Dictionary immediately changed the definition of the term. 

Merriam-Webster dictionary changed its definition of “sexual preference” to include the word “offensive” as Democrats slammed Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett for using the term during Tuesday’s Senate confirmation hearings.

Peter Sokolowski, Merriam-Webster’s editor-at-large, explained the change in a statement to Fox News.

“In this case, we released the update for sexual preference when we noticed that the entries for preference and sexual preference were being consulted in connection with the SCOTUS hearings,” Sokolowski continued. “A revision made in response to an entry’s increased attention differs only in celerity—as always, all revisions reflect evidence of use.”

That’s right, the dictionary people made a political decision to change the definition of a word or term because it offended the Left.

Even CNN conceded that up till five minutes ago there was nothing wrong with using the term sexual preference.

It’s true that sexual preference and sexual orientation have often been used interchangeably by some in the past. For example, as recently as last month, Merriam-Webster included the term sexual preference under its definition of the word “preference” to refer to sexual orientation. The dictionary has since updated its entry to reflect the way the term is now interpreted.

“Updated” like the infamous Stalin photo.

That moment showed that at any time, for any reason, the institutional Left will justify the “disappearing” of literally any word, any book, any Twitter feed, or Facebook post deemed “offensive” by their friends for a political end. And now those who share those viewpoints are banished from polite society’s book of record … the damned dictionary.

Radio host Chris Plante has observed that the Left is banning books—one word at a time. My friend, civil rights attorney Rees Lloyd, calls the people who scrub our history the Secular Taliban. They’re right.

We’ve seen the “disappearing” of the culture for several years. I fear we’re running out of people capable of keeping track of these things. Big Tech memory-holes things faster than we have the capacity to keep up. Now it’s happening in real-time, for political reasons, and that is as scary as hell.

 

Victoria Taft is the host of  “The Adult in the Room Podcast With Victoria Taft.” Where you can hear her series, “Antifa Versus Mike Strickland.” Find it at your favorite podcast outlets. Follow her on Facebook,  Twitter and Parler @VictoriaTaft 

‘The Fight for the Soul of Seattle’ Documentary Rips Off Progressive Scab to Reveal the Left Is Killing the Emerald City
Portland MSM Shocked When Antifa Attacks Them for Covering Armed Takeover. Mike Strickland and Andy Ngo Say Told Ya So
Founding Fathers of Silicon Valley Give Up on California, Move to Texas