There is a Democratic Party movement to lower the voting age from 18 to 16. I am not in favor of this movement at all.
16 year olds are known to make very poor decisions. They lack wisdom and life experience to make sound decisions. I was 16 once and made poor choices then. My children were 16 once and they made poor decisions. It’s a part of growing up and becoming a responsible adult. But not worth risking the future of the nation on the chaotic mind of a young teenager.
I do think we need some voter reform. So here is my proposal on the subject of age and voting eligibility. We raise the voting age. Not universally, but on a sliding scale.
The sliding scale is based on already established laws throughout the United States. These are the laws that have restrictions on who can run for a particular public office.
For most state and local offices this is 18 years of age. However some jurisdictions and offices have other age and related requirements on who can be elected to office. In Montana for instance, one has to be 21 years of age to be a mayor of any town.
Thus we adapt this system for all elections in this proposal. In order to vote in an election or candidate for office. You must meet the same requirements as running for that office. In the example above. If there was a mayoral election in Montana, only those voters who were 21 years of age or older could participate. The same would be true for any other local or even state-wide election. The same requirements in age, residency, citizenship to be elected would also apply to those voting.
In Federal elections. Those requirements are defined in the Constitution.
To run for or participate in the election of a US House congressman. Both the voter and candidate would have to be at least 25 years of age. And a resident of the particular state for the last 7 years.
To run for or participate in the election of a US Senator. Both the voter and candidate would have to be at least 30 years of age. And be a US Citizen for the last 9 years and a resident of the particular state.
To run for or participate in the election of the US President. Both the voter, including the electoral college, and candidate must be at least 35 years of age. And a Natural born US Citizen and a resident of the United States for the past 14 years.
All active duty military and honorably discharged veterans would be exempt from any age requirements in voting as a reward to their service to the nation.
With the implementation of this sliding scale voter requirement. Every voter would need to have and show a photo ID in order to vote. Thus proving the age of the voter. There would be multiple ballots. Not only based on precincts but also based on age. And presenting a photo ID does reduce the changes of having voter fraud.
This proposal will produce an electorate with more wisdom and life experiences necessary to properly elected our representatives who govern in our stead in a just republic.
Just when you thought the rioting…I mean protesting in Portland couldn’t get much weirder, the federal government stepped in to show the Mayor of Portland how to really fuck things up. With the introduction of contractors working on behalf of the government, allegations of government overreach started flinging like poop in the monkey house.
And speaking of poop, that brings us to the Left. In recent days, they dusted off their copy of the Bill of Rights and found a concept they hope will turn the rhetorical tide in their favor: states’ rights. They argue the state and local governments are the ones who should be handling the situation because, well, they’ve done a bang-up job of it so far.
But do they have a point, aside from the ones atop their craniums? Let’s dive into this topic a bit more.
What the Left thinks it means – a Constitutionally guaranteed right to prevent the federal government from overstepping its bounds
What it really means – a concept the Left usually hates
The Tenth Amendment of the Constitution reads as follows:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
To put it in layman’s terms, if the Constitution says the federal government can’t do it, the States and/or the people take the reins. Granted, that’s like letting Kanye West run for President (but thankfully that will never happen right?), but it’s there and we abide by it.
Well, all except for the Left. Although they’re big fans of states’ rights now, they have a pretty long track record of “forgetting” the concept when it suits their needs. Gay marriage, sanctuary cities, and abortion all come to mind as examples of issues where the Left has told states to shove it because the federal government knows best. So, why the sudden 180?
President Donald Trump.
As much as the Left hates any power denied the federal government, they hate Trump more. Even after Portland Mayor Ted “I’m Not a Real Mayor, But I Stayed At a Holiday Inn Express Last Night” Wheeler bent over backwards for the protestors like a Cirque du Soleil performer at a yoga class, the protestors still hate his guts and want him to resign. Pro Tip for ya Teddy: these are not your friends, nor will they ever be. Yet, who’s leading the parade to defend the protestors? Ted Wheeler, because he hates Trump more than he hates being a target for a bunch of whiny children LARPing as badasses.
The Left loves to use the federal government, but hates when it’s used against their aims. Fortunately for them, there are enough Leftists in the federal bureaucracy to choke a Clydesdale. Unfortunately for them, most of that bureaucracy isn’t in the departments currently handling the Portland situation. That’s why it’s funny to me that they whip out the states’ rights card right now. Normally, the Left would be the ones in the SWAT gear tramping down the rights of the states (and, yes, I mean that metaphorically because I doubt they could pick up a check, let alone a helmet with a face plate).
More to the point, the Left may have one (a point, that is) depending on what is actually happening in Portland. One of the justifications for sending in the federal government was that protestors were trying to destroy federal property. If the boots on the ground are protecting said property, arresting the perps, and nothing else, the states’ rights argument goes out the window. Where things get tricky is if/when the federal government goes beyond protecting and arresting. If the contractors are just picking up random people on the streets without probable cause, then it opens up a whole new can of legal worms, but it has nothing to do with states’ rights. The rules of evidence and the rights of the accused are addressed at…the federal level. Oops.
And it’s this fundamental misunderstanding or purposeful distortion of such a simple concept that makes my weekly Leftist Lexicon missives necessary and somewhat entertaining. The Left manipulates words to evoke emotions so people don’t take a moment to realize they’re full of it. Once your brain kicks in, the Left doesn’t stand a chance.
Although I’m not a fan of sending in the federal government to handle domestic issues like we’re seeing in Portland, it’s hard to see where states’ rights has a role in it except for the Left to use it to provide cover for the assholes making Portland into San Francisco North. When the kids start going after federal property, the federal government has the authority to step in. I would hope it wouldn’t exercise it, but given the failures at the state and local levels, it was only a matter of time before President Trump acted.
The saddest part of all of this is the reason for the protests/riots has been lost. Right now, the Portland protests have zero to do with the death of George Floyd or holding police accountable for bad actions. It now has everything to do with advancing Leftist ideology at the expense of a city. George Floyd has become a footnote to a group of people who use his name and their hatred of the current President to justify bad behavior and even worse leadership.
But, please. Tell us all how destroying federal property helps. I’m sure your explanation will be as full of shit as some of Portland’s streets have become.
This Leftist meme needed more attention. In my previous article I stated that the meme was attacking the Lefts big three enemies.
President Donald Trump American Conservative (Republicans) and America itself and Christianity/Christians.
This is psychological propaganda. Doctor Joseph Goebbels would be proud of this meme and what others have done with his body of work.
Dividing the meme in half there is a right side and a left side.
All of the negative aspects are on the right side. This creates a subconscious thought that right is bad. Thus the Left begins it’s clandestine attack on the American Conservative (Republican) which is generally viewed as being on the right side of the political spectrum.
The particular images of Jesus here are also well chosen for propaganda purposes. On the left side is a very African featured Jesus. Fully in line with the current affairs of the Leftist-Marxist Black Lives Matter movement.
While on the right side is a very Caucasian Jesus. And it has been altered from the original image with the addition of an American Flag and MAGA hat.
Since the Left hates America all this imagery appears on the negative right side of the meme.
The positive left side has some additional false hoods besides the image of Jesus. He was not African, so we would not look like that image. He was Jewish so his skin complexion would be olive and not brown.
Jesus was never a child refugee either. This lie is being put out by the Left for political gain and goes against the truth in Holy Scripture.
Jesus was neither poor or homeless. Jesus was a skilled carpenter. A trade learned from his given human adoptive father Joseph before he began His ministry. And he had a home in Nazareth.
No true believer, or American Conservative (Republican), or even any right leaning political organization believes any of the aspects listed on the negative right side of this meme.
Again, Jesus was of an olive complexion since He was a Jew born in Bethlehem in the Roman Province of Judea in the 1st Century.
Jesus could not be an American since the nation would not exist for another 1700 years at the time of His life on Earth. It is absurd to even have this as an aspect listed. But the purpose is to attack the American nation.
Jesus however did play a major role in the formation of the American nation. His teachings would lay the foundation for the Constitution and the American Dream. Freedom and Liberty for all people as our Founding Fathers designed this Great nation under Christian principles.
Within Holy Scripture from the time of creation to the great flood. All people descended from Adam and Eve. Thus there is only one race up through the time of the great flood.
And from the time of the great flood to the present day. We have all descended from Noah and his family that were spared. Again we are but one race. Man. Humankind. Created in God’s image.
When the Holy Bible divides people into ethnic differences it is only to divide them in half. One is either Jew or Gentile. Or sometimes written as Jew or Greek. The only other major division of the people is by Faith. One is either God-fearing or a pagan.
Ethnicity, race, and Nationality are all tied closely together. Sometimes they are even confused and mistaken for one another. Nationalities are mentioned in Scripture.
Was Jesus a Nationalist? Certainly not for the Roman Empire which He was a subject of like everyone else in Judea.
But read Matthew 15:21-28. In this passage of Holy Scripture Jesus tells a Canaanite woman that He has come only for the lost sheep of Israel. Jesus, in this passage, also compares the Canaanites to being dogs while the Israelites are children. In our modern world of today such statements would be very racist and nationalistic.
Many have pointed out that since Jesus never condemned homosexuality in the New Testament it means that Jesus approved of the practice. And Christians today are in error for condemning it.
Those doubters know that there are many verses in the Old Testament that condemn homosexuality as a grievous sin but they are wrong about the New Testament and what it says on the subject.
For Romans 1:24-27 speaks of the sin of homosexuality as does 1st Corinthians 6:9-10. And if these verses are not enough to convince the reader on what Jesus believed about the nature of homosexuality. Then remember this, Jesus was a Jew and was taught the Laws of Moses (the Old Testament) which declares that homosexuality is a sin.
But more importantly, Jesus is God. He and the Father are one. Moses received the Law from God. Thus he received it from Jesus. Jesus wrote the Laws of Moses which condemn homosexuality. There is no escaping this fact.
Yet the meme does call the aspect homophobia. And here it is correct. Jesus was not homophobic and neither are His followers today.
It is love of our neighbors that drive Christians to preach the truth of homosexuality and other sins. To free our neighbors from sin in the forgiveness and redemption of Jesus Christ. Loving your neighbor does not mean you condone their sins.
We touched before on the wealth of Jesus. He was not poor and nor was he rich. There are numerous verses in Holy Scripture where we see the Disciples go into town to purchase food or other goods. And it is written that those Disciples gave up everything to follow Jesus.
So where did they get the money to by the things that are mentioned in the Scriptures? Where do they get the money to pay for their travel across all of the Province of Judea?
Scripture doesn’t say. Jesus wasn’t rich. But as a skilled carpenter for many years before beginning His ministry he wasn’t poor by any means either. Of course some monies could have been given to the Disciples by the people as they traveled and preached as well.
Jesus hates sin. As a righteous God and creator of all the universe He has that right. We see His hatred and anger of sin when He verbally confronts the Pharisee hypocrites. We see His hatred and anger of sin when He enters the Temple at Jerusalem and turns over the tables causing destruction and physically assaults the money changers and merchants that have turned the Temple into a den of thieves.
And we see it again when Jesus curses the fig tree so that it withers and dies never to bear any fruit.
Lastly, of course Jesus was never a Christian. He was a 1st Century Jew but also the Son of God. He came to save the world from its sin. He was killed, buried, and rose again to complete this task.
His initial followers, mostly Jews, called their movement “The Way”. It would take several centuries after his ascension into Heaven before the term Christian started to be used. And at first it was an insulting term. Only adopted later to be a term that we are happy to use today.
Although I know you guys love it when I talk COVID-19 and 2020 is more screwed up than Charlie Sheen on a coke bender (or, as he calls it, Tuesday), I did want to take a brief detour into a subject that is making the rounds this election year. The Left has been pushing for a one-size-fits-all-but-actually-fits-no-one approach to economics, especially as it pertains to the working class. In their efforts to sway voters, they’ve created the notion workers are entitled to a fair wage (and, of course, blamed the CEOs for not sharing the wealth). One of the ideas the Left has promoted is Universal Basic Income, or UBI for short. It was heavily promoted by former Democrat candidate for President Andrew Yang, and it’s picking up steam in Leftist circles due to COVID-19.
Now, just because it’s a Leftist idea doesn’t make it a bad idea. However, if you stick with me over the next several paragraphs, I’ll show you it’s a bad idea regardless of who promotes it.
Universal Basic Income
What the Left thinks it means – giving every citizen a certain amount of money on which to live regardless of their circumstances as a means to curtail poverty
What it really means – letting the government tell you what your time and effort are worth
Capitalism isn’t a perfect system by any stretch of the imagination. Any economic system that lets Gwyneth Paltrow sell candles that smell like her hoo-hah needs some work. However, out of all the other economic systems out there, it’s the best because it allows for the greatest amount of freedom, the greatest chance for mobility, and the best use of one’s talents. It’s the reason LeBron James gets millions of dollars while telling the world how oppressed he is. (By the way, King James, how much are you getting from China for not calling them out on their oppressive regime?)
What the Left gets wrong about capitalism has filled many a book and opinion piece, including blogs from your humble correspondent. With UBI, their track record is still perfect in that regard. As I’ve noted before, the Left believes all money is finite and those who have more have a moral obligation to share it with the rest of the world because “they can afford it.” Although Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and others have jumped on this bandwagon, it’s not necessarily one you should jump on because everyone else seems to be doing it.
Here’s what I mean. In a capitalist system, you are paid by how much the owner(s) think your time and labor are worth. You can quibble about the dollar figure when it comes time for your annual performance review, but by and large that’s what it boils down to. Under UBI, the decision of how much your time and labor are worth gets made by the people who run the DMV or pay $500 for a hammer because it’s not their money they’re spending; it’s yours in the form of taxes. Because of this, no consideration of the amount or quality of work getting done or the skills you bring to the table can be made. You are merely given X amount of money no matter if you dig ditches or trade internationally.
This problem goes beyond how much you get paid, too. As with any budget not written up by Arthur Andersen or the federal government, you have expenses as well as income. UBI advocates say these expenses would be covered as part of the UBI calculation, but they don’t consider other expenses that separate you from your neighbor.
Let’s say you’re a construction worker who has been on the job for 20 years. (Not the same job, mind you, but several jobs.) Not only have you amassed a considerable knowledge base in that time, but you may have accumulated health issues, like bad knees or high cholesterol, that require the outlay of more money to address. Then, there’s a kid fresh out of high school with a fraction of the experience and none of the health issues. UBI treats you both the same, which is a boon for the high school graduate and less of one for you. In short, UBI punishes you for being different.
Hmmm…now, where have I heard of that happening with other socioeconomic systems? Oh yeah, in socialism and its various offshoots.
UBI and socialism work great on paper where you can control the variables, but in practice they fail because you cannot force people to be uniform. We come out of the womb different and we will be that way for the rest of our lives. No matter what government program you propose or regulatory agency you create, no two people will be the same, period. And when the champions of diversity are the ones trying to force conformity, you know there’s something amiss. Or, for the feminists out there reading this, ams.
The biggest drawback to UBI is it stifles creativity and work ethic. The former Soviet Union saw this happen when workers who did better than their quotas were punished while those who underperformed weren’t. The reason? Everyone was getting the same pay regardless of what work they did. If you can make a guaranteed $15 an hour badly working the shake machine at Burger World, why bust your ass to get better?
Of course, this feeds into the current societal mindset where people want to make more money for doing less work. See any “YouTube celebrity” for proof of this. This also explains why so many Leftists support UBI. For the rest of us, though, it’s a mixed bag, especially for those of us who have a good work ethic. Although we might not mind making money without much effort, there will always be a part of us that doesn’t feel right about it. Why, it’s almost as if…we want to earn our pay!
But UBI doesn’t allow that. You get paid what the government says you get paid, no matter what. I know Leftists want us to be in a nanny state, but apparently they want us to pay for everyone to be wards of the state.
If you know someone who is convinced UBI is the way to go, ask them what figure the UBI should be and how they calculated it. If they give you an answer, ask them if they trust someone like President Donald Trump to distribute these funds. I guarantee you they won’t, but it will make the point that government isn’t the best entity to make the kind of financial decisions the Left wants them to make.
Plus, who wants to be governed under an idea whose abreviation sounds like a misspelled urinary tract infection?
A placebo is anything that seems to be a “real” medical treatment — but isn’t. Psychologically you feel good because you think the placebo is working.
In 2020 during the Covid-19 outbreak we have the placebo of face masks.
I don’t wear them. I don’t go anywhere they are required. Those businesses who wish to enforce the the placebo don’t get my business. I’m not going to give up my liberty.
There is a meme on Social Media that displays the psychological feel goods for wearing a face mask in public. It’s just the control group on the placebo.
But lets talk facts. Not mine, but the facts from OSHA and what they say about face masks. OSHA is a trusted source when it comes to protecting the health and welfare of the American worker. And they have a lot to say about face masks.
The N95 masks are designed for working in a contaminated environment. These masks do not filter anything going out of it. That means if you encounter someone who has Covid-19, the virus can easily escape their mask.
Surgical masks are designed for working in a sterile environment. Like an operating room in a hospital or other “clean room”. They do filter outgoing but not incoming air. They become contaminated and clogged quickly. If they are worn in public they become spreaders of viruses. This is because they need to be changed or tossed out about every 20 minutes in non-sterile environments.
Good old cloth masks. Yes even the homemade ones. These don’t filter anything in any direction. They are very good however at trapping exhaled carbon dioxide and moisture. This moisture quickly mildews and becomes micro-mold particles over night if they are unwashed. Then you breath that back in the next day which causes dry coughing, enhanced allergies, and a sore throat. You are much better off not wearing a mask at all rather than this one.
But there are still skeptics. They believe the placebo is working. But these masks are nothing more than an accessory to your wardrobe. The latest style and fad of what to wear. And here is the proof of that from my local Target selling these accessories.
There is no Target associate at this face mask display. Anyone can walk up. Try on a face mask and put it back. Contaminating every single one of them on the display. Sending the buyer home with a mask full of disease and death to infect themselves and their family.
If face masks were about a deadly virus and protecting the people against it. There would be an associate here ready to sanitize any mask not being purchased. And they would have to have it manned and monitored all day long.
But it’s not. It’s like every other accessory display. So what is the real agenda?
The Left isn’t hiding any more. In one meme they attack the three things they hate the most.
President Donald Trump The United States of America And the Body of Christ and His church.
Like most of Leftist propaganda there is truth in this wicked deception. So instead of my usual method of taking the meme apart bit by bit. I have decided to simply just fix it. So here is a better meme.
Of course some of the items that are listed as what Jesus was not. No one believer would ever say that Jesus was these things. This is just more of the Leftist propaganda to desecrate Christians, Christianity, and to deceive their useful idiots to enrich and empower themselves.
The US Supreme Court has a long history of getting court cases right, but an equally long history of getting cases wrong. For every Brown v Board of Education, there seems to be a Plessey v Ferguson.
And now, we have the most 2020 USSC decision ever. Today, the High Court ruled “faithless electors” who defied the popular vote count of the state in which they are electors could be punished for not voting for the winner of the state popular vote. Two states, Washington and Colorado, successfully defended this stance due to the notion the popular vote should determine who wins the Presidency. I’ll get back to that in a bit, but it’s important to note what has happened since the decision.
The Left is overjoyed because this decision is another step closer to eliminating the Electoral College. To them, the Electoral College is outdated and unfairly allows states with less population to affect the outcome of Presidential elections more than the more populous states. (Of course, these same folks see nothing wrong with California getting more Representatives than, say, Montana, and that representation affecting national laws more than less populous states, but that’s neither here nor there.) In response, the Right is arguing in favor of the Electoral College for the right reason: it prevents larger states (namely California and New York) from overruling smaller states in Presidential elections.
Although the Left may ultimately be right…errr correct on this point, the argument is about the wrong topic. The issue isn’t the viability of the Electoral College; it’s whether electors have the option to vote for who they want. And, surprise surprise, the Left wants to deprive electors their choice when it suits their needs. Remember who brought the matter before the USSC: Washington and Colorado. Both are currently bluer than a choking victim at Ice Station Zebra, so the chances are any faithless elector would be voting against the winner of the popular vote. In other words, the ruling makes it possible for Leftists to punish people for voting against the Left’s candidate. Granted, the punishment may be monetary and easily paid for by the people who get to become electors in the first place. Having said that, it is a step in the wrong direction that can (and knowing Leftists, will) go far worse down the road.
The thing to remember about Leftists is they are more concerned with short term victories than long term consequences. This USSC decision will give them power to coerce electors into voting “the right way.” However, this doesn’t take into consideration the nature of current politics. As we’ve seen in our lifetimes, the balance of power changes from time to time so the party/ideology in power today becomes the Tamaguchi of politics tomorrow. And with each swing of the pendulum, the victories of today becomes the cudgels of tomorrow because, well, politics. Just ask former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid about the “nuclear option” for judicial nominees.
This USSC decision has all the makings of a Harry Reid-esque blunder because it doesn’t account for the current drift within the Left towards being more radical. Even kooks like Nancy Pelosi are being portrayed as sell-outs by the Socialist Socialite Squad because, now get this, Pelosi isn’t Leftist enough. It’s the same argument Leftists have used against Dianne Feinstein for years, all while holding their noses and voting for her because “she’s not as bad as a Republican.”
What makes this decision even more screwed up than a Joe Biden monologue is it underscores a fundamental lack of understanding of how the Electoral College works. The Left keep banging on about every vote counting (well, except if those votes are for Republicans) which is their fundamental argument against the Electoral College. The problem? The slate of electors who gets to vote for the President is determined by…wait for it…the popular vote. Granted, there are some states who apportion the electors based on the percentages each candidate wins, but for most states it’s winner-take-all. Yet, in either case, people still cast one vote, which in the Left’s own logic, means the current system is… exactly what they say they want.
Since each state has the power under the Constitution to choose how electors are chosen, I say we do away with the winner-takes-all approach and switch to a proportional system as to allow each candidate running a chance to have a say in the final Electoral College vote. Heck, this would also open up the possibility of third parties getting to the table for a chance, which means my candidate Pat Paulsen might actually get a vote for President. Sure, he’s dead, but if you’ve seen some of the people who ran for President in 2020, we could have done worse.
In either case, we are going to see the aftermath of this USSC decision sooner rather than later and, unfortunately, our leaders and media folks aren’t going to see it until much later.
They say politics make strange bedfellows, but in 2020, strange is the new normal. Although President Donald Trump has a ton of support within the Republican Party, there are a number of Never Trumpers who think he’s not a “real Republican” and should be defeated in November. Out of that pushback came The Lincoln Project, an organization whose sole purpose seems to be just that.
And, not surprisingly, the Left loves The Lincoln Project.
Let’s delve into the Left’s new favorite Republicans, shall we?
The Lincoln Project
What the Left thinks it means – a group of Republicans who want to restore decency and honor to the White House
What it really means – a group of Republicans the Left can con into doing their work for them
To put it mildly, Donald Trump is not everyone’s cup of Earl Grey. He’s brash, confrontational, and not at all the kind of man who has occupied the Oval Office in our history. Yet, he’s still President and, at least according to his voter registration, he is a Republican, which gives him as much stake in being called one as, say, Mitt Romney whose Republican credentials are as strong as watery Tang. Not that it matters to The Lincoln Project, mind you. They feel they are the only ones who can keep Republican values alive.
Oh, and did I mention they’ve endorsed Joe Biden for President this year?
The Lincoln Project’s entire mindset is based on a logical fallacy known as “No True Scotsman.” The fallacy involves stating what a true believer of a particular idea would or would not think, say, or do under a particular set of circumstances. That assumes the person invoking this notion has a clue what a true believer would think, say, or do. And although I’m sure they think they’re the last bastion of Republican thinking, they’re out of phase with the bulk of the party right now. Contrary to what the Left and The Lincoln Project think, the Republican Party is diverse, at least ideologically. That’s how people from Susan Collins to Ted Cruz can all be under the same political tent even though their personal politics are light years apart.
Although it’s easy to pass them off as dissatisfied Republicans, The Lincoln Project touts some insider clout, including the husband of Kellyanne Conway, George. Although she’s risen to prominence in recent years, Ms. Conway has been known in conservative circles for years, which means she has more than likely made some Washington insider friends. And that means powerful people looking to curry favor for political gain, people used to getting what they want from the politicians they pay.
What happens when they can’t buy off a politician? They turn on him or her. I can’t say for certain because the most inside I get is my belly button, but I get the feeling more than a few of The Lincoln Project’s members are playing the spurned lovers in this political telenovela. That makes them the perfect foils for the Left. They both hate Donald Trump, support Joe Biden for President, and want to remake the country in their own image where only elites matter. Patty Duke couldn’t have asked for a better identical cousin.
With every new attack ad against the President, the Left doesn’t have to spend money producing the same content, which works out great for them. As of April 2020, the DNC was getting trounced like Justin Bieber at Sturgis in campaign donations and even though they love to spend other people’s money, they had to find ways to cut costs. Not to mention, it helps them politically because, let’s face it, they’re trying to turn Joe Biden into a viable Presidential candidate after his first two failed attempts. Then again, they thought Hillary “What Difference Does It Make?” Clinton was viable after losing to Barack Obama, so their judgment is as questionable as the quality of truck stop sushi. When The Lincoln Project came about, the Left knew they had the pigeons they needed to do their bidding, save money in the process, and continue to do a major rehab job on Joe Biden. Brilliant!
“But aren’t the Left and the Right on opposite sides?” you might ask. Well, yes and no. There are members of both ideological camps who will cross the aisle and collaborate to achieve power. Whether The Lincoln Project knows they are helping the Left isn’t known at this time, but knowing politics like I do, it’s not outside the realm of possibility. Of course, if they don’t know they’re being used by the Left, they shouldn’t be anywhere near the reins of power of a convenience store, let alone America.
Although I empathize with The Lincoln Project’s stated purpose (returning class and maturity to the White House, not the getting rid of Trump part), I cannot abide by how they’re trying to get it done. Not only does its foundation rest on a flawed premise, the people involved with it are seemingly acting out of personal gain rather than national gain. I’m not President Trump’s #1 fan by any stretch, but I’m not going out there proclaiming myself to be the Alpha Republican by which all other Republicans are to be measured because a) I’m not that egotistical/delusional, and b) I’m not a Republican. I would have more respect for The Lincoln Project if they were straight with us about why they exist: they hate Trump. As it stands, I see them as either unwitting tools of the Left or knowing conspirators with delusions of adequacy. The fact these folks call themselves real Republicans while openly supporting Joe Biden for President should tell you how committed they are to Republican values.
In the meantime, keep an eye on The Lincoln Project for no other reason than to see what tactics the Left will be using against President Trump in the upcoming Presidential election. And to see how the left-leaning fringes of the GOP react to the latest Trump “scandals.” Take their advise with a salt lick because a grain of salt just won’t cut it.
Have you ever heard of the Law of Unintended Consequences? If not, the gist is sometimes what you want to happen comes with strings attached that you didn’t anticipate. Like eating gas station sushi on a long road trip. You may be happy in the short term, but further down the line you’re going to wind up puking your guts out at a Rest Stop outside Laramie, Wyoming.
Not that that’s ever happened to me, mind you…
Anyway, the Left is experiencing a gas station sushi situation of their own, thanks to a little something called cancel culture. When the Left wants a conservative marginalized from the open market of ideas, they do everything they can to discredit and silence them, expecting them to either apologize (which the Left will never accept) and comply (like confessed liar and Media Matters founder David Brock) or to go silent to avoid further persecution. Now, some prominent Leftist celebrities are watching this practice boomerang against them, and now they’re being held to the same standard they held for others.
And somehow it’s the Right’s fault.
This looks like a good time to look at cancel culture and mock it.
What the Left thinks it means – a movement co-opted by the Right to silence anti-Trump speech
What it really means – the Left not getting the message of 1984 I’m not a fan of silencing people for offending modern sensibilities because it tends to drive their message underground where it can thrive away from the attention of the offended. However, the Left and some members of the Right believe the ends justify the means. They’ve tried with Rush Limbaugh, Chik fil A, Fox News, and others with varying degrees of success. Mostly failure, but I want to be generous.
The entire idea of cancel culture, much like most of Leftist ideas, is absurd at its face. However, with the Left’s dominance of media, those ideas have been given absolute power, and in this case absolute power screws up absolutely. Keep this point in mind because it’s going to get even weirder.
Recently, Leftist celebrities are being called out for using blackface in sketches and shows. Jimmy Kimmel, Sarah Silverman, Joy Behar, Tina Fey and others are facing legitimate criticism and apologizing for offending people. And in Fey’s case, she’s asking for the episodes of “30 Rock” that used it to be taken off any platform that replays her show. Although the apology and the removal of the offensive material may be enough to satisfy the cancel culture club, it doesn’t change the fact Fey and the producers of “30 Rock” made the decision to allow blackface in the first place.
That may be the biggest shock for the Left right now. Not only have they thought, said, and signed off on racist activities, they’ve championed the very tools of their own destruction…when those tools are used against other people. Although it’s fun to point and laugh (because, believe me, I have), it astounds me how tone-deaf these people are. It’s almost as if they thought they’d never be held to the standards they’ve set for others because their ideology made them immune. They say the right things, they support the right causes, so in their minds, they can’t be batting clean-up behind Adolf Hitler in the World’s Worst People Softball Tournament. It’s almost as if they never expected to get caught and suffer the consequences of their actions.
In other words, they’re all Hillary Clinton, circa 2016.
Leftists have tried to get in front of the cancel culture story by saying it doesn’t exist, but that was only after several people were caught up in cancel culture that the Left decided to say it wasn’t real. Just a teensy bit late on that, kids. Meanwhile those of us who paid attention in history and any literature class that included George Orwell in the reading list could see where this was going because it ends the same in fiction and reality: eventually everyone gets the axe in one form or another. Even the most stalwart believer of an ideology can be called an infidel at some point and, in fact, it’s the Leftist approach to everything. If they can’t find some reason to expel you, they’ll invent one. Paging Juan Williams…
So, how do we fight cancel culture? By not giving into it. The Left need you to be scared of being publicly shunned to force compliance or silence. Social media is a breeding ground for this kind of insanity, so either be completely non-offensive so they can’t find dirt on you or be loud and proud of who you are. Not everyone will be able to be as brash as Candice Owens, so find your comfort level and stick with it. Also, keep your emotions in check. Once you lash out at someone for an opinion that differs yours, you’ve sprung the trap that will allow you to be canceled at some point.
Above all else, though, try to be as intellectually diverse as possible. I don’t like Samuel L. Jackson’s politics, but I enjoy his work as an actor and I would never want him to be censored by anyone. As long as he’ll let me be me, I’ll let him be him. That’s the thing the Left doesn’t get. You don’t have to be in lockstep with everyone you like, and anyone who says you have to is an idiot. By keeping an open mind and accepting not everyone will dance to the beat of your own drum, not only will your life be more open and interesting, but you’ll recognize those who think they can tell you who you should and shouldn’t see are missing out. Plus, if you learn about ideas and concepts outside your comfort zone, you may become a fan of them or at least a better-informed critic.
On top of that, you can prove you’re not an immature brat like the Left. So, double-bonus!
As an Iowa boy, I’m familiar with cow-tipping. At the risk of Flyover-Country-splaining, cow-tipping is when people push a cow over so she falls. I’ve never done it, but from what I’ve heard it’s a fun activity, or at least it’s a fun activity for Iowans because we’re just now getting actual entertainment here.
Lately, though, people have taken to statue-tipping because they’re upset with the racism in our history. Some Leftists on Twitter have even offered suggestions on how to topple statutes or, in one case, the Washington Monument. As humorous as this seems, allow me to take it to Orwellian heights while attempting to sprinkle in a bit of humor along the way.
As the debate over whether statues of Confederate generals deserve to be preserved rages right now, there is an underlying issue that’s a bit tougher to overcome, although the Left finds it easy to disregard. I’m talking about American history. Like it or not, our past is full of incidents that make us look like David Duke, but it’s still our history. We fought a civil war at least in part on racial issues, and although the Confederacy lost, it’s hard for me to get past the notion they are still part of American history.
“But we’re not trying to erase history,” Leftists love to say. “History will still be taught.” Except it’s not being taught well in today’s public schools, thanks to people who agree with taking down statues of people they find objectionable. The Founding Fathers, for example, aren’t being taught as seriously because they owned slaves and, thus, aren’t worthy of study or consideration (according to Leftists). Yet, without one of these slave-owners, we might not have expressed our independence from England, nor would we likely have had a Constitution. Instead of teaching these perspectives, the Founding Fathers are being “memory-holed.”
George Orwell is holding on Line 1, kids.
This is not to elevate the Confederacy to Founding Fathers status. Instead, it’s to underscore just how important it is to consider the impact imperfect people have had on our nation. If we pretend Thomas Jefferson didn’t exist because he owned slaves (as well as getting freaky-deaky with at least one of them), we erase the positive impact he had. With Confederate generals, that argument is a much harder sell, but the point remains. When we erase history on the basis of current sensibilities, we do a grave disservice to the past, present, and future.
And that’s where the Left gets it completely wrong.
Toppling a statue of a Confederate general may be righteous in the Left’s eyes, but it doesn’t address the underlying issues that caused the statue to be erected in the first place, nor does it eliminate any good that person did. Like it or not, Robert E. Lee was a military strategist. Even if he was on the losing side, that can’t be taken away from him, no matter how many statues you wreck or history lessons you don’t teach in school. Now what? You’ve pretty much destroyed public property for nothing. Brilliant!
Now, here’s where the Left’s logic about offensive statues will come back to bite them in the backside. As with any movement, eventually the winds of change will make it obsolete and the ideals of said movement can be used to justify actions never intended by the movement to be done. Put another way, the statues you topple today may get erected again and other statues you like will get toppled tomorrow, and you have only yourselves to blame. Congratulations! You’ve not only accomplished nothing, but you’ve opened the door for others to take the same actions that will accomplish nothing. But hey, at least you owned the Right, right?
This next part is a bit of a tangent, but it relates to the matter at hand because it shows how little the Left knows about history and how little they regard context. Some of the same folks who like to topple statutes are trying to get Huckleberry Finn banned because of its frequent use of the n-word. Of course, these morons haven’t taken the time to either a) read the book, or b) understand the reason why the word was used. Mark Twain used the language of the time (of which he was familiar) to expose the idiocy of the racism shown in the book. Of the characters, Jim was by far the most noble while the white characters (including Huck for a time) were irredeemable. That’s a context you miss if you’re just looking for the n-word. Not to mention, this was tried back in the 1990s and it failed. As my old high school history teacher used to say, “Those who do not learn from history get to take it again next semester.”
It appears a lot of Leftists skipped that class the second time around as well as the first.
Other Leftists are arguing the removal of these statues on the basis of them not being art. May I introduce you to the Right and their attempts to remove the works of Robert Mappelthorpe back in the late 80s and early 90s? You guys are going to get along great!
The thing about art is it’s subjective, and the thing about being an adult is you’re not required to like everything and you can ignore what you don’t like. Hear that, Leftists? You don’t have to like everything and you can ignore it. If you get upset over a statue, first of all you have much bigger problems than just the statue, and second of all you can walk away. Tearing down monuments you don’t like is a childish solution to a non-problem. If you want to tackle racism, do it, but don’t do it by acting like a child.
That’s why the toppling of statues today (even people like Ulysses S. Grant who fought in the aforementioned Civil War) is, to borrow a Leftist term, problematic. And why it’s extremely humorous to me.