Kurt Schlichter, over at Townhall.com takes the issue of the recent banning of the Second Amendment in Bernalillo County (Albuquerque) to highlight the "new rules" and just how Democrats won't like them when used against them.
The title of Schlichter's essay today is The Tool Who Governs New Mexico Has Handed Patriots a Potent New Tool. Faithful readers will recognize this as a favorite hobby horse of Mr. Schlichter, though it is fun to think about. With rare exceptions, Republicans never turn the tables on the far-left fascist Democrats, claiming we are "better than that." But in a world where the only thing stopping such shenanigans is the thought of what might happen if they were used against the other side, turning the tables seems the only reasonable reaction. With that in mind, let's hear what Schlichter thinks might be good uses of the "new rules."
I want to thank the versatile governor of New Mexico, whose name I don’t care about, for being a communist and a fascist all at once. Now that may seem strange, coming from somebody who actually believes in freedom and actually defended it for 27 years, but I want you to hear me out. She may be an aspiring dictator and a mid-wit Karen brimming over with Xanax wishes and Chardonnay dreams, but she’s providing us with a valuable opportunity that we should take full advantage of. She has decreed that the constitutional right to keep and bear arms must yield to what she unilaterally decided is a “public health emergency.” Cool. Now, I’ve got some decrees of our own.
I’ve long said that there are three ways things can go. Option One is a free society where there are norms and rules that we all abide by and our Constitutional rights are protected and everybody has a right to participate in their own governance. This is my favorite option. It’s the one that I grew up in back when America was a free country and not a pronoun-fixated banana republic. Option Two is an authoritarian dictatorship where guys like me are in charge. Not my first choice, but I can live with it. Finally, Option Three is a communist dictatorship, and then it’s basically break out the rifles, boys. I was never good at kneeling, and at my age, my knees just won’t tolerate it any better than my attitude will.
Well, Governor Paula Pot has made it clear that Option One is now off the table, so I guess we have to go with Option Two – ironically, during the week of the 50th anniversary of Augusto Pinochet overthrowing the communist dictator of Chile. Now, I think it’s a bad idea and I’m still pushing for Option One, but it’s pretty clear that freedom no longer an option. So Option Two it is....snip...
The first thing red states need to decree is a ban on the teaching, advocacy, or practice of socialism in any of its putrid forms. Those who care nothing about the children will immediately pipe up about the alleged right to speak freely, but they refuse to acknowledge the harm this poisonous ideology does. Harm trumps rights, as colleges and the regime media have taught us. And boy, is socialism harmful. It’s violence – literally. Marxism is responsible for over 100 million deaths in the last century. That’s more deaths than net neutrality, Republican Medicare cuts, and dead-naming combined!
I like it! However, I can see problems with just banning Marxism, socialism, Communism fascism and so on. The first is they will just rename themselves and keep right on. They have always done this. Remember when Communist became a dirty word, they were "Progressives?" Right now they are out there, loud and proud, in some cases literally. If they are banned, they will simply go underground, but keep the same beliefs. Maybe an outright ban is not such a great idea. What else does he have?
The next public health decree? No trans insanity! We’ve got a public health crisis where children are being mutilated with chemicals and scalpels to conform their God-given bodies to the delusions of their Chardonnay-sodden Munchhausen mommies. This must stop. I know it’s weird that I have to say it, but castrating a boy so he can more effectively pretend to be a girl causes harm. And it is unsafe. And therefore it should be subject to being banned by a decree issued by a caring chief executive. And if you disagree, you clearly don’t care about the children – wait, that’s actually not sarcasm.
But why stop at kids? The decree should include outlawing mutilation as a treatment for mental illness in adults as well. I know that there are some well-meaning libertarianish folks out there who buy the idea that after age 18, we as a society have no interest in what you do to yourself. Well, we don’t let people walk into a hospital and say “Chop off my arm” because they feel like it, and what’s good for the arm is good for the penis.
If you want to cut up your body because you think you’re the other gender, you have a mental problem and not a physical one that can be cured by some quack surgeon slicing you into pieces. Some people will say this isn’t tolerant, and that’s fine with me. We tried tolerance, and we ended up with men dressed like Charo twerking their be-thonged butts in the faces of our kindergartners.
The next decree should address a massive public health crisis among children, because it’s always about the children, who are failing to learn and be educated in unionized schools. That’s public healthish, right? Clearly, teachers unions must be outlawed, and those running them prosecuted and punished for the lasting harm they have inflicted on a generation of kids. Now, some might argue that this is the kind of policy that should go through the normal legislative process, but I beg to differ. It’s a public health emergency when children are failing to learn to read and write because I said so, and if you disagree that’s violence, and if you oppose this common sense measure, you clearly hate the children. There’s blood on your hands. You should be deplatformed. You’re also racist and probably a transphobe or something.
Well, I like these suggestions too! With a stroke of a pen, we can get rid of queer weirdos and green haired teachers! Boy oh boy. But hold on. Now that I think about it, this doesn't really solve the problem, any more than Grisham's edict banning the carrying of firearms solves the underlying problem. So, what will?
All kidding aside now, the first problem is that we have turned away from God. Without God, we have no moral compass. Morality now comes down to doing what feels good at the moment. It may feel good to sell drugs because that seems an easy way to make a lot of money. But of course, you can hardly appeal to the police for protection of either your product or your life. So, you carry a firearm, whether legal or not, and you shoot first because the other drug dealers would do the same to you. Of course, going to the range and learning to shoot responsibly is too much trouble. And then the Biblical admonition comes into play: if you live by the sword, you will surely die by the sword. It happens to too many drug dealers, but hey, they were warned. Whether Grisham likes it or not, having the police come down hard on criminals is the only way to contain criminal behavior. But she has decided to restrict the law-abiding people in preference to restricting the criminal class.
In the same way, solving the problem of teachers teaching subversive stuff is to better control who teaches our kids. Once again, the problem is that teachers that do not have a God focus have no moral compass. Teacher shortages or not, the best way to a) attract good teachers and b) to ensure our kids get a proper education is to better screen teachers for their knowledge and character. That includes getting rid of "education departments" and requiring teachers to have an actual degree in something real like history, or English, or mathematics, physics, chemistry or biology. Anyone with a "studies" degree need not apply. Teachers used to have actual degrees in real subjects, not the amorphous "education degrees." Going down a local street, there are a number of cross streets with the names of famous poets: Browning (Robert), Anderson (Hans Christian) and others. The point is that I ran into someone who claimed to be a teacher of English who did not recognize any of the names. What is she teaching, one wonders?
Schlichter is at pains to remind readers that he doesn't like the "new rules" and doesn't think the Dems will like them either when they are out of power. But the only way to teach them not to keep changing the rules is to apply them to fascist far-left good and hard. Democrats think they will be in power forever. I am sorry to disabuse them of the notion, but eventually the other side may be in power, and the new rules you are trying out won't feel so good when used against you.
Again, I don’t like any of this, but you know what I like even less? Taking this crap without hitting back. Leftist jerks, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – I told you so.
No comments:
Post a Comment