Tag: politics

Why Abortion is Hard to Talk About

With the overturning of Roe v. Wade, abortion is on everybody’s minds.  While those on the left fret that there will now be a plague of babies across the land, many on the right celebrate that our nation’s greatest evil has ended.  Neither, of course, is what the Supreme Court decided.  The decision simply says that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to an abortion, which is obviously correct.  That does not, however, outlaw abortion.  What it does is allows the states to decide their own rules on abortion.  This means that open discussion and persuading people actually matters again.  The question now is, how do we do that?

To many pro-life people, it seems so simple and obviously wrong that they forget to look at the discussion from a pro-abortion person’s worldview.  It is very difficult not to be disgusted and angry with people who think it is alright to murder a baby, but pro-lifers have to remind themselves that without God, murder is not wrong.  People who are pro-abortion do not share biblical values, and without God, those people are logical to think the way that they do.  Trying to convince them is futile because they do not believe there is a God to tell them that murder is wrong.  They do not believe there is a God who will judge them for their murders in the future.  Murder is a perfectly logical thing for them to do if they think it will make their lives better.  If a baby seems like it would be inconvenient, killing the baby makes perfect sense.  In fact, if a neighbor plays their stereo too loud at night, murdering that neighbor makes perfect sense.  If someone is competing for a job you want, murdering that person is logical.  If you find yourself in a love triangle, murdering your romantic competition is rational. 

Without God, people are just animals.  Many on the left will openly push this idea.  You see PETA equating animals with people all the time.  They have equated KFC cooking chickens to the Nazis murdering Jews in the Holocaust.  With that in mind, is it wrong if a lion kills an antelope?  Of course not.  That is just a lion trying to improve its life.  If there is no God, a human killing to improve their life is no different from a lion killing to improve theirs.  Without the shared viewpoint that human life is intrinsically more valuable than an animal’s, attempts to persuade non-believers that abortion is wrong will likely be futile.

Does this mean that we should give up on persuading people that abortion is wrong?  Not at all!  It just means that we must start with the deeper issue of what makes something right or wrong in the first place.  The first chapter of my book, The God Bet, goes into this very issue in depth.  It makes the point that if we do not start from the same foundation of morality, it is very unlikely that we will ever agree on much more than that ice cream is delicious.  There is little chance of convincing someone that abortion is wrong because it is murder if that person has no basis for believing that murder is wrong.  For this reason, the most important and effective way to convince people that abortion is wrong is if we first convince them that God is real and that He created people in His image, with a purpose higher than their own personal pleasure.

Our top priority should be showing God’s love to people so that they want to follow Him, too.  If we successfully do that, we could alleviate most of the problems in our country.  It is obvious to anybody who is honest.  I would wager that weekly church attendees are underrepresented in our criminal population.  When we hear about a string of 7-11 robberies and murders like those that happened here in Southern California last month, a deacon from the local church is probably not the most likely suspect.

This does not, of course, mean that people who believe in God are perfect.  They certainly still do bad things, because by nature everyone wants to do what they feel like doing.  The difference is that people who believe in God have a reason to try to not give in to those urges.  Without God, there is not even a reason to hold back.

This is why when the topic of abortion comes up, we should not automatically jump into the immorality of the practice.  They will see it as pushing our religion on them.  They do not realize that laws against rape, theft, perjury, slander, and murder outside the womb, among others, are also pushing religious values on them.  In fact, this is why we see all these things increasing.  Without the base of our values, God, people have started to decide their own right and wrong.  For example, the rise in violence across the country is not because of guns.  It is due to the weakening of religious values in America.

We need to persuade two groups that abortion is wrong.  The first is the general public, which is necessary to get laws changed to protect the unborn.  For that, I honestly believe that religious revival is the only way to do it.  Arguing that something is wrong with people who decide their own right from wrong is a waste of time. 

Since abortion will still be legal in many places, like where I live, in California, the other group that we need to persuade is women who are pregnant and considering abortion.  This is more immediate because it can directly save lives in the moment, even if it is only one at a time.  Obviously, the best way is again to point that woman to God, but because of the urgency in the situation, where a life is on the line right then, we may have to persuade someone who does not yet believe in God.  Without that belief in God, there is only one other possible way to convince people of something.  You have to appeal to their own self-interest.  I truly believe that God tells us right from wrong not to control us, but because He loves us and doing what He says is ultimately in our own self-interest.  It will make our lives better whether we can see how or not.  Therefore, to convince somebody, we must figure out how making the correct moral decision will also be better for them intrinsically.  When looking at pregnancy, this is easy to see.  I asked on social media if any woman out there regretted their decision not to have an abortion.  Of the over 500 comments, not a single woman regretted having their baby.  So, leaving out the morality issue, we can pretty much guarantee that a woman who has a baby will be glad she did, even on a selfish level.

Remember that we Christians are not of this world.  We do have to live in it.  When we live in a pagan society, we have to keep in mind that other people do not share our values.  When the apostle Paul lived, the society was worse than it is now.  He did not conform to it, but he also did not give up on it.  He did not simply address the symptoms of sin, although he did not shy away from those topics.  He focused on sharing Jesus, because that is how the other problems can be fixed. We should try not to get overly upset with pro-abortion people, because they don’t know any better.  They decide their own right and wrong.  We are on a higher level than them, so expecting them to live at our level is unrealistic.  By all means, keep trying to change the laws, because lives are at stake.  The way to do it is by showing that we have a God who loves us.  Once more people realize that, the rest can be more easily remedied.

We cannot bring people to God by fixing our nation’s problems.  We must fix our nation’s problems by bringing people to God.

The Underrepresented in the Covid Story

Those on the left constantly opine that white males are overrepresented in Hollywood, in business, or in any other venture they can think of.  They say that we should correct that by discriminating against white males in favor of people of color and women.  Apparently, Democrats think people of color and women need help because those persons are not smart enough, talented enough, or hard-working enough to succeed based on merit.  Those leftists think that media attention should show a more representative sample of how America is, based entirely on percentages.  However, there is a segment of society that is far more underrepresented than any group the left complains about.  

I realized this injustice while I was getting my hair cut.  One of our local network news broadcasts was on the television and the anchors were feigning sympathy while gloating that a Republican who had spoken out against tyrannical mandates had died of “complications from Covid.”  My first thought was that “complications from Covid” generally means that the person died of something else while testing positive for Covid.  My next thought was that the only reason the media is trumpeting this story is that it fits their agenda of scaring people about Covid.  If they honestly cared about giving fair representation based on the actual numbers, for every story about somebody dying of Covid, there should be tens of thousands of stories about the most underrepresented group there is:  People who did not die of Covid. 

The media does not even acknowledge this massive group because it might inadvertently cause people to be less afraid.  They love reporting that we will die if we don’t do exactly what they tell us to do, but they hate it when we don’t oblige them by dying like we were supposed to.  Low death counts really frustrate the left.  The huge disparity between stories of people dying from Covid and those who have not died from Covid needs to be corrected. 

Since the left has trouble reconciling their need to scare people with their purported concern with proportional representation in the media, I am going to help them out.  While I can name myriad people who have not died of Covid (considering all of us are in that demographic), I will stick to people many of us will recognize.  Fortunately, Covid is as undeadly to celebrities as it is to us average Joes, so there are plenty of examples.  Let’s get started.

Tom Hanks – The panic all started back in March of 2020 when legendary actor Tom Hanks announced that he had Covid.  News reports made people contemplate what life would be like without one of the most familiar faces in the world. 

Update:  You might be wondering why the media would tell you about Tom Hanks’ impending death, yet didn’t even cover his funeral or people mourning at his star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.  What jerks, right?  Well, I’m happy to inform you that Tom Hanks did not die.  The media had gotten the fear they wanted from the story so it ended at the beginning. 

Side note:  Many of you immediately think of Forrest Gump when you picture Tom Hanks, but I still think back to Bosom Buddies, when America still knew that men dressing as women was something to laugh at.  Hanks’ co-star from Bosom Buddies, Peter Scolari, actually did die this year, but did not have Covid, so it was barely mentioned in the press.  They were shocked to find out that even if you don’t get Covid it’s still possible to die.  In fact, the odds are right around 100%.

President Trump – In October of 2020, President Donald Trump announced that he had tested positive for Covid at the age of 74.  To the chagrin of Democrats, President Trump did not die.

Bob Barker – Yes.  Bob Barker is still alive!  I was as surprised as you are when I looked it up.

Me – I am not a celebrity but you are reading my article, so it counts.  Plus, I have been in the group of people who lived our lives fully and ignored the tyrannical rules.  The panicked wimps on social media have smugly been saying for two years that we will be wiped out by Darwinism, so I know it galls them that I am still alive.  Just smile at them and laugh.  It drives them even more crazy. 

Rudy Gobert – The first NBA player who tested positive for the coronavirus was Rudy Gobert of the Utah Jazz.  You may remember that he mocked the severity of the virus by goofing around and touching all of the microphones at a press conference.  He later apologized, but as it turns out, he was right.  Gobert is still with us.

The cast of The Bachelor/Bachelorette from every single season – There are just so many people who have not died from Covid that it is easier to list them in groups of hundreds of people.  Between the two shows there have been 44 seasons of The Bachelor and The Bachelorette, with right around 1,180 contestants, and while some have died, not a single one of them has succumbed to Covid.  I guess this is not the most dramatic disease ever.

The Los Angeles Dodgers – For the first time in 32 years, the Dodgers won the 2020 World Series.  Their victory was not without controversy, though.  During the 6th and deciding game of the series, third baseman Justin Turner was removed from the game because he had tested positive for Covid.  Though he was not sick, he was told that he could not be on the field with his team who he had worked so hard with for years to win a championship.  After the game, Turner came back onto the field to celebrate with teammates and take pictures with the trophy.  He even took off his mask for pictures.  This started a media firestorm.  Leftist sportswriters and commentators were swift to call for Turner’s head.  They openly questioned whether fines, suspensions, or other punishments should rain down on Turner and the Dodgers.  They claimed that he had put everyone on the field in grave danger with his irresponsible behavior.  Some even fretted that Turner had endangered the few thousand fans allowed in the stands at the game.  We waited with anticipation to find out which Dodgers would return to defend their title in 2021 and which ones would meet their doom.  A week went by.  Then another.  There was no word from the press on which Dodgers had died.  Eventually, spring training for the next season rolled around, and the Dodgers players took the field and played baseball as if they had nothing wrong with them.  Even Justin Turner himself was alive and hit 27 home runs after his death sentence.  If the sportswriters really thought the players were in danger, this survival miracle should have been a huge story.  Instead, there was silence, as if they knew from the beginning that it was a non-story.

All of the MLB, NFL, NBA, and NHL – The four major sports leagues in the United States bring Americans many hours of entertainment and joy.  They also bring billions and billions of dollars into the economy.  Between the MLB (1,026 on opening day rosters), NFL (1,696), NHL (999), and NBA (529), there are 4,250 players.  Some of you might be wondering how many of these players have not died with Covid and why is the press not reporting on it?  The answer is that none of these players have died with Covid and highlighting that fact might ease public fear.  Despite the 100% survival rate, these leagues are still requiring testing and canceling games due to Covid.  I guess they haven’t figured out the sabermetrics for Covid strategy yet.

The non-death count – I will wrap up by using a pretty staggering number.  We keep hearing a highly exaggerated death count of over 800,000, which even according to the CDC, counts mostly 80-year-olds with three or four other causes of death involved.  What needs to be reported is the non-death count, or how many Americans did not die of Covid to provide some perspective.  That number is approximately 334,031,568 at the time of this writing.  I say “at the time of this writing” because as you can see if you click the link, our population is actually growing.  That may surprise some of you, since you have been led to believe that Covid is decimating our population.  However, in fact there are more Americans now than in March of 2020.  So, the next time you hear the media complaining about groups being underrepresented in our culture and starting hashtag campaigns like #OscarsSoWhite, think about how the survival of over 334,000,000 people is being ignored by the press.  #AmericaSoPanicky

What Is Liberty?

The week before California’s recall election I had the privilege of meeting the world’s greatest athlete from 1976.  That title was traditionally bestowed on the winner of the decathlon, and at the 1976 Olympic Games in Montreal Bruce Jenner won the gold medal for the United States while setting a new world record.  In 2015 Bruce Jenner shocked the world in an interview with Diane Sawyer in which he told Sawyer that he was now a she.  (Disclaimer:  So as not to be a science denier I am using the scientifically correct gender pronouns in this article.  That is not the focus of the article.)  Jenner, who now goes by the name Caitlyn, ran in the California recall election as a Republican to replace the inept Governor Gavin Newsom.  The Friday before election day Caitlyn Jenner was the guest speaker at a discussion group that I have been attending for the last couple of months.

Caitlyn’s talk was impressive.  He was personable, friendly, and funny.  Jenner said that after the Sawyer interview there was more criticism for coming out as a Republican than there was for coming out as transgender.  Jenner also told a funny story about being in the weight room at the Olympics when a female East German athlete came in and started lifting heavier weights than him, ironically causing him to leave because he felt emasculated.  Jenner genuinely cares about California and wants it returned to the greatness it once had.  I did not expect much talk about actual policy positions, but Jenner has a pretty solid grasp of many of the problems Gavin Newsom and years of Democrat control have caused, including sky-high tax rates and backbreaking regulations.  A lot of ideas that Jenner had to fix some of these problems were good, including a sunset provision which would require regulations to be reevaluated by the legislature every ten years or else they would fall off the books. 

There was, however, one major point that Jenner made that stood out to me because it was based on a flawed premise.  Jenner said that he decided to run because of his belief that California needs a moderate Republican to fix the state.  Specifically, he said that people should vote for him because he is conservative on economic issues and more liberal on social issues.  Jenner also said that the candidate that I endorsed, Larry Elder, is “far-right.”  The premise of that argument ignores the fact that conservatism comes with a built-in solution to people disagreeing on social issues:  liberty.

Jenner’s reasoning assumes that the choice you have is between voting for a left-wing government controlling your life or a right-wing government controlling your life.  In actuality, the choice is between a left-wing government controlling your life or you controlling your life. 

For example, as a conservative Republican, I believe that the country would be much better off if every single American attended church weekly.  I would agree with Jenner if a governor who is “far-right” was going to mandate church attendance.  As much as I think we would all be better off if everyone went to church, I only believe that to be true if it was done voluntarily instead of under coercion.  If the Right operated like Democrats this might be something to worry about.  Imagine, the government forcing all businesses with over 100 employees to require proof of church attendance to be employed there.  Jenner’s argument only works if the Right did that kind of thing.  Instead, the Right wants people to be free to choose, even if we disagree.  That is what liberty is. 

Conservatives, especially Christian conservatives, are often accused of telling people what to do on moral issues.  The truth is, we do care about your moral decisions and we want you to choose what God wants for you.  Notice, however, that I said: “choose.”  Except on the issue of abortion, where the choice directly harms another person, we do not want to take the decision away from you.  The difference is huge.  Conservatives may try to persuade you to do certain things, but that is not the same as using tyrannical power to force those things.  This is what Caitlyn Jenner was missing.  The further to the left a politician gets, the more parts of your life they want to control.  Being a moderate Republican still means they want to have more control over you than a “far right” candidate does.  That is not a good selling point. 

Jenner was asked if he would run for office again if he lost this election and answered that he wasn’t sure about running again, but he would definitely work with the Republican Party to become more of a big tent party that is more inclusive.  I hope that he does, but it needs to be done by explaining clearly that the way to do it is to push for a return to limited government and personal liberty.  We can agree to disagree.  You are welcome in the Republican Party even if you want to use your God-given liberty to do things we may not agree with.  I certainly do not agree with many of Caitlyn Jenner’s lifestyle choices, but I also do not want the government to force him to do what I would prefer.  The Right has no interest in taking away your liberty.

Let’s Make a Deal to Save Lives

America is divided and we all know it.  Many people talk about us coming together and finding common ground, but in general, I don’t think that is possible because we no longer share the same values.  There is, however, something that both the left and the right claim to want right now that makes for a great compromise.  Both sides say that they want to save lives. 

Now, a fair compromise gives both sides something that they want.  We should all agree that saving lives is a worthy cause, even if we do not agree on how to do it.  If both sides are sincere about their desire to save lives, they will agree that this is a compromise worth agreeing to.  If not, they never really cared about saving lives and just wanted power and control.

So, how does the left say we can save lives?  They want everybody to get vaccinated from Covid.  For full disclosure, let me explain my position on the vaccinations.  I am not vaccinated.  I am not an anti-vaxxer.  I believe that each individual should have the freedom to choose whether they get vaccinated without having to disclose their vaccination status to anybody.  Some people on my side might not agree with this, but I do not think the vaccine is likely to kill you.  We have to be honest about that.  It likely kills some people, but the odds of that are pretty slim.  If we say that the media should stop exaggerating the dangers of Covid, we should not turn around and exaggerate the dangers of the vaccine. 

That being said, there are two main reasons why I have not partaken.  First, it is a solution in search of a problem.  There is literally a 0.0% chance that Covid will kill me.  You have to go another decimal point for it to even register as a cause of death, and that is using the inflated numbers from the government.  The risk of me dying in a car accident on the way to get the shot is likely higher than the odds of me dying of Covid.  I do not want to take an experimental vaccine if I am fine without it.  Second, it is far too much fun listening to angry leftists flip out because there are people who won’t fall in line and do what they command us to do. 

My thoughts aside, the left says that they want everybody vaccinated because it will save countless lives.  Whether it will or not, they are pulling out all the stops.  They are trying to guilt-trip people into compliance. They are vilifying and shaming people who choose not to get vaccinated.  They are bribing people to get the shot with cash and contest entries.  They want vaccine passports so that they can shun and banish unvaccinated people from society.  They would like vaccinations to be mandated for all Americans.

Here is where my compromise comes in.  Conservatives also claim that they want to save lives.  While the net number of people saved or lost by the Covid vaccines is debatable, conservatives can document how many lives their tradeoff would save.  The number is approximately 62 million lives in the past 48 years.  In fact, since the left supposedly cares about black lives, this compromise would end the leading cause of death among blacks in America.  My proposal is this:  I would gladly volunteer to get the vaccine, and even support mandatory Covid vaccines in exchange for the immediate and irreversible ban of abortions in the United States. 

When you think about it, it’s the perfect compromise.  Both sides claim that the problem they would be solving is a major, existential crisis.  Both sides are even giving up what they perceive to be the same thing; choice in a healthcare decision.  If they truly believe that what they are fighting for will save myriad lives, this would be an easy and heroic deal to make.  If they will not make this tradeoff, they must not really believe that their respective cause will actually save many lives. 

We are not likely to agree on which action actually works, but whether you are on the left or the right, you can be sure that this deal will save lives one way or another.  My sleeve is rolled up and ready.  If you honestly believe that lives will be saved, agree to the compromise.  Otherwise, you know it’s not that important to you.

Why Romans 13 Is Inapplicable to What Is Happening Now

In the Best Picture winning film from 1965, The Sound of Music, the von Trapp family lives in Austria when it is annexed by Germany during World War II.  The main conflict arises when the father, Captain von Trapp, is ordered to accept a commission in the German Navy.  Did he quietly comply because the powers that be gave him a command?  Should he have?  No!  He concocted a plan to disobey the rulers and flee the country.  What a different film it would have been if he had done what so many of our churches have done and obeyed his orders.

Ever since the California government terminated our liberty last year, I have been disappointed that so many churches quietly complied.  This past week I received an email from a local church, once again saying that they were going to keep their doors shut until we are endowed by our government with some liberty.  (That sounds wrong, doesn’t it?)  The reason given has been inappropriately used since the beginning of the lockdowns to justify compliance with tyrannical edicts… Romans 13: 1-7.  It says this:

1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

Let me be clear.  I believe the Bible completely, from Genesis to Revelation, including Romans 13.  In fact, I talk about the importance of Romans 13 multiple times in my book, The God Bet.  There is, however, a big problem with hiding behind these verses to justify weakly complying during this fight between good and evil.  While we are not supposed to “resist the authority,” our government DOES NOT HAVE the authority to do what it is doing.  There are two main reasons for this.  The first is found in our founding documents.  The Declaration of Independence acknowledges that liberty is endowed not by the government, but by our Creator, and is unalienable.  That means that the government does not have the authority to take away our freedom on a whim. 

I know.  Some of you are saying, “Wait a minute.  The government does have the authority to take away our liberty in certain situations, like when they put a thief in prison.”  You are absolutely correct.  There are instances where the government can take away our freedom.  That leads us to the second reason this is not one of those instances.  Romans 13 not only tells us that we are subject to the governing authorities, but it also tells us what those authorities are authorized to do.  Verse 3 specifically tells us that “rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil.”  Verse 4 explains that “he (the ruler) is God’s minister to you for good.  But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.”  As you can clearly see, the rulers have the authority to punish you or take away your liberty if you do evil, but NOT for doing good works.  Stealing is evil; thus, the government is authorized to execute wrath on that thief.  Opening the doors of your church, on the other hand, is a good work.  If a church quietly closes its doors and cites the government as the reason, they are implying that a father who wants to take his family to church and sit inside is doing evil.  Any thinking person can see that the rulers who are putting these crazy dictates on churches are being a terror to good works and Romans 13 does not authorize them to do that. 

Why does it matter since California Governor Gavin Newsom is going to allow churches to open on the magical date of June 15?  It matters because these lockdowns and regulations were just the first major battle in the fight to remain a free country.  It was a test to see how many of us would stand up for each other’s liberty.  Unfortunately, the answer was, “not enough.” 

To those of you who are on the side of good, you may be tempted to write off the churches and Christians who sat on the sidelines during this battle and say, “you’re dead to us.”  I urge you not to do that.  We must be forgiving of churches or individuals who were complicit in our loss of rights when they realize what their complacency is leading to.  It is better that they are late to the party than miss it altogether.  Things will get worse and we need more churches to see the light and speak up before it is too late.  We need to pray for these churches to come around, and when they do, we need to welcome them to the fight with open arms.  They need to loudly declare that they will never again remain silent when the government acts as a terror against good works, which is against what Romans 13 says.  Never again will they close the doors of our churches, or limit who or how people can attend.  Our founding documents do not allow it, and the Bible does not allow it.  

An Open Letter to Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred

Commissioner Manfred,

I love baseball.  Between playing, coaching, and watching baseball I have probably spent more time at a ballfield than anywhere else in the world.  Unfortunately, today I am distraught.  I love my country, too, but it is in danger. 

Our founding fathers understood that people are better off when they are free to decide how to live their lives without government interference.  Therefore, they had the brilliant idea of setting up a system where the power comes from the people up to the government, not the other way around.  We do that by voting for people to represent us.  As you know, we just had a contentious, disputed election where many states accepted ballots without knowing who or where they came from.  This is not a baseless claim.  Most states did not verify who cast the ballots that were counted.  This is a fact.  Whether you agree or disagree with the results, there is now a large portion of Americans who distrust our election results, and for good reason.  Check out this funny video I made that shows why we need safeguards to secure our voting.

The state of Georgia is trying to restore faith in our elections by simply asking that we verify who is casting the ballots.  Your decision to take away the All-Star Game that was supposed to be held this summer in Atlanta is punishing the state of Georgia for trying to protect our ability to choose our government officials at the ballot box and trust the results.  Not only is it unfair, but you justified your decision by falsely claiming that the new law was meant to suppress voting.  The people who make this claim say that requiring voters to show identification somehow prevents black people from voting.  I don’t lightly throw around the term “racist” like many now do, but to say that black people are too dumb to show ID is definitely racist.  If you truly want to honor the memory of “Home Run King” Hank Aaron, you need to turn away from the idea that blacks are inferior to whites, not embrace it like you are by furthering this lie about ID. 

To be perfectly honest, when I hear that somebody is against voters showing ID to cast their ballot, I assume that the person just wants their side to be able to cheat and assure a political victory.  It really makes me question your judgment when the best excuse you can come up with is in essence that no, you don’t want to cheat.  You just think that only white people are smart enough to get an ID.

The part that really has me upset is that I don’t know what to do.  Baseball is the greatest game ever invented.  Many of the landmark moments in my life can be connected to what was going on in baseball at the time.  Since you, the Commissioner of Baseball, have decided that cheating in elections is not something to prevent, many people are boycotting the game.  Either you are for cheating, which is certainly possible considering the slap on the wrist that the Astros got, or you are a racist who thinks blacks are inferior. 

Whichever it is, I have to decide what to do, and here is how I am going to rationalize watching baseball this season.  The game on the field is still great.  The people around it may not be, but it has been that way before.  You may think that black people are not intelligent enough to show identification to vote, but until Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier in 1947, blacks were not even allowed to play in the majors, so you are not the first racist to be involved with baseball.  If the game survived them, it can survive you.

Now, I want to give you the opportunity to defend yourself against charges of racism, but the only other possibility is just as bad.  If you do think blacks are fully capable of getting an ID and are still against requiring ID to vote, then you just don’t want us to know where ballots are coming from in our elections so that cheating is easier.  There is, fortunately, an easy way to tell which you actually believe.  If you really think asking for ID discriminates against blacks, you will tell all of the ballparks in Major League Baseball that they are no longer allowed to ask for ID at beer stands.  After all, if it’s racist to require ID to vote, it is racist to require ID to buy beer. 

This tells me that you likely are just using race as an excuse for looking the other way when cheating happens.  The Democrats and the Astros thank you.

Sincerely,

Steven Connally

Give Us the Same Courtesy That We Gave You

The first paragraph of this article is here for a very specific reason. To promote the article on social media I had to make sure that there was no political speech in the first couple of lines so that it wouldn’t be censored. The original started here:

Democrats now control the White House and both chambers of Congress.  They are calling for unity, but what they mean by that is, “Now everybody needs to agree with us.”  That is not going to happen.  I am not saying that in an obstinate way.  I’m just being realistic and honest.  People disagree and that is alright.  Republicans were in charge for the last four years and many people disagreed with them, and I expected that as well because that is how life works. 

This leads me to my one request to Democrats.  Now that you’re in charge please give us the same courtesy that we gave to you when we were.  That courtesy is this:  When people disagree with you, don’t force them to do what you want. 

This may surprise some of you after being told by the media for four years that President Trump was a fascist dictator, but I cannot think of anything that he forced us to do during his term.  If you disagreed with President Trump and the Republicans, they did not make you do anything against your will.  Republicans let people agree to disagree.  

If, for example, you disagreed with the tax cuts that were passed, Republicans did not force you to go along with it.  They implemented no penalties for people who wanted to keep paying the higher tax rates voluntarily.  Yes, you can do that.  Surprisingly, wealthy Democrats who complain that rich people don’t pay their fair share do not opt to pay more themselves when given that choice.  Alright, maybe not so surprisingly.

Ultimately, this is the main thing that Republicans want:  to be left alone.  We want to control our own lives and let others control theirs.  Another example; we may understand that homosexuality is immoral, but we do not block people from the practice.  In fact, the Trump administration started a global effort to end the criminalization of homosexuality.  (In contrast, Democrats kowtow to countries like Iran who put homosexuals to death.)  Republicans also disagree with divisive groups like Antifa and Black Lives Matter, yet do not want them prevented from speaking or kicked off of social media.  Another Republican belief is that God is central to the American way of life and necessary for our success, but we do not want to require church attendance.  In other words, Republicans would like everybody to act in particular ways but think that people should be free to choose for themselves.

This approach is not a new one.  It is actually one of the principles that our country was established on.  Our Founding Fathers were wise men who understood that people would not always agree as to what should be done.  They also knew that throughout history, when the powerful forced those who disagreed with them to conform to their will it sowed contempt, division and conflict.  Their solution was liberty.  If one group wants to do “A” and another group wants to do “B,” the answer is not to have the group in power force the other group to do what they command.  Instead, the first group can do “A” and the second group can do “B.”  They can try to use persuasion to win the other side over but they should not use coercion.

If Joe Biden really wants unity this is what he should do.  Refrain from taking away our liberty.  Allow people to have free will and do what they think is best for themselves.  He can disagree with our choices but he should not overrule them.  Here are ten great suggestions that the Democrats can do to respect the liberty of Americans:

  1. If you decide to raise taxes, make it optional to pay the old rate like the Republicans did for you. 
  2. If you want people to wear masks, make it optional like the Republicans did.
  3. Let scared restaurant owners who want to shut down do so, and let the ones who want to remain open choose to do that.  If patrons want to show up they can but if they are afraid they should also be free to stay home.
  4. Let churches decide whether to remain open or close down.  If congregants do not want to attend they should not be forced to, but those who do should be allowed in.
  5. President Trump stopped enforcement of the Johnson Amendment, which threatens to take away tax-exempt status from churches if the pastor endorses a political candidate.  Continue with that policy and allow pastors to decide for themselves what to say from the pulpit without threat of retaliation from the government.
  6. If somebody wants health insurance that covers pregnancy and drug rehabilitation they should be allowed to purchase it.  If another person wants less expensive insurance that does not cover those things they should be allowed to choose that.  If someone else prefers to pay out of pocket for medical care instead of buying insurance they should be able to do that.
  7. Do not force law abiding citizens to buy guns.  Likewise, do not prohibit them from buying guns.
  8. If someone wants to do a job for $8 per hour, do not prohibit them from doing so and force them out of a job.  Let people decide for themselves what wage to accept.
  9. Do not force people who are against murdering babies to pay for the murder of babies.  Do not use taxpayer money for Planned Parenthood.
  10. Refrain from banning or restricting us from using certain products like incandescent light bulbs, straws, grocery bags, soda, and shower heads with good water pressure.

These are all things that Democrats have tried to dictate in the past.  If they truly want unity this list would be a solid first step.  Instead of using tyrannical power to control those of us who disagree with them, try going back to our founding vision of liberty.  It’s the least they can do after Republicans did it for them the last four years. 

Why the Cleveland Indians Name Change Makes Sense for a Leftist

Last week the Cleveland Indians decided to change their name.  Since it was announced, the far left sports media has been heaping praise on the organization for being so forward thinking and proactive.  My initial reaction was annoyance and disappointment, but then I thought, “I should really look at it from their perspective.”  No, I don’t mean from the perspective of Indians, because as even Washington Post polling from just a few years ago shows, most Native Americans were not offended by the Washington Redskins football team name, much less the Indians.  I mean from the perspective of a leftist.

Think about it.  A great sports team name is tough, powerful, and formidable.  There are Panthers, Giants, Vikings, Pirates, Diamondbacks, Braves, Titans, Lions and Tigers and Bears.  Oh my!  Some might say that the nickname for the team closest to me, the Angels, sounds pretty harmless, but as we know from A Charlie Brown Christmas, when an angel appeared to the shepherds to announce the birth of our Savior they were “sore afraid.”  An angel is probably very intimidating.  If you are not on the left you might think Indians are also tough, but remember, we are putting ourselves in the shoes of a leftist.  The left doesn’t see Indians as powerful.  They see them as whiny, overly sensitive, easily offended wussies.  Who would want their home team represented as that?  You might as well call them the Cleveland Flower Girls.  It makes perfect sense that you would not want your team to have such a pathetic, weak name.  

About now some of you are shocked.  “I can’t believe he just said Indians are whiny, overly sensitive, easily offended wussies!  That is racist!”  Except I don’t think that.  I think Indians is a great team name.  I know that the team was actually nicknamed for Louis Sockalexis, the first Native American player in Major League Baseball.  I think that Native Americans can be tough and formidable.  It is the left that thinks Indians are fragile wimps that need protection from being seen as anything other than victims.  Apparently even leftists who want to give out trophies to everybody are too competitive to name their team after people they consider helpless victims.

I must admit, when looking at this through the eyes of a leftist I caught myself a couple of times using logic instead.  One of the first things that popped into my head was Abbott explaining to Costello that there’s only one Feller on the Cleveland Indians.  It was very hard for me to put aside my assumption that Abbott and Costello were trying to do a hilarious bit about legendary Indians pitcher Bob Feller, and instead think that they were trying to make Native Americans cry.  Then I thought about Willie Mays Hayes, Rick “Wild Thing” Vaughn, and Harry Doyle chiming “juuuuust a bit outside” in the classic baseball comedy about the Indians, Major League, and realized that a leftist cannot in good conscience watch that because the film caused irreparable damage to the lives of our indigenous population.  Please don’t ask me what damage it caused because I’m new to thinking like a leftist and I have no idea.  I think I’m supposed to avoid your question by calling you a racist for even asking it.

The name change actually does make logical sense if you think so little of Indians.  People on the left will deny that this is what they are saying about Native Americans when they object to using the name Indians, but they can’t have it both ways.  Don’t let them fool you.  That is what they are saying.  If they didn’t think indigenous people are overly sensitive wimps who would be offended by hearing a sportscaster say that the Indians beat the Tigers 8-3, then why the push to change the name?  The only other option is that leftists are delusional enough to think that the sportscaster actually did mean to attack Indians by including the team in his report.  If that is the case it seems like the least successful offense against Indians since the Little Bighorn.

Don’t Be Offended Unless Offense is Intended

In the iconic television series Star Trek, Captain Kirk, Spock, and the rest of the Enterprise crew would travel to new planets, beam down to the surface, and learn about their societies.  Spock was from the planet Vulcan, and most of us know the Vulcan greeting that he often used, “Live long and prosper.”  We as Americans should consider what saying space visitors would associate with us if they beamed down to the United States today.  Our national motto is technically “In God We Trust,” but unfortunately there is another statement that seems far more common in our country today.  “I am offended.”

The list of things that people in America find offensive is endless.  I don’t even think our alien visitors would enjoy being here because of the eggshells we have to walk on to avoid public shaming or worse.  Even using the word “alien” is now considered offensive by some.  This constant state of feeling offended not only makes that person unbearable to be around, but it makes them less happy.  Imagine how much joy it would take out of life if you went to a comedy show and instead of finding the jokes funny you found them offensive.

I have good news for you, though.  There is a solution to being offended all the time.  Simply choose not to be offended.  Yes, you heard me right.  Being offended is a choice.  I have even come up with a saying to help me decide whether or not I should feel offended.  Don’t be offended unless offense is intended. 

Notice I did not say that you should never be offended.  There are certainly times when you should be.  If somebody purposely impugns your character, their intent was to offend you.  If somebody calls you a loser then you should take offense.  My little proverb is meant to keep you from wasting your time, energy, and likeability on complaining about jokes, harmless comments, or even things that you disagree about.  People should be able to disagree with each other and not feel offended. 

The problem today is that people go around looking for things to find offensive.  There are women who feel offended if a man opens a door for her.  There are people who are offended by the Mark Twain classic Huckleberry Finn.  There are even people who are offended by a new television show on ABC about girls getting kidnapped on a highwaybecause the girls who get kidnapped are not Indians.  Using my rule none of those examples should be offensive because an offense was not intended. 

There is now a term for these types of offenses.  They call them microaggressions.  The psychologist who popularized the term, Dr. Derald Wing Sue, even explained in a video that “Microaggressions occur because they are outside the level of conscious awareness of the perpetrator.”   That means that not only does the perpetrator not intend to offend you, but that you would have to explain to them why you’re offended.  If you often find yourself having to explain why you are offended that probably means your pain is self-inflicted. 

Let’s put my advice into practice and try some examples to test if we should be offended by them. 

Example #1:  Somebody says “Merry Christmas” to you.  You are not a Christian.

Response:  Do not be offended.  Their intention was to be nice.

Example #2:  Somebody asks you for help on a math problem.  You are Asian.

Response:  Do not be offended.  Maybe they weren’t thinking about your race.  Maybe they were.  It doesn’t matter.  The intent was to get a math problem right.

Example #3:  Your friend Fred sits next to you at a blackjack table.  The dealer calls him “sir” without learning his gender identity first.

Response:  Do not be offended.  The intent was to politely address him.  Oops.  I just said “him” without realizing it.

Example #4:  Somebody says that “All lives matter.”

Response:  Do not be offended.  I doubt that their intention was to say that anybody’s life doesn’t matter.  Thus the word all.

Example #5:  Somebody says that you can be put into a basket of deplorables.

Response:  You can be offended because calling somebody deplorable is certainly intended to impugn their character.

Now you have a guideline to go by, so the next time you see a George Washington statue, you should be able to fight the urge to cry and tear it down.  You know that the intent of the statue was not to brag that he owned slaves.  Choose not to be offended.  Hopefully, this advice will help the United States become a more pleasant place for our visitors from space.  If instead, you choose to remain constantly offended, Mr. Spock will probably find you highly illogical.