Postal Projection

Whatever they’re accusing you of, they’re doing. That’s a political axiom for our times. Whatever the Democrats, socialists, and media (but of course I’m being redundant)—whatever that side is accusing the Republicans, conservatives, Trump, or pro-liberty side of, it is because they are guilty of that thing.

There’s a term for it:

Projection, the mental process by which people attribute to others what is in their own minds.

It causes ironic situations, if you’re at a vantage where you can see clearly.

There are so many examples, several from the Democrat convention this week—not the least of which was having, ironically, Bill Clinton lecture our sitting president on respect for the Oval Office. For those of you not old enough to listen to news in the 90s, this is undisputed: As president, Bill Clinton had sex (depending on what “is is,” the sex was supposedly only oral sex, which 90s teens got defined for them as a result) with a 21-year-old White House intern. Yet this hasn’t even been brought up by the “me too” hashtag team. He may have dallied elsewhere, but in the Oval Office, possibly beneath the historic resolute desk (or possibly in an attached bathroom; who knows the details) was one location. And yet we are supposed to believe words coming out of his mouth about how President Trump is dishonoring the office—not because of any such despicable acts, but because they don’t like either his tweets or his policy disagreements with them.

Another is the tone-deafness of having Elizabeth Warren speak as a representative of Native Americans, after she lied multiple times to gain favoritism given to minorities based on their skin color-related ethnicity—when she is, we now all know from her DNA test—less Native American than most Americans and with less melanin than all but the palest whites. Yet we should listen to her about racism?

There are myriad ironic examples of projection. But today let’s just focus on one: election interference.

We are supposed to believe the projecting side, the ones who spent years and millions of dollars prosecuting our president for colluding with Russia when they knew for a fact that he had not done so because they had personally manufactured the evidence—they’re the ones now telling us he’s manipulating the US Postal Service to undermine the election.

Postal worker handling mail-in ballots
screenshot from here

Again, if they’re saying it, it’s because they’re doing it.

The new narrative is that, because of the coronavirus, it is unsafe to leave your home long enough to vote—in a location where all workers have masks, everything is sterilized, hand sanitizer is prevalent, and everything is done as safely as possible, and it was proven it could be done in multiple primary and run-off elections since the pandemic started.

And yet it’s safe to go to a grocery store. Or to certain workplaces. Just not a voting place. Even though that is denying the science that says voting is safe—as safe as going to a grocery store, according to Dr. Fauci, as he said in an interview with National Geographic.  

Ironically, protesting, like this, at the Postmaster General’s home in a misguided attempt to increase mail-in ballots, is being done by people too afraid to go stand in a socially distanced line at a polling place:

Protesters gather outside of the USPS Postmaster General's home
screenshot from here

Regardless of spending increases between now and November, there is no amount of money that could make the postal service suddenly efficient enough to meet legal timing requirements—not for the usual absentee ballot by mail, which it can handle, but the onslaught caused by mass mail-in voting—let alone guarantee the safety and security of the vote.

To be very clear, neither President Trump, nor the Republicans, nor conservatives, nor anyone who truly loves America and freedom—no one is doing anything with the postal service except trying to do the next step in a very long list of steps to drag it from the depths of insolvency. Nevertheless, in response to concerns, the Postmaster General has announced that ongoing changes will be postponed until after the November election to make it so there is no appearance of interference.

However, the pro-tyranny side, which has brought you all the other lies, is indeed attempting to undermine the election by using the US Postal Service.

Glenn Beck dedicated his Wednesday night program to this issue: "The Enemy Within: The Democrats’ Plan to Rig Election 2020." It’s behind a pay wall. But he also mentions it on radio, and has a clip here. 

Glenn Beck always says, do your own homework. I’ve been doing homework on the voter fraud issue for close to a decade now. But I’m adding more, and sharing enough to get you started.

Barack Obama spread the lie about removing mailboxes to tamper with the election, on a David Plouffe podcast a few days ago (audio here):

What we’ve seen in a way that is unique to modern political history is a president who is explicit in trying to discourage people from voting…. What we’ve never seen before is a president say, “I’m going to try to actively kneecap the postal service to [dis]courage voting and I will be explicit about the reason I’m doing it…. That’s sort of unheard of.

But moving mailboxes is not “unheard of.” Retiring and removing mailboxes is done routinely. Some 12,000 were move or retired during the Obama administration. It depends on where they can get the most use, to offer the most convenience to the most customers. 

So, if there isn’t—and never was—a Trump conspiracy to use the USPS to interfere with mail-in voting, why is there a story saying there is?

The simple answer is to stir up hatred and distrust of President Trump. But there’s certainly more to this.

Mail-in voting is one of the most unreliable ways of voting. If someone wanted to either cause massive voter fraud, or at the very least undermine the public trust in the outcome of a vote, encouraging massive mail-in voting is an ideal way. And we have evidence from recent trial runs:

·         Nevada Sent More Than 200K Mail-In Primary Ballots to Wrong Addresses: One-sixth of Clark County mail-in ballots were sent to outdated or undeliverable addresses/The Washington Free Beacon, August 6, 2020 

o   “The Public Interest Legal Foundation, an election integrity group, reviewed the 1.3 million mail-in ballots Nevada's Clark County sent during the June primary. It found that more than 223,000 of the ballots were sent to outdated addresses, leading the postal service to designate them as ‘undeliverable.’ The undeliverable ballots accounted for 17 percent of all ballots mailed to registered voters. Nearly 75 percent of Nevada's total population resides in the county, which includes Las Vegas.”

·         6,400 Michigan Absentee Ballots Rejected for Late Arrival/The Detroit News, August 8, 2020 

o   “More than 6,400 of Michigan's 10,600 absentee ballots rejected Aug. 4 were turned away because they arrived after Election Day, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson's office said Friday.

    “Another 2,225 ballots were discarded because there was no signature on the envelope; 1,111 were rejected because the voter moved; and 846 were not accepted because the voter was dead, according to data from Benson's office.”

·         846 Ballots Rejected in Michigan “Because the Voter Was Dead”/Daily Political Newswire, August 16, 2020 

o   “On August 4th more than 6,400 of the 10,600 absentee ballots in Michigan were rejected because they arrived late, according to a report from The Detroit News.

“Then there were another 2,225 ballots that were not accepted because the envelope was not signed. There were 1,111 that were rejected because the voter moved and then here's the big one: 846 were not accepted because the voter was dead, according to data from Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson's office.”

Not that this is sudden and new. It has long been known that mail-in is the most insecure way of voting.

·         Error and Fraud at Issue as Absentee Voting Rises/National Election Defense Coalition, October 20, 2012

o   “Nationwide, the use of absentee ballots and other forms of voting by mail has more than tripled since 1980 and now accounts for almost 20 percent of all votes.

“Yet votes cast by mail are less likely to be counted, more likely to be compromised and more likely to be contested than those cast in a voting booth, statistics show. Election officials reject almost 2 percent of ballots cast by mail, double the rate for in-person voting.

 “’The more people you force to vote by mail,’ Mr. Sancho said, ‘the more invalid ballots you will generate.’”

·         USPS Improperly Enabled Workers Who Helped Clinton Campaign/CNN, July 19, 2017 

o   “A government investigation concluded that the United States Postal Service "improperly coordinated" with a postal workers union that supported Hillary Clinton's campaign.

“The investigation, as documented in a report from the Office of Special Counsel, said the USPS granted employees union leave time off, at the request of the union, to do political activity—which OSC concluded was a "systematic violation" of a law regarding the political activity of federal employees. 

“The report said the practice was longstanding, perhaps ranging as far back as the 1990s….

“According to the report, the union would provide a list of USPS employees to USPS, asking they be put on unpaid leave to participate in the political effort. Then the USPS management would disperse the lists, which were viewed lower down as "directives," to give the letter carriers time off, including telling local supervisors to do so over concerns it would affect postal operations. The union would pay the employees out of its own political fund during their time off.

“Kopp said he and others had to work overtime to keep operations going while others were off on political work.”

To those who say there’s no evidence that voter fraud exists, or that mail-in fraud is even a thing, the evidence actually says otherwise. The Heritage Foundation keeps a database on voter fraud. They have an interactive map. So I clicked on my state, Texas, which went on for six pages. Here’s one page:

Screenshot from The Heritage Foundation

I wrote about an investigation that was turned up by a friend of mine recently, which led to the resignation of Democrat County Clerk Diane Trautman, who was implicated in hiring convicted forgers to do voter harvesting.

Note that it took a year and a half after the election before a FOIA request would be granted. So we can do the digging and show there was plenty of fraud in the past, and hopefully prosecute the offenders, but we don’t have evidence of the fraud soon enough to correct a bad election when it happens.

It happened in this story from 2018, two years after the 2016 election: “Voter Fraud Ring Caught Rigging Elections for Democrats in Texas: Four women arrested over fraudulent votes for Democratic candidates in 2016 primaries”  .

When Al Franken was “elected” to the US Senate, after he had lost the vote, during a recount suddenly new votes were “found” that went in his favor.

It happened some years ago in Washington State, when, long after the election, some election worker “found” boxes accidentally left in a garage that needed to be counted and which, coincidentally, changed the outcome—again in favor of the Democrat.

Is it just coincidence that Democrats keep claiming that efforts to prevent voter fraud are “voter suppression,” and then the vast majority of voter fraud cases are committed by Democrats?

Since it is known that voter fraud happens, and is more likely to happen when there are absentee ballots, why are voters from all over the country being pushed to do mail-in? Simple answer: to make the vote uncountable.

If Trump loses, it will be because the efforts of those I consider America's enemies—their efforts at committing fraud to control the outcome have succeeded. And those of us who know this will not sit still for a “transformation” that is intent on overthrowing our Constitution and taking away our freedoms. We’re the peaceful ones, but I don’t see how we could sit still for four years in hopes there’s a shred of a chance for a free and fair election to bring back our beloved nation. Not after what we’ve seen the last few years.

But if Trump wins, it will have to be because all their efforts to commit fraud failed—so they will riot in the streets claiming Trump did all the things we know they are doing.

This looks to me like an attempt to start a civil war. Or at least to cause enough unrest that it makes the 80+ days of rioting in Portland look like a sandbox squabble.

The most secure vote is in person. If you cannot vote in person—because you’re out of the country, or you’re quarantined in a nursing home, or you’re serving in the military—then by all means request your absentee ballot. That is why we have the option, and while it isn’t as secure as an in-person vote, when you request it yourself, and you fill it out yourself, at least you know that part is legitimate.

Mass mailing to everyone on the voter rolls means every single error gets a ballot—to be handled by whoever is now living at that location, or by whoever nabs it in transit to or from the voter. Every invalid ballot disenfranchises a legitimate vote.

Who was it trying to suppress your vote, again? Oh yeah. The Democrats. Projecting what they’re actually doing onto the rest of us.

This year especially—use your hand sanitizer, put on your mask, whatever you have to do, but by all means vote in person.

The Abraham Accord

A major historic event took place last Thursday, August 13, 2020. It eclipses post office funding or mask wearing to “fight” COVID-19 by so many orders of magnitude that you should have been hearing about it nonstop all weekend. Instead, by Friday afternoon the story was waning. By Saturday it was no longer included in the top dozen stories on MSN or CNN online. Hmm.

What was this historic event? President Trump, along with Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu and the United Arab Emirates’ Crown Prince Mohammed bin Zayed of Abu Dhabi, signed a Middle East peace accord—the first one since 1994—referred to as the Abraham Accord, bringing together different branches of Abrahamic peoples.

Jared Kushner discusses the Abraham Accord on Fox News Sunday
screenshot from here

President Trump said,

This is a truly historic moment. Not since the Israel-Jordan peace treaty was signed more than 25 years ago has so much progress been made toward peace in the Middle East, by uniting two of America’s closest and most capable partners in the region—something which it was said could not be done. This deal is a significant step towards building a more peaceful, secure, and prosperous Middle East.

Ambassador Robert O’Brien said this about the accomplishment: “I think history’s going to remember the President as a peacemaker. It’s really something special that he was able to put together.”

It is worth noting that actual peace deals that are accomplished get no Nobel Peace prizes, but politically “correct” do-nothings do get awarded (for example, Obama, his first year in office before doing anything, and 17-year-old Greta Thunberg, who was nominated, for scolding the world for driving cars, but had to settle for a humanitarian award).

After Thursday’s announcement, when it became evident that denigrating President Trump for a verifiable good accomplishment was fruitless, former VP Joe Biden tried to take credit—for laying the groundwork, along with Barack Obama, some five years ago.

In a twisted way, Biden is right. That administration’s anti-Israel/pro-Iran actions made other Middle Eastern countries aware of their vulnerability to Iran and its anti-freedom tyranny. So, while they may still have some disagreements with Israel, they are willing to set those aside to unite against a common enemy that had been strengthened by Obama/Biden.

The timing was good for the accord—because of President Trump. He undid some of the damage caused by Obama’s ship-pallets-of-cash-to-Iran-while-allowing-them-to-proliferate-nuclear-weapons agreement that was the worst negotiated deal in the history of the world. And he moved our embassy to Jerusalem. He has been a solid and reliable friend both to Israel and to the UAE and other Arab entities that would rather not be subject to Iranian mullahs.

The description of the president and the process are not what you’re likely to hear in mainstream media sources. In an interview with Hugh Hewitt on Friday, Ambassador O’Brien said this: 

One of the things that the President has, one of the great attributes, and I’ve talked about this before publicly without getting into the details of any specific call, he really has an incredibly good manner with foreign leaders. He gets along with them. He’s cordial with them. He’s civil with them, all the things you’d expect from a diplomat. And he’s very persuasive with them. So what had happened is that over the past three years, the President had developed a great deal of trust with Prime Minister Netanyahu and with the Crown Prince. And it’s that reservoir of trust that allows you to bring folks together to push them over the line, to negotiate with them, to mediate with them, to encourage them and to persuade them…. And I think Americans would be very proud of their president if they’d watched how he’d handled these negotiations with a lot of dignity, but also with a lot of goodwill and friendship and good humor with these two leaders.

There was a team working on the deal, “quarterbacked” by the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, who was also instrumental in moving the embassy to Jerusalem. But the entire team, even down to lowly staffers, got invited into the Oval Office to listen in on the historic moment. President Trump knew it was historic and wanted them to experience the moment with him. And, to their credit, no one had leaked information about the delicate negotiations, which could have derailed them. At the end of the phonecall, spontaneous applause broke out in the room.

I don’t know yet how this will play out in world history, but it’s definitely a good thing. And it’s likely to spread to other enemies of Iran in the Middle East.

Ben Shapiro noted,

By the way, it is also evident that Oman and Bahrain are going to follow the UAE in normalizing Israeli ties. And Saudi Arabia cannot be far behind. So this means a complete opening of the Middle East…. It is a very very good day for peace in the Middle East.

And the New York Times predicted that the accord “could presage a broader realignment in the region as the two agreed to ‘full normalization of relations’ in exchange for Israel suspending annexation of occupied West Bank territory.” 

One thing I hadn’t been aware of was a sort of tacit agreement already in play. Even though the UAE had policies against trade with Israel, they made exemptions on a case-by-case basis whenever it suited them. So often, in fact, that you can find the occasional Israeli grocer in a city, purportedly for business travelers. I’m told Saudi has such tacit agreements as well.

News media is talking about what Israel was forced to give up in order to come to this deal. That’s not the real story.

The UAE was already willing to agree with Israel. But they needed something in return. Israel offered up a pledge not to annex portions that, if it had declared them Israeli land, would not likely have been recognized anyway, not even by the United States. It would have been a declaration without effect on the ground. However, it’s land that, if there are future negotiations, is likely to go to Israel. Ben Shapiro describes it as Israel giving the UAE a fig leaf. He said,

The UAE wanted to normalize relations with Israel. They said, “We need something in return to make it look like we give a crap about the Palestinian Authority, which we actually kinda don’t.” And Israel said, “OK, well, we just won’t formally annex all this territory we know is going to end up in Israeli hands under any peace deal in the future anyway.” And the UAE was like, “Good. Done.”

If we’re adding the Abraham Accord to the history books, maybe we ought to review some of the history.

While the United Nations voted to give Israel statehood in 1947, with a two-state solution, the Arab nations surrounding it refused to recognize the decision. So there never was a recognized Palestinian state. Ever. In all history. Israel then declared its independence May 14, 1948, and that is the official beginning of the modern nation of Israel. Its war for independence ensued, fought from May 2018 through July 1949. At this point, in the cease fire agreement, the West Bank of the Jordan River was allotted to Jordan, and the Gaza Strip was allotted to Egypt, and they allowed Israel to exist for the time being.

In 1967, Egypt attacked, along with Jordan and Syria, in an attempt to wipe Israel into the sea. In what can only be called miraculous, Israel won that war in six days—thus the name of the Six-Day War. I remember my dad talking about this miracle, as a sign of nearing the last days, back when I was just old enough to pay attention. So I’ve spent half a century believing it is worth watching what happens to Israel. Anyway, in that conflict, Israel won back the West Bank and Gaza, but the Palestinian refugees from that area continue to claim land. Much of that has since been ceded by Israel. But, it turns out land for peace has never been a good strategy for Israel.

If you’re in need of a primer or refresher, I go into more detail in a 6-part series from 2011:

·         Part I: Ancient History 

·         Part II: Zionism and Migration 

·         Part III: Conflict and Violence 

·         Part IV: Holocaust and Statehood 

·         Part V: Refugees and 1967 War 

·         Part VI: Continued Unrest 

While several US presidents had claimed Israel’s right to name its capital as Jerusalem, and promised to move the US embassy there—starting with Clinton in 1999, waiting through Bush and Obama—President Trump actually made the move. The dedication happened on May 14, 1948, exactly 70 years after Israel became a modern nation.

US Embassy in Jerusalem dedication
screenshot from here

In Hebrew, I am told, various numbers have certain meanings.

7 = perfection

10 = completeness

70 = perfection and completion, or perfect order, with all power and perfect judgment

In other words, 70 is significant, and symbolic. To have it happen on that date—not a year earlier or later, not a month or two earlier or later—makes it more striking than just a very fine accomplishment by human world leaders.

Commemorative Temple Coin
image is a screenshot from here

To commemorate the embassy move, Israel minted a commemorative coin, with the heads of President Trump and Cyrus, who was non-Israelite king who was instrumental in the rebuilding of the temple 70 years after the captivity that ensnared Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego back around 600 BC. Besides honoring President Trump, the commemorative coin is being used as a fundraiser for eventually rebuilding the temple in Jerusalem. You can go online and see the progress at TempleInstitute.org. They have acquired all the building materials, as well as the vessels, vestments, and other things needed. They’re in the process of raising a red heifer that is to be sacrificed.

Illustrations of the ancient Jerusalem Temple
from TempleInstitute.org

Some prophecy watchers suggest next spring will be the time the temple construction gets underway. An impediment has been that the Dome of the Rock, the top of the Temple Mount, has been under Arab control for a long time. Just recently there was an archaeological discovery of a foundation of what appears to match the temple specs—not directly under the Temple Mount, but very close nearby, already under Israeli control. I don’t think there’s full agreement on which location is to be used for building the temple, but it’s an interesting story to follow.

I ended my six-part series on Israel with some words from Benjamin Netanyahu, and tied that in with the Spherical Model. Those words seem to still fit with this week’s added piece of history, if we include all those willing to honor our friendship with Israel along with us. We welcome the UAE into that circle:

I believe Knesset Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu was right when he said, “If Palestine were to lay down their guns tomorrow, there would be no more war. If Israel lays down theirs, there would be no more Israel.” I’ve kept that quote for some years. But in that speech, he went on to say, “Israel must create treaties with the countries of the world based on values, interests, and strength. We must nurture our military, diplomatic and political, and spiritual strength—that is the key to our future.”

At the Spherical Model, we can judge the success of civilization, economics, and freedom based on specific principles. It isn’t surprising that terrorists who advocate a mixture of savage chaos followed by tyrannical rule are far into the southern hemisphere, not only politically but also economically and socially. The Muslim people who most adhere to the rules of civilization also enjoy better economics and less oppressive government. Israel may not be perfect, but as a democratic friend that strives for civilization, we do well to honor that friendship.

 

Approval Isn’t Always Worth Getting

There was something that I heard this week that I’ve been thinking about, and expanding. I’m going to credit Andrew Klavan with what I heard, because I think it was him, although I couldn’t track it down. I re-listened to Tuesday’s show, and didn’t find it; maybe it was in Wednesday’s.

Anyway, what I think he said was that, only a non-racist culture would care whether you thought they were racist. In other words, the very fact that we find racism to be offensive, and to be called racist is damaging to our reputations, is because—We Are Not Racist.

If it were socially acceptable to be racist, it wouldn’t be possible to shame us for being racists. It has been half a century since Jim Crow laws were outlawed—and they were outlawed because most of the country recognized them as repugnant.

Vivian Malone registers as student
at University of Alabama, 1963
image from Wikipedia

There has been so little actual racism in this country that those who race-bait, who make a living from stirring up race-based hatred, need to redefine racism. And lately it has meant, if you’re born white, then you’re racist in your DNA and should be ashamed and bow down to the black race.

Think about that for a moment. You’re inferior because you’re born with a certain level of melanin in your skin, which you cannot alter. That’s actual racism.

How does that conversation go between a regular white person and a black supremacist?

White person: But, if I’m racist because I’m born that way and I can’t change it, then what do you want me to do about it?

Black supremacist: Bow down to the black person. Stop in the street and lick their boots, and apologize for your racism.

White person: But you just said I had no control over “being” racist, so what actions of mine am I apologizing for?

Black supremacist: Being white. You’re disgusting because you’re white. You’re inferior because you’re white.

White person: OK, I get it now. The color of my skin makes me an inferior, subordinate human being.

Black supremacist: Exactly.

Not that you could actually experience such a calm and reasoned conversation with someone who hates you because of your skin color. But you see the point.

So, if you fall for that accusation, and bow to the accusers in some misguided attempt to demonstrate that you are not racist—to avoid being one of those uppity white people who don’t know their place in the presence of their betters—what you’re doing is encouraging actual racism.

We’ve seen this somewhere in history before.

Racism is not the only area in which this shaming-the-innocent strategy takes place.

It’s a practice of manipulative abusers to make the abused feel like they are guilty—and are therefore required to change to earn the approval of the abuser. But, why does the abused value the approval of the abuser? Good question. Probably takes therapy to resolve.

But in day-to-day life, let’s assume you can see clearly enough not to value the opinion of someone who is attempting to manipulate you. Let’s take a look at some scenarios and imagine how some of the “reasonable” conversations would go, and maybe get some enlightenment from the thought exercise.

 

Economic Equality

image found here

Socialist scold: You have no sense of justice if you think it’s OK for some CEO to make $5 million a year while his line workers are making $40 thousand a year.

Income earner: Really? So, let me get this straight. Those line workers accepted the job for $40 thousand a year, but they were worth much much more? Why did they accept those terms?

Socialist scold: Because they didn’t have a choice?

Income earner: They didn’t? So you’re saying, they got the business degree, and the experience to run a company, and were willing to take on the risk, but they were, at that point, prevented from doing anything but taking a $40 thousand a year line worker job? How could such an injustice happen?

Socialist scold: Well, it wasn’t like that. It was just the systemic unfairness of it all.

Income earner: So a line worker should be paid more than the value he brings in for the company, and the CEO should be paid less than the value he brings in for the company—because that would mean everybody got treated fairly?

Socialist scold: Right.

Income earner: I get it now. Fairness is getting more than you deserve if you’re a person You favor, but fairness is getting less than you deserve if you’re a person You don’t favor.

Socialist scold: Exactly.

 

Climate Change

Greta Thunberg
image credit: Aaron Schwartz, found here

Climate scold: You hate the world and want to kill everybody if you don’t agree with the “climate science consensus” that says we need to totally eliminate fossil fuels. You climate denier! Get with the program and get behind the Green New Deal!

Rational human: So, I’m in denial if I notice that all the things in the Green New Deal will cause worldwide devastation, economic deprivation, starvation, and all? I hate the world if I don’t think all buildings need to be torn down or retrofitted? And all our cars and other transportation should be electric? And I shouldn’t notice that electric cars actually use more energy and create more waste than gasoline-powered cars? Am I on the right track now?

Climate scold: You’re getting there.

Rational human: And I shouldn’t notice that natural gas from fracking is responsible for most of the improvement in air standards over the past decade?

Climate scold: Fracking is evil! Say it after me: Fracking. Is. Evil.

Rational human: OK, then. What about nuclear, because, if you’re looking for a clean and safe energy source…

Climate scold: How dare you! No nuclear! Do you want to kill us all?

Rational human: No, I don’t actually want to kill us all.

Climate scold: Then stop being a science denier, and stop using anything but renewables.

Rational human: Like wind? I shouldn’t notice they cause a tremendous amount of waste and kill birds and don’t produce reliable steady energy?

Climate scold: Stop denying science!

Rational human: Sorry. What was I thinking?

Climate scold: Don’t bother thinking; we’ve done that for you. Just stop being evil and stupid and hating the planet.

Rational human: I think I get what you’re saying now.

 

Same-Sex Marriage

image from here

Woke scold: You’re intolerant if you don’t approve of gay marriage.

Decent person: I’ve been intolerant? In what way?

Woke scold: You have to approve of gay marriage and the gay lifestyle. You have to stop shoving your beliefs down the throat of others with different beliefs.

Decent person: Pardon me? How was I doing that?

Woke scold: By believing in traditional marriage, for one. You want to exclude gays from privileges everyone else has.

Decent person: Really? Were gays prevented from marrying an unmarried person of the opposite sex who was not a close relative—which is what the law has been for heterosexuals?

Woke scold: Don’t be obtuse. You know what I mean. You prevented them from marrying the person of their choice.

Decent person: Well, if you mean I was a not changing the definition of marriage to something that it never was, so that it would include their choice, then I guess that’s accurate. But then, if marriage is just a declaration of current sexual partnership, with no permanence, exclusivity, or procreative possibility—so, something other than marriage—wouldn’t it be better to just come up with some other name for what they want, rather than pretend marriage has suddenly become something different?

Woke scold: You’re just homophobic?

Decent person: I need you to help me understand. What do you mean by that?

Woke scold: You’re against gays. You’re so evil that you’d probably kill them if you thought you could get away with it.

Decent person: I’m sad you think I’m a murderous insane person for believing what people have believed for all the millennia of recorded history. But, what is it, again, I need to do to gain your approval?

Woke scold: Give up your stupid religious beliefs and support everything the LGBTQ+ community wants. And if you don’t, you should not be allowed to work or function in society; you should be cancelled.

Decent person: So, I should stop believing what I believe, and allow the LGBTQ+ agenda to be shoved down my throat, so I don’t get accused of shoving my beliefs down someone else’s throat?

Woke scold: Exactly.

 

Transphobia

The last one touched on the T in LGBTQ+, but let’s take that one separately.

Woke scold: You’re cruel and hurtful if you don’t accept what a trans person says they are.

Rational human: Oh, my! So, help me understand. Even if I’m compassionate toward them, and respectful and courteous, I’m still cruel if I don’t actually believe a person’s biological sex can be changed?

Woke scold: Imagine what they’re going through. All the ways this world rejects them and tries to tell them they’re not who they identify as. And all you need to do is admit that they’re no longer a woman when they have become a man, or no longer a man when they’ve become a woman—oh, and you need to refer to them with the pronouns of their choice, even if it’s a neutral made up pronoun like ze or zer.

Rational human: So, should I be OK with allowing them to go into whatever private space they want, including showing their, um, male genitalia in a locker room with other females whom the former male is still attracted to?

Woke scold: Of course. You shouldn’t even have to ask that.

Rational human: Sorry. I’m still trying to get the hang of waking up to being woke. So, what happens if the trans “woman” gets prostate cancer? Is it illegal to treat for a male problem now that he—er, she—is no longer male?

Woke scold: No, you’d just treat that particular woman who happens to have a prostate.

Rational human: What if a trans “man” still has a uterus and gets pregnant?

Woke scold: Then the world celebrates how great it is that a man with a uterus gives birth. Not that this should be considered a rare thing; some men have uteruses; some women have prostates, etc.

Rational human: Then, is it allowed to notice that a trans “woman” still has a Y chromosome in every cell of their body?

Woke scold: Irrelevant.

Rational human: Oh. So, I should deny biology and just go with whatever the person says on a given day?

Woke scold: Right. And if you don’t, you evil transphobe, you shouldn’t be allowed to make a living, or have any free speech; you should be cancelled.

Rational human: Because I’d be so intolerant?

Woke scold: Exactly.

 

Abortion

Let’s do one more.

ultrasound image, from here

Feminist scold: If you don’t agree with abortion—paid for by taxpayers—up to at least birth, then you hate women, and you’re anti-freedom of choice.

Pro-lifer: I wouldn’t want to be hateful or anti-freedom of choice. But it’s kind of an adjustment to killing babies.

Feminist scold: They’re not babies until they’re outside the womb; up until then they’re just fetuses, which means they’re nothing more than a clump of cells.

Pro-lifer: So they suddenly become a living human being by crossing the birth canal?

Feminist scold: It becomes a baby when and if the woman wants it to be a baby.

Pro-lifer: So, if the woman wants a baby, then it’s a baby in the womb, but if she doesn’t want it, then she can decide it isn’t a baby? At any point during gestation?

Feminist scold: At least that long; we should have a conversation about what to do with one the woman decides she doesn’t want after she sees it. I mean, what if it’s badly deformed, or has a disability, or the wrong color eyes or something?

Pro-lifer: Um. Wrong color eyes?

Feminist scold: We need to stay open-minded; it’s the woman’s decision, not yours.

Pro-lifer: So, just to be clear, it’s not a human life when it’s a human embryo, or when it gets a heartbeat, or when it grows hair and fingernails, or when it can feel pain, or when it is developed enough to be viable outside the womb?

Feminist scold: Only if the woman says so.

Pro-lifer: The father of the baby doesn’t have any input?

Feminist scold: How dare you! Of course not.

Pro-lifer: So, I hate women if I don’t want to pay for a woman to kill her offspring? And I’m anti-choice if I would prefer to protect life once it has begun, or—Baal[i] forbid—consider giving the biological father any say?

Feminist scold: Now you’re getting it. And if you don’t go along entirely, then you should be prevented from making a living, or speaking your hateful, offensive words anywhere; you should be cancelled.

Pro-lifer: Because I’ve been so intolerant?

Feminist scold: Exactly.

 

For the sake of your sanity, ask yourself, do you really care about getting the approval of someone who wants to bully you into shame for believing these things?

·         Character matters much more than skin color, and diversity of thought is more valuable than diversity of skin color. You’re not racist if you believe this.

·         Science isn’t settled unless all the data is in, and policy based on unsettled science is about power and politics. You’re not anti-science, or anti-earth, if you believe this.

·         Marriage, with permanence, exclusivity, and the possibility of offspring being raised by their own mother and father, is an inherent good to society. You’re not unfair, uncaring, or intolerant for believing this.

·         Biological reality is more real than someone’s mental image of themselves. You’re not unfair, uncaring, or intolerant for believing this.

·         A human life within the womb is not the same person as the pregnant woman; her “choice” ended sometime before the beginning of that second human life. You’re not anti-woman or anti-freedom of choice for believing this.

My guess is, if you believe these things, you’re already a better human being than the manipulator trying to shame you for those beliefs.

---

[i] The ancient idolatrous god, required child sacrifice according to Jeremiah 19:3-5.

How to Build Up Your Fortitude

A few weeks ago I read a book I got excited about sharing. It’s my Congressman Dan Crenshaw’s book, Fortitude. I had the audio version from the library, which is excellent, because he reads it himself. But it made getting quotes difficult. So I ordered the hard copy and have been waiting for that to arrive (it was lost on delivery day once and had to be reordered—a first-world problem), and it just got here Friday.

Since I first heard Dan speak, when I was deciding who wouldget my vote in the primary, 2 ½ years ago, I recognized him as a good communicator. He’s clear, to the point, on target. And, a huge bonus—he’s cool in a way that connects with his generation, and mine. He’s within a year of my oldest son, Political Sphere, so he’s a millennial.

Dan, you’ll recall, is the guy with the eye patch. He was hit by an IED in Afghanistan in 2012, as a Navy SEAL. He stayed in the service and deployed twice more after that, and did a lot of training. But then, against his will, they decided a half-blind guy wasn’t suitable for service, a decision he’s still not happy about. But he went on to Harvard Kennedy School of Government for a master’s degree in Public Administration. He finished up in 2017, close to the time Hurricane Harvey hit Houston, his hometown, and he went to work mucking out houses. Also that fall, our previous Congressman Ted Poe announced his intention to retire. Over a weekend Dan and family thought it through, and, pretty much without financial resources, started running for US Congress, in Texas’s Congressional District 2. About 8 others thought that was a good idea, too, most of them better funded and better connected.

That first time I heard him speak, he said, among all those conservatives, we’re all saying the same things; we’re all going to vote pretty much the same way. The important thing is to inspire others to vote that way too. He was inspiring me to vote for him; I believed he could do it.

And I worked on his campaign, delivering yard signs, and got to talk with him in smaller house group Q&As a number of times. I became more and more impressed with the way he said things—and I am a collector of things well said.

Still, I wasn’t sure what to expect from his book. Maybe mostly the story about his SEAL team experience and the recovery after the IED. And maybe there would be some conservative politics in it. But the book is so much better than I expected.

The story is there—including the SEAL team experience. He tells about how, the first time he went through BUD/S, or “hell week,” the worst week of SEAL training, intended to weed out the weak—his leg broke, a stress fracture caused by the grueling training that’s beyond most human bodies’ ability to endure. That meant he had to rehabilitate for half a year, and then go through the whole ordeal again. Because he wasn’t going to quit. As he puts it, “There is no plan B.” And failure isn’t an option. So you do whatever it takes.

There’s almost no politics in the book. Although, if you think of politics as policy to implement principles, then there’s a fair amount of conservatism in there. But what the book really is is a guide for how to live your best life—a way to be the best version of you that you can be.

In the introduction, he’s talking about some of the cultural problems we’re facing, and how to fix them. He says,

We aren’t acting as a culture that is mature or enlightened or educated, we aren’t acting worthy of this beautiful country and political system that we inherited from our revolutionary ancestors. Rather, we don a mantle of fragility, of anger, of childishness, and are utterly shameless in doing so (p.9).

He has a message to the snowflake culture:

If you’re losing your cool, you are losing. If you are triggered, it is because you allowed someone else to dictate your emotional state. If you are outraged, it is because you lack discipline and self-control. These are personal defeats, not the fault of anyone else. And each defeat shapes who you are as a person, and in the collective sense, who we are as a people (p. 10).

The book is intended to help people develop the discipline and self-control to overcome the outrage culture. He states the book’s purpose this way:

This book is about actively hardening your mind so that you can be the person you think you should be. It is about identifying who that person is in the first place, and taking responsibility for the self-improvement required to become them. It is about learning what it means to never quit. It is about learning to take a joke and giving others some charity when they make a bad one. It is about learning what it means to never quit. It is about learning to take a joke and giving others some charity when they make a bad one. It is about the importance of building a society of iron-tough individuals who can think for themselves, take care of themselves, and recognize that a culture characterized by grit, discipline, and self-reliance is a culture that survives. A culture characterized by self-pity, indulgence, outrage, and resentment is a culture that falls apart. It really is that simple, and it is a truly existential choice (p.10).

Dan happens to be a good storyteller, with a good sense of humor—albeit somewhat dark, since that comes from the SEAL culture. (And, a warning for the very sensitive, there is some language in the book that is also part of SEAL culture.) For example, he starts out telling of the IED explosion by telling why the Taliban used that method:

Smart bombs aren’t cheap, and national security is an expensive pursuit. The Taliban spent about ten bucks, including the cost of labor and medical benefits.

To which he adds this footnote:

Note to the Fact Checkers: THIS IS A JOKE. Taliban don’t have health insurance.

When his buddies from the teams, Joe and Dave, were with him during his hospital recovery, they wasted no time before asking him, “So, Dan, we can start making fun of you for looking like a pirate for the rest of your life, right?” As he adds, “Never too early for the dark humor of the teams.”

He gives enough detail about the recovery—including the miracle that he regained his sight in his left eye—but he does it without any sense of self-pity. At all. Just gratitude. To doctors. To his wife, Tara, who was his fiancée at that time, and stuck with him through all the pain and irritability—including spending six fully conscious weeks post-eye-surgery lying flat on his stomach to prevent the retina from detaching and causing permanent blindness. And gratitude to the many good people in the military he had worked with—and particularly to those who gave the ultimate sacrifice, or ended up with disabilities much greater than his.

He teaches at least one principle for developing your personal character, in each chapter. I’d have to say the book is part LoneSurvivor, and part Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life. It’s a bit less esoteric than Peterson, which may be a good thing for some readers, but the depth is there. He quotes Peterson, and Jonathan Haidt, and mythology, and Star Wars, and a pretty wide range of sources—and seems equally at ease with them all.

Some of the key ideas are:

·         Emulating the right kinds of heroes.

·         Be all in; be flexible, but accept no plan B on your main goal.

·         Be still; learn self-control over your emotions.

·         Sweat the small stuff; pay attention to details.

·         Have the right sense of shame; hold yourself accountable.

·         Have a sense of duty; and do your duty.

·         Do something hard; challenge yourself.

And he’s got a good final chapter on why America is a country worth loving, protecting, and preserving. He’s not about blindly assuming all is well. But we need to see more than flaws in a country this good:

So what is the right story? Is it just blindly assuming that whatever our country does is inherently good and righteous? No, that isn’t what I am suggesting. Just because victimhood ideology is toxic does not mean we have never had victims. But we must tell the story of America in a way that squares our suffering and injustice within the American identity without holding it in contempt for that injustice (p. 230).

Then he gives examples.

There’s José de la Luz Sáenz, a schoolteacher from Cotulla, Texas, who was called up to fight abroad in WWI and served with honor, hoping to emulate George Washington. He later formed the League of United Latin American Citizens.

There’s Frederick Douglass, who called on Americans to live up to the principles in their founding documents, saying, “The Constitution is a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT” (p. 233).

There’s Martin Luther King, Jr., who faced true injustice, and stared it down, peacefully, until an otherwise righteous people recognized their wrong in subjecting people more civilized than they themselves were.

Dan Crenshaw rejects the Howard Zinn/Herbert Marcuse version of America. And with it the Ilhan Omar, Beto O-Rourke, and Pete Buttigieg disapproval of everything American from our founding to the present. Modern political “progressives” say,

“Give us power… and we will end human suffering. We will end failure.

But until we do, stay angry. Stay outraged.

Why is this the wrong approach? Here’s the real point:

It’s an approach that does more than diminish the country. Far worse, it diminishes people. That’s why you’ll never see a happy (or funny) social justice warrior: A system that falsely promises the end of suffering also strips individuals of the capacity to deal with it. It’s ontological malpractice (p. 240).

You don’t come out ahead by expecting someone else to end your suffering. It’s not good to make government into a god that makes such promises while taking away your confidence and ability to deal with and solve your own problems.

The better story to tell is a belief in self-reliance. If we are to reverse the current cultural trend,

We must decide that our happiness is ours to pursue, not given to us by a supposedly benevolent politician. We will decide that our story—despite all the suffering we may endure—is not the product of an external immovable force, but our own to contend with. We must decide that we will be empowered and in charge of our own destiny. We must decide to tell the story of America that embodies the founding ideals and gave us the miracle of opportunity that we have today. We must tell a story that we are proud of (p. 241).

Dan Crenshaw doesn’t set himself up as a hero. He sees himself as a more-or-less regular guy who is spending a lifetime working to be the best he can be. And he’s sharing what he knows, to guide others in that attempt at the “pursuit of happiness” and a meaningful life. Still, in today’s world, he does look pretty heroic by comparison to all but a select few.

I've had my yard sign up for a month already.

In our reading for church this week, we covered one of my favorite heroes. It’s a military hero in a time of unrest, who writes the purpose for their defensive war on a banner to remind the people. He writes, “In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children” (Alma 46:12).  God has granted them the basis for their liberty, just as He has for us; evil power mongers are attempting to force them into subjugation, a parallel to what we are facing. It’s a cause worth the fight.

This man who inspires his people by clarifying their cause is named Captain Moroni—not the same Moroni depicted in the angel atop our temples, but an earlier person by the same name. Of Captain Moroni it was said,  

If all men had been, and were, and ever would be, like unto Moroni, behold, the very powers of hell would have been shaken forever; yea, the devil would never have power over the hearts of the children of men (Alma 48:17). 

I am considering applying these words to Dan Crenshaw as well. He warns in his book against making any particular person a hero, because every person is human and flawed. But you can look at the ideal version, the characteristics of the person that are worth emulating. It’s a practice George Washington began early in his life as well, to decide what kind of person to be, and to set out becoming such a person.

I pray that Rep. Dan Crenshaw may continue to be exemplary, like unto George Washington, who also proved himself in battle against tyranny before leading a righteous people in liberty. And I support him in his effort to share the message of how to develop yourself—how to live a life of Fortitude.

So I recommend the book—for young people who don’t yet know what kind of person to become, for adults who missed the teaching or need reminding, and for the rest of us who need a dose of inspiration to be better than we have been.