Joe Biden hopes to capitalize on the current mass insanity of riots, calls to defund the police and anarchists taking over sections of major cities by arguing that making him President will be a vote to “return to normalcy.”
The big flaw in this argument, of course, is that all those unsettling things are coming from his own party, and are in cities that have been entirely run by Democrats since “The Candy Man” by Sammy Davis Jr. was #1 on the pop charts (or in Chicago’s case, since the #1 song was “Brother, Can You Spare A Dime” by Rudy Vallee.)
If you define “normalcy” as “a President who doesn’t write mean tweets or fight back when people attack him,” then a vote for Biden will fix that. On the other hand, if you define “normalcy” as a nation where Americans aren’t tearing down monuments, setting cities on fire, setting up occupied anarchist camps, pushing the socialist “Green New Deal,” firing all the police officers, letting men who identify as women compete in women’s sports, “aborting” babies that have already been born, or demanding that everything and everybody that far-left radicals don’t like be banished to the cornfield, then maybe giving power back to the Democrats would not signal a return to “normal.” Especially since the people in power would then savage you and banish you to the cornfield just for using the judgmental and outdated term, “normal.”
It turns out that the Trump Administration, through an unprecedented public-private effort, went from zero coronavirus tests to over half a million tests a day in less than three months, when it normally might take up to a year. As the CEO of test maker Hologic said, “There had never in the history of diagnostics been a test to develop faster or used in this volume…when you truly understand the magnitude, the industry or the world has never seen volume of one diagnostic test conducted in this quantity — never close.”
Are you surprised to hear that after hearing for months that the Trump Administration had no plan to deal with testing and was failing and lagging behind all the other nations? Sorry if I shocked you. To calm your nerves, here’s some news that won’t be a surprise to you at all: the media lied to you about the Trump Administration.
WHAT WE REALLY MEAN...
The New York Times ran an op-ed this past Friday to try to explain to us slow-witted knuckle-draggers that “defund the police” of course doesn’t mean “defunding the police!” The writer, “anti-criminalization activist” Mariame Kaba, explains that "when people, especially white people, consider a world without the police, they envision a society as violent as our current one, merely without law enforcement — and they shudder."
But in fact, “defunding the police” merely means taking a lot of the budget away from hiring cops and spending it on "health care, housing, education and good jobs," and “community care workers” who can "do mental-health checks" for people who need help, which would result in a lesser "need for the police in the first place."
Got that? “Defunding the police” doesn’t mean “defunding the police.” It just means taking funds away from the police and spending them on something else. Now it makes sense!
Except that we have a staggering national debt largely because we already have so many government social programs that we’ve been spending more and more on ever since the “Great Society” launch of the 1960s, and the most heavily Democratic areas spend even more on such programs on the state and the local levels. Are those areas currently experiencing a “lesser need for the police”?
I guess this is good news: the NYPD has cleared the employees of a Manhattan Shake Shake of intentionally trying to poison three police officers by putting a bleach-like substance in their milkshakes. Police now suspect that the substance was a cleaning solution that wasn’t properly cleared out of the milkshake machine. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the restaurant, but at least it was not another criminal attack on police. Let’s hope it’s not a false alarm that sparks real copycat crimes, since with the story out there, police will still have to be extra vigilant about their food and beverages just to be on the safe side.
You can tell from all the lip service, public virtue-signaling and financial donations to “social justice” groups that certain large corporations are terrified of being branded as racist by the mob or of standing up to them, and think they can flatter and buy their way to safety. They should realize that the best they can hope for by throwing everyone else to the lions is that they would get eaten last. In this case, even that is too much to hope for.
For instance, there are few newspapers more reflexively leftwing than the British paper, The Guardian. When the current mania for smashing statues and rewriting history and canceling people to oblivion began, they were right there cheering it on and defending the protesters who destroyed statues of historical figures who were involved in the slave trade.
But then came an ironic turn: someone dug into the history books and discovered that the Guardian newspaper was founded as the Manchester Guardian in 1821 by John Edward Taylor, using money from a cotton plantation worked by slaves.
After Taylor died in 1844, the Guardian demanded that his slaves be forced back to work. It also railed that it was an “evil day” when abolitionist Abraham Lincoln was elected President, and claimed his reelection was due to “fraud, violence, and intimidation” and “reveals nothing with respect to the real wishes and thoughts of the majority of his fellow countrymen.” (I think they’re recycling those editorials with the name “Lincoln” replaced with “Trump.”)
There’s now a petition with over 7,000 signatures at last check, demanding that the Guardian be shut down because of its shameful history and being founded off the profits from slave labor.
A spokesman for the paper claimed that the Guardian always opposed slavery, they just didn’t think the Union opposed it enough; and that its stance was “of its era” and – brace yourselves – that some things from the distant past shouldn’t be judged by current standards. NOW they tell us!
If there’s a Pulitzer Prize for Hypocrisy, then I think the Guardian has a lock on it. In the meantime, I’m going to go dig into the history of the New York Times…
Related Commentary: Charlotte Hayes at the Independent Women’s Forum on why tearing down statues and erasing history is really an assault on the entire history and foundation of the US, and an attempt to tear our carefully-built system of Constitutional protections down to the ground and replace it with the rule of the mob – and those in power who are enabling it will live to regret it when the mob turns on them.
BEST MEME OF THE DAY!
Best Meme of the Day! If a picture is worth a thousand words, these two pictures together outweigh any 5,000-word “think piece” in the New York Times about how “progressive” thought is so much more advanced than those Trump-supporting rubes in Flyover Country.
More commentary on the Supreme Court's decision to redefine what "sex" means.
I can’t decide whether the headline on this story should be “At Long Last” or “A Good Start.”
DOOMED TO REPEAT HISTORY
It’s said that those who cannot remember history are doomed to repeat it. But some of the vandals who are attacking historic monuments to scrub US history of everything that offends them don’t seem to have ever taken a history class at all, much less repeated one --- although they certainly should have been forced to repeat History 101.
So far, in the name of fighting racism, they’ve vandalized the Lincoln Memorial (honoring the man who freed the slaves), the monument to the all-black Union regiment of the Civil War memorialized in the movie “Glory,” and now, a statue in Philadelphia of Matthias Baldwin. It was defaced with red paint and the words “Murderer” and “Colonizer.”
Matthias Baldwin was an abolitionist leader who devoted his life to ending slavery and helping blacks attain civil rights, including funding schools for black children out of his own pocket. One local history buff said Baldwin was “[Black Lives Matter] before there was a slogan.”
During the same protest, the vandals also attacked a monument to the city’s Civil War soldiers and sailors. Here’s a remedial history lesson for them: the soldiers and sailors from Philadelphia were on the Union’s side. They fought for the North. That means they were the anti-slavery ones.
I guess that’s necessary to mention, based on this story and this Jesse Watters man-on-the-street segment where he asked young people, “Who fought in the Civil War?” The closest most of them came was “North America vs. South America.”