Cancelation

There’s cancelation and there’s cancelation.

The Left is busily canceling folks and institutions over historical transgressions—nearby or old, real or perceived, major or minor—including canceling heroes of the fight to end slavery because they were flawed. Why, then, are they so studiously not working to cancel the symbols of the Democratic Party, the leaders and other prominent members of that party, and the party itself? After all, it’s the Democratic Party that

  • actively fought for slavery anti-bellum and created the KKK post-bellum
  • moved to enact gun control laws explicitly to keep blacks unarmed and helpless against continued depredations
  • enacted Jim Crow laws
  • resegregated the Federal government under Woodrow Wilson
  • refused to integrate the military under FDR
  • nationalized minimum wage laws explicitly to keep blacks from competing for jobs by being willing to work for less than white union members wanted to
  • created today’s “welfare” system that keeps blacks (and other poor) trapped in welfare cages
  • perpetuates racist segregation with their identity politics today
  • and on and on.

Oh, wait—that would mean the Left and the Party would have to cancel themselves.

A Winning Strategy

Congressman Andy Biggs (R, AZ) suggested one for President Donald Trump a couple days ago, and it’s as simple and elegant as President Ronald Reagan’s regarding winning the Cold War with the Soviet Union: we win, they lose.

He just needs to be Trump, and the campaign guys need to let him be Trump.

True enough. However, the Trump he needs to be—and soon—is the Trump he was in the fall of 2016—toned down rhetoric, including on Twitter, and talking extensively about the future and his policies for making the future occur, rather than solely negative attacks on the opponent.

It’s easy enough—especially with Biden and the running mate the Progressive-Democratic Party selects for him—to talk down his opponent simply by contrasting his policies with the policies Biden is touting, both domestic economic and social policy and foreign policy.

Running Mate

I wrote earlier of Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Joe Biden’s promise to pick a woman running mate and the implications of such a promise.

Now we have this.

…some Democratic women are urging Mr Biden’s campaign during phone calls, at fundraisers and in writing to be part of history…by selecting the first black woman as a vice-presidential running mate.

For instance, this from House Congressional Black Caucus Chairwoman Karen Bass (D, CA):

It would be energizing and exciting for there to be an African-American woman on the ticket. If there is not an African-American woman on the ticket, I think people will be disappointed.

Just as it’s hard to be more sexist (and demeaning to women) than to pick a candidate for Vice President because the candidate is a woman and not the most qualified person who happens to be a woman, it’s hard to be more racist (and demeaning to the race of the selected candidate) than to pick a candidate for Vice President because of the race of the candidate and not the most qualified person who happens to be of one race or another.

The racism and sexism are strong in Party.

Statehood for DC?

That’s the House Progressive-Democrats’ plan. They voted on the thing last Friday.

One of the rationalizations for the move is this, from the District of Columbia’s “shadow senator” Paul Strauss:

DC [he’s cited as saying], created in July 1790, pays more federal taxes than any other non-voting territory and does not receive proportional services for their population, which is larger than those of Wyoming and Vermont.
“We are essentially a donor state,” he said.

That’s not an argument for statehood, though. It’s an argument for ending the transfers of citizens’ and their business’ tax monies from one State/territory/District to another other than in times of regional emergency.

What’s being carefully avoided in the discussion is the fact that this new State, were it to come to pass, would provide two Progressive-Democrat Senators to the Senate—and that’s why it’s Progressive-Democrats who are making the push. The same problem would exist were DC just as partisan, but Republican, and Republicans were making the push, and the solution would be just as invalid.

To answer James’ Madison’s Federalist 43 concerns about a State housing the Federal government, Strauss says this new State would exclude the Federal government’s facilities—just surround them entirely:

…Capitol, White House, and other federal buildings would remain in its own neutral area, with only the surrounding area being part of the new state….

Nah. If the politicians are serious about the region simply needing the benefits of statehood, that “surrounding area” should be returned to Maryland and Virginia, from which they were carved in the first place in order to form the District.

There’s no need to create a new State.

“Fundamentally Transforming America”

Leftist thugs are busily tearing down statues. They began by masking their destructiveness, centering it on destroying statues of Confederate generals, but now they’re showing their true colors: they’re tearing down statues of national founders, abolitionists, Abraham Lincoln, US Grant, Liberals like Theodore Roosevelt, desecrating monuments to an all-black regiment that fought for the Union against slavery in our Civil War and to WWII heros.

They’re vandalizing government buildings and defiling churches.

They’re even assaulting their own for daring to document the destruction.

Here is Michelle Obama in May 2008:

We are going to have to change our conversation; we’re going to have to change our traditions, our history; we’re going to have to move into a different place as a nation.

Here is Barack Obama, just five months later and immediately before the election:

We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.

And now their minions are busily trying to destroy our culture and our history.

Remember this in November.