June 26th, 2020


The Left Does Not Care About Elections

Don Surber explains why the Left doesn't have to worry about elections the way the Right does:

Quoting a study that suggested violent protest was unsuccessful: "Counties proximate to nonviolent protests saw presidential Democratic vote share among whites increase 1.3%-1.6%. Protester-initiated violence, by contrast, helped move news agendas, frames, elite discourse and public concern toward social control. In 1968, using rainfall as an instrument, I find violent protests likely caused a 1.6%-7.9% shift among whites towards Republicans and tipped the election. Elites may dominate political communication but hold no monopoly."

Surber then followed up with: Obviously, losing elections does not bother liberals because they can go around the will of the people through the courts (abortion and gay marriage) and by executive order (amnesty and DACA). Every now and then they pass a law (Obamacare) but they really prefer Supreme Court decisions because they are irreversible.

And you thought the "Supreme Court" argument for Trump was fluffery. Nope. That's the only way we can fight back against the predominantly upper-class judiciary and legal professions.

It Is Class, Not Race, Sex, Color, Ethnicity, or National Origin That Counts

Read the headline of this article again. Memorize it if you need to. Now we move along to the article discussing the California Legislature working to give the government the right to discriminate based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin.

Think I'm kidding? Only if we lived in a rational world. As demonstrated by the language being removed, we don't.

(a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

(b) This section shall apply only to action taken after the section's effective date.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting bona fide qualifications based on sex which are reasonably necessary to the normal operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

(d) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as invalidating any court order or consent decree which is in force as of the effective date of this section.

(e) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as prohibiting action which must be taken to establish or maintain eligibility for any federal program, where ineligibility would result in a loss of federal funds to the State.

(f) For the purposes of this section, "State" shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the State itself, any city, county, city and county, public university system, including the University of California, community college district, school district, special district, or any other political subdivision or governmental instrumentality of or within the State.

(g) The remedies available for violations of this section shall be the same, regardless of the injured party's race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin, as are otherwise available for violations of then-existing California antidiscrimination law.

(h) This section shall be self-executing. If any part or parts of this section are found to be in conflict with federal law or the United States Constitution, the section shall be implemented to the maximum extent that federal law and the United States Constitution permit. Any provision held invalid shall be severable from the remaining portions of this section.

This is a perfectly rational provision, inserted into the California Constitution through the efforts of Ward Connerly in Proposition 209 in 1996. It was a slam dunk then. I'm hoping we haven't degenerated to the point where it no longer elicits, "Well, sure!"

If you want more information about this abomination, look here.
Have a barf bag ready.

Jordan Peterson remarked in one of his lectures, "Never ignore small signs of coming betrayal."