By any means necessary

The Democrats clearly do not intend to honor any facet of our system of government that does not result in their gaining power.  Senator Marco Rubio sounds the alarm:

rubio tweet

Broward County – a heavily Democratic area whose supervisor of elections illegally destroyed ballots in a previous election.  (Why is she still in the position?)  Broward County – a heavily Democratic area home to Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who (among many other things I don’t have space to list here) stated publicly there are “many things” that can be done to rig an electionBroward County – a heavily Democratic area known for being home to the “Broward Cowards” — Sherriff Israel’s police force that failed to actively intervene during the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting.  (Like the supervisor of elections, the Sherriff still has his job, despite losing a vote of confidence by his own department’s union.)

The problem is not limited to the whisker-close races in Florida, either:

Democratic Rep. Kyrsten Sinema took a narrow 9,610-vote lead over GOP Rep. Martha McSally Thursday evening as Arizona’s election authorities counted more ballots in the state’s uncalled Senate race.

…depending on the results in Arizona and Florida, the Republican majority in the next Senate could be as small as 52 seats or as big as 54. That spread could be significant on legislation and judicial confirmations over the next two years…

Especially since Senator-elect Romney will undoubtedly take the RINO role previously held by the late Senator McCain, poking his finger in his own party’s eye when it suits him.  President Trump announced before the election that the Federal Government would look closely at improper actions and allegations of fraud.  I sincerely hope they are doing so, and are prepared to make very public examples of anyone found putting their thumb on the scale.  We keep hearing that Trump’s election somehow made Democrats lose faith in our Constitutional system.  As one writer points out, that’s not the case.  They haven’t lost faith in it… they just don’t like how it gets in their way.  That’s why places like Broward County will try to continue “finding votes” until they have enough to get the election results they wanted.

This is outright attempted electoral theft.  It cannot be tolerated.  Period.  The public must demand accountability for this process.  If the Arizona and Florida races are shown to be stolen by the Democrats, the Senate MUST refuse to seat the alleged winners.

Americans have long been cynical about their own elections — but have been willing to abide by the results of record.  If that ceases to be the case (and the Democrats’ collective tantrum after 2016 was a huge step in that direction), we will have anarchy in very short order.  Are you prepared for that contingency?

Whither adulthood?

One of the more ridiculous calls since the school shooting in Florida is to lower the voting age to 16.  As CNN and others continue to exploit grieving classmates and parents on air to make their emotional appeals for more gun control, some are saying the kids are showing enough ‘wisdom’ that it’s a shame they can’t vote.

Give me a break.  Even setting aside for the moment that some of these kids are being coached and controlled on talking points, let’s not forget that others their age were recently consuming laundry detergent as part of an online “challenge.”  And that challenge is only one of several idiotic trends in recent years.  In short, those who are calling for 16-year olds to vote are doing so in the expectation they’d be an easily manipulated voting bloc.  That’s to be expected since statists have always counted on youth to be their vanguard.

It’s easy to forget that as recently as the 1960s, the Federal voting age was 21.  The national agony of the Vietnam War raised the profile of a longstanding question about  young men being old enough (18) to be drafted and possibly die for their country, but not old enough to have a say in its decisions.  This juxtaposition led to the passage of the 26th Amendment in 1971.

Many people may not realize it, but a similar dilemma is presenting itself.  During last night’s CNN “Town Hall” on gun laws, Marco Rubio professed support for “taking away” the right of an 18-year old to buy a rifle.  The alleged gunman in last week’s shooting was 19 and had purchased his weapon legally (in no small part because of failure to act on his past behavior), so this would at first seem a targeted response.

The problem is this: though he has flip-flopped on the issue, Rubio has in the past also expressed support for expanding Selective Service registration to include women as well as men, while never mentioning any change to the draft age.  Taking these positions together, Rubio is saying an 18-year old man or woman is old enough to be handed a rifle in the service of their country, but not old enough to be entrusted with the Constitutional right to own one!

At what age do we become “responsible adults?”  Clearly the mileage varies from person to person.  It’s safe to say, however, that our society increasingly postpones leaving youthfulness behind.  As it says in the linked article, “We expect less maturity from young adults and deny them the responsibility that helps them grow. They live down to our expectations.”  All the better to develop an electorate that desires a Nanny State to facilitate their extended childhood.  In other words, current trends are not conducive to maintaining our individual liberties.

This is the broader discussion we need to have: at what point should people be entrusted with the rights and responsibilities of adulthood — including full accountability for their actions?   In more than half of the States, the age of sexual consent is 16, but in all States one must be at least 18 to get married without parental or court approval.  As a 19-year old, last week’s gunman will stand trial as an adult and is eligible for the death penalty.  But under Rubio’s proposal, others who are legal adults would not have the full privileges of owning a firearm.  As it now stands, 18-year olds are able to serve in the military, but not purchase cigarettes (until 19) or alcohol (until 21).  I can attest first-hand to the discipline issues that creates in the armed forces.

I can also attest to the difference those three years make in developing adults.  Not long ago, I went directly from teaching college freshmen to teaching high school seniors.  It was amazing to me the difference in overall maturity and engagement just that one year made.  (As already stated, the mileage varied.)  With both my older Musketeers, I waited until 16 to let them get a driver’s permit, and 17 for their license — a year behind what the State would have allowed.  There’s a reason, after all, why young men under 25 have the highest car insurance premiums.  When the time came to teach them, both showed a seriousness about the responsibility they were taking on, and neither gave their mother or me reason to worry they’d be reckless with a car.  (Six years on, both are still “wreck-less.”)

Which brings me to a final point: the role of fathers in developing adulthood.

Without dads as role models, boys’ testosterone is not well channeled. The boy experiences a sense of purposelessness, a lack of boundary enforcement, rudderlessness, and often withdraws into video games and video porn. At worst, when boys’ testosterone is not well-channeled by an involved dad, boys become among the world’s most destructive forces. When boys’ testosterone is well channeled by an involved dad, boys become among the world’s most constructive forces.

I believe the erosion of the nuclear family has contributed greatly to the rise of extended adolescence and immaturity.  When I think of the number of times over the years I’ve had to correct my young men when their interactions with their mother or others were less than respectful, it gives me great pause to wonder what would have been were I not in the picture.  I’m by no means a perfect man or father, but I’m engaged in bringing out the man in my Musketeers.

Given the state of today’s culture, we have some decisions to make.  Do we expect more of our young people and hold them to those standards, or do we move the goalposts of adulthood expectations to a higher age?  Should we standardize expectations so that all the rights and privileges apply at the same age, or do we have justification for doling them out a few at a time over several years?  And if a 19-year old can’t be entrusted to have a firearm without adequate consideration of others, do they really need to be in a voting booth helping decide national policies?

I don’t profess to have the definitive answer, though I believe a strong case could be made for making 21 the standard legal age for all purposes — and that includes eligibility for Selective Service.  As I said, though, this needs to be a conversation.  What are your thoughts?

They both have a point

As I’ve said before, I don’t watch the primary “debates” because as a former competitive debater it insults me that they use that term.  These are orchestrated talking point matches, not debates.  I do, however, pick up on the coverage/fallout from these verbal wrestling spectacles.

Apparently, Marco Rubio got to point out that a question he was asked by one of the leftist operatives moderators was one they didn’t dare ask his Democratic predecessors.  I’m all for pointing out the plethora of double standards that exist in the corporate media today, so bravo Mr. Rubio.

But let’s look at the issue itself for a moment.  Selective coverage aside, the fact that our political class constantly runs for other offices while supposedly serving in the one they hold is a HUGE problem.  It’s the ultimate symptom of the careerist approach to politics, where grasping for the next ring comes at the expense of serving people where you are.  It’s common for a presidential or vice presidential candidate to run concurrently for the Senate seat they hold (Joe Biden did this as recently as 2008).  Everyone loves the idea of a consolation prize, but one effect of this is to create additional expense to the taxpayer via ‘special elections’ that have to be held once the game of musical chairs is settled.

This is baloney.  If you truly feel you’re the best candidate for a position, put your money where your mouth is and run for that office without a fallback position.  In fact, we ought to bar anyone serving in an elective office from running for any other office before their current term expires.  Yes, that would mean politicos would have gaps in their office-holding years.


Make this insular, isolated, incestuous political class actually leave the cloister of D.C. Mordor occasionally and do something in the “real world.”  Maybe experiencing the ups and downs of life like the rest of us would help them relate to the people they allegedly serve.

One advantage of Republicans in office…

…they’ll have far greater scrutiny than the media will ever give a Democrat:

After the alleged “scoop” of Rubio’s four parking tickets over 18 years last Friday (and in Saturday’s paper), the (New York) Times on Tuesday ran a big piece on how Rubio is supposedly a disaster when it comes to his own personal finances… (Harold) Evensky, who reviewed Rubio’s public financial disclosures at the newspaper’s request, donated $500 to Obama in 2007 according to online records, but the Times didn’t disclose it. …

Rubio, they wrote, struggled under student loan debt until he managed to make money with a 2012 book (“financial salvation” the Times called it). Rubio also liquidated a retirement account, incurring taxes and penalties. And he sold a house at a loss.

Eight years ago, an investigation would have shown that the Obamas struggled under huge student loan debt until his books became best-sellers (Dreams From My Father originally came out in 1995). Obama received 15 outstanding parking tickets from 1988 to 1991 when he was at Harvard — tickets he didn’t even pay until January 2007, a couple of weeks before he announced his presidential campaign.

But a Nexis search shows the Times didn’t write about the Obamas’ student loan troubles in 2007, or Barack Obama’s parking tickets at Harvard, when Obama was in the same position as Rubio…

Don’t misunderstand me: I’m still not a supporter of the GOP as a party (they left me and all the other small-government Constitutionalists; we didn’t leave them), nor am I particularly a fan of Marco Rubio as a candidate.  And I do believe in scrutinizing candidates to determine if they demonstrate sound judgement and intelligence (though that’s not the goal of these Times hit pieces).  But anyone who still believes, in this day and age, that legacy media outlets like the New York Times provide the sameobjective coverage” to all parts of the political spectrum, is under serious delusion.

I agree with one commenter on the site who said “(R) = report bad news; (D) = do not report bad news.”

This corrupted, leftist propaganda system dropped any remaining pretense of objectivity in order to elect “The One” in 2008, and they’ve been covering for him ever since.  Now they are desperate to get Her Hillariness into office — probably in part because they’re paid lackeys!  Not only do the voters need to reject utterly the leftist political agenda at the polls, they also need to pull the rug out from under their media enablers.  Don’t just consume (and thus support financially) what these outlets spew because they’re “established” and have decades of history.  There are better alternatives out there.  Use them!