I’m not going to spend this entire column making fun of all of the lefties who are entertainingly distraught in this blessed post-election period, even though I definitely could. Because there are so many of them.
But I will start it that way!
Megan Rapinoe – the scowling, whining, America-hating, soccer player – is so upset that Trump won that she has sworn off heterosexual sex forever! Which is pretty easy for her, since she is a lesbian.
(It may also be pretty easy for her since all of the straight males on the planet – plus that guy who’s stuck on the space station until Elon can rescue him – had already told her, “NOPE!” before she went down Sapphic Street.)
(Worst children’s television program ever, by the way!)
You may remember Rapinoe from that time when she was walking through soft grass in an unoccupied part of a soccer field, and somehow tore her ACL, ending her professional career, and simultaneously causing me to spit-take a mouthful of coffee all over my Wonder Dog when I read about it online.
(Cassie was upset with me until I showed her the story. But when she read it – yes, she’s a literate Aussie Shepherd – she snickered like Muttley in those old cartoons, and all was forgiven.)
Moanin’ Megan rationalized Trump’s victory by saying that it’s not surprising that Americans voted for him, since America “was founded on slavery and inequality.”
Oooookay, Megan. But it could have been worse — at least we weren’t founded on soccer.
Speaking of unhappy white ladies, Grandma Squanto Warren (#wemustneverstopmockingher) is red in the face over Pete Hegseth’s being nominated for Sec Def. She ignored his military experience and sneered that he is “a Fox & Friends weekend co-host.” She also established her own military bona fides by claiming that, “All three of my brothers served in uniform.”
First, knowing people who wore the uniform doesn’t make you a military expert. Second, I wouldn’t brag that your brothers wore a loincloth, moccasins and a feathered head-dress, because while that may have been a “uniform,” it’s the one your people wore when they fought AGAINST our country, Liz!
The Translucent Tecumseh also trashed Trump’s other picks, including Elon and Vivek. Hopefully someone from the transition team has told her that since our red wave trumps her (non) red skin, she can take her complaints, cram them in her powder horn and smoke them!
The election results continue to ripple through elitist lefty circles, causing financial as well as emotional distress. Ratings throughout the legacy media are in free-fall, with waves of layoffs on the horizon at CNN, MSNBC and the networks. (“What will become of our heroic ‘truth to power speakers’?” cry their literally dozens of remaining viewers.)
The upper echelons at the FBI are running around like headless chickens fearing the axe that they richly deserve, and the Pentagon is full of woke, armchair generals frantically trying to scrub their official media of all references to the DEI and CRT priorities that they’ve used to warp and weaken our military.
Many despondent lefties have announced that they’re leaving X, including Don Lemon and Stephen King, while at the same time, some major advertisers are starting to return.
Speaking of trades that benefit our side, we really crushed it in the political cross-overs portal this time around! We picked up Joe Rogan, Elon, Tulsi and RFK Jr., and we were able to dump Cryin’ Adam Kinzinger, Bill Kristol, David French, and several Cheney draft choices to be named later.
In my evaluation of Trump’s early picks last week, I mentioned that Matt Gaetz is the only one I didn’t like. But then I heard that when his AG nomination was announced, people in the CNN hallways were crying and hugging each other — which makes me wonder whether I’ve been too hasty. But even if he doesn’t make it through confirmation, we’ll always have blubbering CNN staffers to thank him for!
Okay, let’s move on from lefties reaping the whirlwind – which makes me happy – to signals about Trump’s next moves, which make me even happier. I’m so glad that Trump is actually going to try to use DOGE to eliminate government departments. As a career academic, I LOVE that the Department of Education seems to be first on the chopping block.
I know that there will be a lot of push-back, though. Too many people have been conditioned to believe that cutting a department or its budget means harming whatever that department supposedly protects: cutting the EPA means our environment will be harmed; cutting OSHA will mean workers getting mangled; cutting Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms means that our children will be packing heat while chain-smoking and binge drinking.
Similarly, too many people will hear, “cut the Department of Education” and will think, “they’re cutting education!” We will need a smart, disciplined educational push (ironically) to ease low-info voters’ minds about it.
We can start by laying out the history – the Ed department wasn’t set up by George Washington in 1776, but by Jimmy Carter in 1979 – and then roll out the statistics. I just did a little bit of research (it’s a cliché because it’s true: Simpsons are working dogs, not show dogs) and found the following info, which I suggest we use in a video presentation.
It should start with a slow, circling drone shot of a gigantic building, with a voice-over from Clint Eastwood: “This is the LBJ Department of Education Headquarters in Washington, DC. It is 7 stories tall, and contains 643,000 square feet, but zero classrooms. Of the 4,147 departmental employees, 2900 work in this building. None of them are classroom teachers.”
“The average salary in the department is $137,881, which is almost 200% higher than the average American worker’s salary. So the total salaries of those employees are over half a billion dollars a year, not counting benefits and pensions. The tax dollars paid to the bureaucrats in this one building alone totals almost $400 million.”
Then we could go into the bigger picture. Every state already has its own educational authority that is responsible to the state’s citizens. The public has input and control over budgets, and what books can be bought and used, and whether there are charter, magnet or private schools, and homeschooling. There are also county and local boards of education.
If the parents in San Francisco want to spend CA taxpayers’ money on gay porn in the library and drag queen story hour, they can. If taxpayers in NYC want to take money away from standard English instruction and redirect it to teaching in Hmong and Urdu and 37 other languages, they can. But if you live in a rational state, they shouldn’t dictate that to you. And they don’t.
So if we already have 50 states with state- and locally controlled schools, why do we need another layer of bureaucrats at the federal level?
The presentation could end with a variation on the excellent, “Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?” gambit:
“Before Jimmy Carter, there was no federal department of education. Back then, X percent of American kids could do math or read at grade level. Now we spend 5X as much money as we did then, but X-minus-47% of American kids are performing at grade level. Back then American kids ranked in the top 10 of all nations’ children. Today we are 126th. Our kids do worse than the Micronesians, the Macronesians, the Javanese, and the Guam-bats, all of whom spend an average of two chickens and a bag of brown rice per capita per annum on their children’s education.”
“Can we honestly say that our kids are getting a better education today than they were 50 years ago, or that we’re getting a good ROI for the billions we are spending?”
Then the lights could come up in a House conference room, where Jim Jordan and Josh Hawley would face a line-up of five edu-crats whose attendance was compelled by subpoenas. You know what they’d look like: sweaty and shifty, with unnatural hair colors and multiple piercings, sitting behind name plates listing their worthless degrees, inflated titles, and idiotic pronouns (including “Huh?” and a shrug emoji).
None of them could make a cogent defense, and they’d all end up babbling about patriarchy and systemic racism and white nationalism. And 89% of the public would approve the elimination of the federal Department of Education the following week.
Finally, I’d love to see the new administration move on the following three ideas, and I am seriously requesting anybody in CO nation with legal or governmental experience to comment on whether and/or how these might be accomplished:
1. I’d like to see a strong push for national voting standards – for elections of president, senators and House members — including mandatory voter ID and election integrity safeguards, much more limited mail-in ballots, no more ballot harvesting or unsupervised drop boxes, etc. Could that be done, and if so, would it require a constitutional amendment, or what?
2. I’d also like to see Trump use the power of the purse or federal law to end the practice of creating sanctuary cities or states. Many blue states/cities are pledging to resist deportation efforts by ICE, and to shelter illegals. Can they legally do that? If so, could Trump and Congress impose financial sanctions on them – cutting off federal funds of various types (social services, education, welfare, etc.) until and unless the cities comply? Could Congress go through the courts (up to the SCOTUS) to force compliance, or would it take a constitutional amendment?
3. I’d also love to see birthright citizenship ended. I know that this one is probably a pipe dream, but I think it would be popular, especially after the last 4 years of outrageously open borders.
My understanding is that automatic birthright citizenship was pretty much assumed in our country’s first century, for logical reasons: we occupied an enormous continent, and growing our small population was an important goal, so anyone born here was automatically granted citizenship.
After the Civil War, the 14th amendment formally granted birthright citizenship to those born here as a way to ensure that former slaves would automatically be citizens. But there were always exceptions, such as that children born on US soil to diplomats from other countries were not given citizenship.
Especially in the last 50 years or so, as we’ve had a growing number of illegal immigrants – and a profligate welfare system that incentivizes them – it seems increasingly stupid for us to continue to grant birthright citizenship to anyone born to people who are here illegally. That’s obviously drawn pregnant illegals to cross the border and give birth to “anchor babies,” who are then used to bring over whole families through chain migration.
That practice also gives the opportunity to bad-faith lefties like AOC et. al. to wail about “family separation” that would result if we deported the illegal parents while allowing the citizen/infants to stay. Common sense would suggest that we end the practice, thus removing a huge incentive for illegals to risk coming here during late pregnancy.
Does anyone in CO nation know whether or how we could attempt to end birthright citizenship?
Even though I’m only a lowly Roving Correspondent, can I suggest that CO could put up a post on these last 3 topics to start the discussion for anyone who is interested?
Hamas delenda est!
Martin Simpson 