The left has introduced a new buzzword into the American vocabulary; Equity. They chose this word very carefully, as they aways do. It sounds so much like equality, and gives a vibe of fairness, so the average American has been taken unaware. Today we are going to dive into the meaning of equity, the differences between the terms, and the ramifications of our society embracing this new term. We believe that after reading this article, you will want nothing to do with this agenda.
Where did Equity come from?
When addressing a new concept and agenda like equity, one must at least ask themself 'why people would embrace it?' What in our nation's history has led us to this point? It is no secret that there are American's, members of our society, who have not been treated equal. A basic survey of American History screams of the injustices that were inflicted upon Native Americans and Black Americans; slavery, Jim Crow, and more. These are Americans who suffered and worked and did not get to experience Equality for decades. It is out of this frustration that many would embrace the concept of Equity; wanting their fair share that has been denied them and their ancestors for 200 years.
Selling a concept like equity to many of these people is like shooting fish in a barrel. But we must also realize that oversimplified ideas and solutions are often more dangerous than productive. Equity is no different. Equity involves every individual receiving the same result despite ability or effort. If you have not already realized it, this is nothing more than a new word for communism. It is marxism rebranded to target a modern audience.
Why is Equality Better?
Equality on the other hand is as American as Freedom, and Open Markets. It is the ability to live life with no artificially imposed limitations on your ability to achieve your potential. Think about that for a moment. Equality means that if you are a person with an idea or talent, that you are able to achieve whatever level of success, fame and wealth that you work to achieve based on the merits of the idea or talent. So if you are an amazing athlete, and you work hard, no one will limit how far you can go simply because of your sex, race, name, hair color, etc. The only limiting factors are your ability and effort.
This applies to Sports, Music, Writing, Science... every area of life. No one is guarranteed the same outcome, as each talent and idea is valued differently by society. But each person according to their ability and effort is able to maximize their potential and make the best life possible for themselves. Unfortunately there will be people who lack effort, or who do not ever find or develop their gifts, and therefor do not achieve their maximum potential. There will be others who have unfortunate circumstances beyond their control, such as illness or injury, for whom life will be more difficult. This is where charity comes in, but that is the subject of another article. This article will focus solely on equity vs equality of able bodied individuals.
Why if Equity Bad?
Anyone who is honest has to admit that if given a choice of anywhere to be born and any any time to be born in human history would choose today in the USA. We have the highest standard of living and the most freedom of any human that has ever lived. The poorest in America still live at a significantly higher standard than the majority of people on Earth. Every American has unlimitted potential to raise their own standard of living, and the freedom to choose what to do with it and where to live. We enjoy freedom of speech not known in the vast majority of countries. This is why so many people leave their homelands to come here, but so few leave here to go abroad.
What gives us this standard of living is open markets. The best ideas rise to the top and those who come up with them, and successfully impliment them, benefit financially from their work. It is these free market opportunities that lead to the innovations that constantly raise the quality of life of all people. People risk all that they have to pursue new ideas and methods because of the potential financial rewards that lie ahead. Every person's risk aversion is different, but people make concious decisions to take these risks based of the enormous rewards they could achieve. People without ideas of their own risk their financial resources to invest in other people's ideas with the expectation of financial rewards. That is how many ideas get off the ground despite those with the ideas having limited financial resources of their own.
Once you take way the possibility of becoming rich from these risks, people will make the simple decision not to take the risk, and ALL people will lose out on the benefits that these products and ideas would bring to society. Who wants to live in a world where there is no innovation or advancements? Not me.
Our liberal friends will now argue that that is where government is to step in. But as most of us recognized through Covid, the governement is not the source of the best ideas. We saw politicians making power grabs, locking down cities and states, destroying businesses and ultimately our entire economy; mistakes from which we are still suffering. The problem with us depending on the central governement for ideas is that ideas come top down from a limited number of people; people who all think they are the smartest people in the room. Therefor the ideas are limited to a small number of people and are limited by how intelligent and creative those people really are.
I hate to break it to you, but the overwhelming number of our elected officials are not very smart or creative. They are just clever and connected and have agreed to vote along party lines to retain their positions of power. If we need to depend on them for the best possible ideas and solutions to our problems, we will be going without. In contrast to top down solutions from elected officials, the much more efficient and productive solutions occur in the free markets. If information (not propoganda) is shared with the masses, ideas will arise. Many different individuals will come up with ideas for solving the current problems, people will see those solutions and decide which ones they agree with, and the best ideas and solutions will rise to the top, while the worst will go away. The businesses with the best and safest ways of serving customers during Covid will thrive, others will then copy them, making the best ideas the standard while the worst will close their doors. This is in direct contrast to the government deciding who should open or close and creating their own mandates. If the free markets were allowed to function, I believe we would have seen even more innovation during Covid that would have bettered all of our lives, and hurt fewer businesses and individuals.
Is Equity Even Possible?
If we look at our economy, there are people of all economic levels. There are the very poor, the lower income, middle income, upper middle income, the wealthy and the Elites. The wealthy are those who have accumulated significant wealth based on free markets. The upper middle income and middle income people are those who have made very good lives for themselves through performing dangerous, difficult or highly specialized jobs that required extensive education, experience or training. These people made the sacrifices necessary to achieve these levels because of the potential of a better than average life. Once you take away that potential, and guarrantee everyone the same outcome, people will not make the sacrifices necessary to be able to perform these occupations. And again, all of society will suffer because we have less skilled doctors, scientists, etc.
Beyond this basic concept is the simple fact that everyone can not be rich. We do not live in a utopian society. No utopia exists or has ever existed on planet Earth. Therefor it is impossible to guarrantee that every person will work their hardest without free market motivations so that supply is great enough for everyone to experience no lack of want. We will naturally have a limited amount of resources that must be divided by everyone in that society, and the only way to divide it is by money or wealth. People accumulate resources as a reward for producing more resources than others. Those who do not produce, do not share equally in the available resources.
With that understanding, if marxists are able to artificially divide every available resource equally, it is a basic law of nature that each person who does produce a high amount of resources will be given less resources than what they could otherwise earn in the free market. So it is impossible for equity to make everyone rich. It is only possible for equity to make everyone equally poor.
But there is one caveat: None of these rules apply to the Elites. The rules never apply to the Elites. In fact, the equity agenda benefits the Elites even more than open markets do because the equity agenda (marxism) prevents any of the ordinary people (the masses) from ever being able to rise up to the level of the Elite ruling class. Equity is a lie promulgated by the Elites to prevent us from competing with them in the free markets. Stop believing the lies. We'd love to see your comments.
Does anyone ever wonder why billionaires who made their fortunes via some of the most cut throat capitalistic manuevers in history fund and throw their names behind the indoctrination of America's youth by the Modern Liberal Socialist/Marxist Movement? Did all of their amassed wealth and power suddenly enlighten them to the needs of the masses, and the evils of capitalism? Are they now paying penance for their sins in hopes of forgiveness?
The answer to the last two questions is a very simple one: NO. They neither feel any remorse for what they have done to accumulate their wealth, nor have any interest in that wealth shrinking. This leads us to the answer for the first question: They are funding this agenda because the agenda does not only pose no risk to their wealth, but rather will act as the greatest protector of their wealth.
Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos were not born rich. They each came from rather ordinary backgrounds. What sets them apart is that each of them was able to turn an idea into a bohemoth corporation that created tremendous wealth for themselves and others. They relentlessly competed with others until they came out on top, amassing great fortunes and the power that comes with them.
These are not stupid men. They know that there are many future and potential Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerbergs and Jeff Bezos out there, and that their ideas have the potential to rival or even replace theirs. Competition is out there and old lions DO NOT want to fight if they don't have to. That is where the agenda of the useful idiots comes in. There are people out there in education, media and entertainment who believe capitalism and competition are bad, and that socialism and marxism will save them. And they are actively pushing their agenda on our youth. Their problem is that they need funding, and capitalists normally don't fund anti-capitalist agendas because doing so is typically counterproductive.
But that is not the case for the ultra rich; those who we would refer to as Elites. Elites exist in every form of government and economy. They are the ones at the top who hold all the power. The primary goal of the Elites is always to maintain their own power, which ensures that they and their families will never have to abide by the rules and conditions that the masses endure. Once one becomes an Elite, the form of government or economy in place does not matter as long as they are allowed to remain an Elite. And in fact, the less competitive the economy becomes, and the less upward mobility that is present, the better it actually is for the Elites. This is why the Elites would spend millions of dollars funding the spread of anti capitalism indoctrination in our youth. That funding is the equivolent of an insurance policy for the Elites.
An insurance policy? you ask. Yes. knowing that there are future Bill Gates out there, and that you have much to lose if their idea is superior to yours, your best option for winning the competition long term is to convince all possible future competitors that the competition itself is inherantly bad, and should be avoided. If you can get hundreds of millions of people to hate capitalism before they embrace its potential in their lives, you have greatly decreased your exposure to a competitor who could dethrone you. If you are Jeff Bezos, you do not care if everyone below you earns meager wages as long as they are all making their purchases through your website. But if just one person comes up with a better system and gets traction, you have trucks and giant distribution centers all over the country that would hang around your neck like a millstone and take you out. Similarly, Mark Zuckerberg remembers MySpace. He is the kid that took them down, so he needs to make sure no college kid comes along with the replacement for FaceBook.
Capitalism is the engine that drives human advancement. The ability to elevate ones own station in life simply by coming up with a better idea; an idea that benefits all of humanity, is at the very core of what it is to be free and to be an American. It is what drives so many people to leave their homeland and migrate to America; the persuit of a better life. Unfortunately there are far too many now in our country who are trying to change that out of ignorance, and are being funded by the uber-rich who are doing so out of pure selfishness. Now that they have won their battles, and are at the top of the mountain, they are so desperate to cling to their power and wealth, that they are willing to deprive all others of that opportunity to reach their potential. And even more sinister than that, they are willing to deprive all of humanity of the possible advancements that still lie ahead, dormant in the minds of this next generation. If they can keep those potential lions from ever entering the market, they can protect their wealth and power for themselves and their children, no matter what the overall effect is on humanity.
Stop believing their lies. If they really believed in socialism/marxism, they would give away all of their wealth and live like you and I. But we all know that is never going to happen.
Disclaimer: I am a Mugwump, a politically homeless conservative. Generally speaking, I view the world through the lens of issues vs. partisanship. I am objective, unhappy with "Republicans" as a whole but will NEVER EVER play for other team, Democrats.
The purpose of my research into the City of Detroit 2020 Election Results was to approach the data and analysis from an objective and unbiased perspective. Granted, deep down inside I was partially motivated by wanting to uncover voting irregularities and/or anomalies. Many conservatives believe there is a smoking gun, where is this smoking gun?
This article is a lengthy read, I would certainly appreciate if you read the whole article but for those that are limited on time or simply would like a Cliff Notes version, I have summarized observations, conclusions, and some recommendations below.
Observations & Conclusions
Comparing 2016 vs. 2020 popular election there is no proof, or smoking gun, of irregularities and/or anomalies in the city of Detroit.
Election data including Population, Total Eligible Voters, Registered Voters, Ballots Cast, Percentage Democrat vs. Republican in Detroit has been extremely consistent over 4 election cycles; 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020. The consistency is well within the reach of any standards of deviation.
Election data is easily and publicly accessible for elections from 2008 to 2020.
Prior to 2008, election data is not publicly accessible via the internet.
For presidential elections from 2008-2020, the city of Detroit has voted for Democratic candidates at a rate between 93-97% (97.87% to be exact).
In 2008 Detroit voted 97.87% for Democratic candidate Barack Obama and 97.53% for Democratic candidate Barack Obama in 2012. OPINION: This is problematic.
For presidential election from 2008-2020, the city of Detroit has voted for Republican candidates at a rate between 1-5%. OPINION: This is problematic.
Considering all cities in the US with a population of greater than 500,000, Detroit has the biggest spread between percentage of Democrat vs. Republican, the closest city I have researched is 80/20 (NOTE: This is partially anecdotal, I have analyzed data from Chicago, Los Angeles, Atlanta, and Memphis but not yet other big cities).
The same city clerk, Janice Winfrey, in Detroit has been responsible for all elections from 2008-2020.
Considering 2020 election results, once again, there are no irregularities or anomalies in relation to ANY election across 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020, THOUGH over the course of 4 elections a 93/97 to 1/5 Democrat vs. Republican spread is in comparison to other big cities is an anomaly.
Considering the fact that Janice Winfrey has been responsible for all elections from 2008-2020 and there are what may be considered anomalies compared to other cities, a comparison of 2000 and 2004 election data vs 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2020 would provide more context into the history of presidential voting in Detroit.
Here is a copy of a paragraph from the end of this article;
The sidebar narrative regarding the Detroit City Clerk, in context, may or may not be significant to the conversation of election improprieties. Given that the results for all general elections (2008, 2012, 2016, 2020) since the current City Clerk have had very consistent results. All presidential general election results between 2008 and 2020 fall within the range of 95-98% for Democrats and 1.5-5% for Republicans. Myself, I would certainly like to know the results, the data, the margins, and the spread for the elections BEFORE the current city clerk took office, i.e. 2000 and 2004. IF there is a lack of consistency between 2008-2020 vs. 2000-2004, than I firmly believe and would advocate for a MAJOR investigation into the City of Detroit Clerk's Office. Likewise, IF there is consistency between 2008-2020 vs. 2000-2004, than I would conclude Detroit is a Democrat bastion and that Republicans have historically ignored, neglected, and/or written off.
A Moral Dilemma
I shared my results with a handful of trusted friends and intellectuals across the political spectrum.
The general response from my left-of-center friends was; "I told you so, it's been a nothing burger since day one."
No offense to my left-of-center friends there are irregularities, anomalies, and levels of fraud during EVERY election. The goal and objective of every American I believe should; A) be aware of irregularities, and B) to have an interest and stake in understanding the scope and depth of these issues.
The general response from my right-of-center friends was (believe it or not); "That's great, but how are you going to make money with this?"
No offense to any of my right-of-center friends, I put time into this analysis without bias and without any consideration of monetizing the effort. I am just a concerned citizen with an appetite for truth. If my research proved to be a smoking gun, I would surmise that they would be more interested in distributing this information than someone being compensated for research that does not support a party line.
The moral dilemma here is that as small of an influence as I am in the grand scheme of the world and society as a whole, this research may empower the left-of-center argument, "I told you there is no evidence of fraud."
Who do I share these conclusions with? I finally came to realization if I want to be true to the world and myself, it's best to simply publish the findings especially since I have 100% confidence in my analysis.
This moral dilemma was mentally and emotionally mitigated, at least partially, by a Supreme Court ruling (or what's legally called a Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint) for the State of Texas vs. States of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin regarding absentee ballot voter fraud (CLICK HERE TO READ THE SUPREME COURT RULING). I was not aware of the Supreme Court's ruling prior to my research, I only became aware of it after I finished my research. The Supreme Court ruling was eerily similar to my independent results and conclusions, albeit the courts ruling was written in legalese where as mine is written from more technicalese.
FROM THE RULING: "The statistics hold true for the increase in Presidential Election Votes as a Percentage of 2016 Votes—Detroit increase: 3.5%. When compared to 2016, President Trump gained a higher percentage of votes in Detroit in 2020, with Trump receiving 3.1% of the vote in 2016 and 5.0% in 2020."
State of Texas vs. States of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin
CONCLUSION - If there was voter fraud in the city of Detroit in the 2020 election, there would be an anomalous and/or disproportionate increase in number of votes from 2016 to 2020 in favor of Democrats vs. Republicans. The total increase is number of votes (election day votes plus absentee votes) in 2020 proportionally favored the Republican candidate compared to 2016 for Trump/Pence. They acquired a larger percentage of the vote and the total increase in ballots actually favored the Republican candidate as witnessed by their increase from 3.1% to 5.0% vote share in Detroit with a negligible increase in total ballots cast, 240,936 vs 257,619 for a total of about 16,000 more votes in 2020.
The 2020 General Election
The result of this divide between party lines is very important, because this conversation and controversy is driving policy making decisions, policies in which we all have a vested interest.
Republicans are actively promoting policy changes that are centered on more control, more transparency, and stricter voting rules especially rules as they relate to absentee ballots.
Democrats, on the other hand, are advocating for wider adoption of absentee ballots, larger voting windows (i.e. when absentee ballots can be cast/returned), and overall policies that make it easier for voters to vote.
Michigan, more specifically Detroit, was the center of attention and widespread controversy for the 2020 General Election. Lots of rumors and news coverage of fraud abound still to this day in March 2022, especially on right leaning news sources.
If the basis or widespread voter fraud is, "Just look at the widespread fraud in Detroit?", the data says otherwise, at least on the surface.
Arguments: Objective vs. Subjective vs. Process
Detroit - A Monopoly for the Democrats
I spent the good part of many sleepless nights reviewing and analyzing official Wayne County and the city of Detroit voting data for the 2008, 2012, 2016, and 2020 elections.
Comparing the last two elections, 2016 vs. 2020, the total number of ballots, votes, and percentage of vote (republican vs. democrat) is consistent and well within a range of acceptable deviation. Consistency enough for me as a conservative, and hopefully anyone with common sense, to conclude that even IF there was some improprieties there is simply not enough fuel in the "widespread voter fraudin Detroit" tank to make it to the destination, the destination being that the 2020 Presidential Election results in Michigan are highly suspect.
The image below is a screen capture of the official (signed) 2016 election results from the Wayne County, MI website.
2020 GENERAL ELECTION, CITY OF DETROIT RESULTS SUMMARY
Total Registered Voters - 506,306
Total Ballots Case - 257,619
Total Voter Turnout (Including Absentee) - 50.88%
Biden/Harris Total Votes - 240,936
Biden/Harris Percentage of Vote - 93.93%
Total Trump/Pence Votes - 12,889
Trump/Pence Percentage of Vote - 5.02%
2016 vs. 2020 GENERAL ELECTION, DETROIT RESULTS COMPARISON
Total Registered Voters (2016 vs 2020) - 511,786 vs. 506,306
Total Ballots Case (2016 vs 2020) - 240,936 vs 257,619
Total Voter Turnout (2016 vs. 2020)- 50.88% vs. 48.61%
Democrat Total Votes (2016 vs. 2020) - 234,871 vs. 240,936
Democrat Percentage of Vote (2016 vs. 2020) - 94.95% vs. 93.93%
Total Republican Votes (2016 vs. 2020) - 7,682 vs. 12,889
Republican Percentage of Vote (2016 vs. 2020) - 3.11% vs. 5.02%
2016 vs. 2020 GENERAL ELECTION, QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS & NARRATIVE
Total Registered Voters (2016 vs 2020), 506,306 vs. 511,786 - A 1.1% increase in total registered voters. Two external factors; 1) The population of Detroit has been declining for decades and 2) 2020 activist efforts to get eligible voters to register. In my opinion, the two factors above cancel each other out and in combination with naturally occurring factors such as average population age, etc. provide ample justification for the 1.1% increase in total registered voters.
Total Ballots Cast (2016 vs 2020), 240,936 vs 257,619 - A 3.5% increase in total ballots case. The total increase in number of votes, 3.5%, is within range of expected results given the focus on voter mobilization by left-of-center people, groups, and organizations. The total increase in ballots cast, once again, favored the republican candidates.
Total Voter Turnout (2016 vs. 2020), 50.88% vs. 48.61% - A 1.87% increase in voter turnout is well within an acceptable range of deviation. Once again, there are two external factors; 1) COVID restrictions and lockdowns would result in lower voter turnout is countered by 2) 2020 efforts to get eligible voters to register. Mathematically, a 1.87% increase in voter turnout is well within an acceptable range of deviation from 2016 to 2020 even in the face of COVID restrictions.
Democrat Total Votes (2016 vs. 2020) - 234,871 vs. 240,936 - A 2.5% increase in total Democrat votes. The combination of increase in registered voters and voter turnout justify the increase of total votes.
Democrat Percentage of Vote (2016 vs. 2020) - 94.95% vs. 93.93% - A 1.02% decrease in the percentage of votes. Once again, well within any range of deviation.
Total Republican Votes (2016 vs. 2020) - 7,682 vs. 12,889 - A 67.8% increase in total Republican votes. The combination of increase in registered voters, voter turnout, and proportional amplification (BTW, I made that term up) justify the increase in total votes. NOTE: proportional amplification simply means a relatively large percentage increase or decrease for smaller sample sizes, i.e. if you achieve a 1 vote increase by starting from 1 you have a 100% increase vs. a 1 vote increase by starting from 100 which is a 1% increase.
Republican Percentage of Vote (2016 vs. 2020) - 3.11% vs. 5.02% - A 1.89% increase in the percentage of vote. Once again, well within any accepted range of deviation.
CITY OF DETROIT ELECTION HISTORY AND EXTERNALITIES
A gentle reminder that I am a conservative, albeit an open minded and objective conservative that looks at issues with as little bias as humanly possible. For those not familiar with how the conservative and republican worlds work in 2022, depending how far you stray from the official party line and doctrine, it's VERY easy to outcast a RINO (Republican in Name Only). Certainly, a segment of conservatives and republicans will read this article to be RINO material, so be it!
Okay, given the disclaimer above, I still felt an instinctive drive to dig deeper. There has to be more to this story, after all the entire of my local conservative network (like 100% of them) are convinced there was widespread improprieties.
First of all, speaking strictly proportionally and as a function of percentages, the 2020 election had a greater positive impact on Trump/Pence than it did for Biden/Harris in 2020. A 67% increase in votes for Republicans vs. a 1.02% decrease for Democrats. This comparison is certainly worth mentioning but must be taken as a grain of salt because of the aforementioned proportional amplification.
Given the election results comparison between 2016 and 2020, IF you insist that there was improprieties in 2020 then you have to also put 2016 under the same microscope since 2016 and 2020 results were very similar.
IF you are going to 2016 and 2020 under the same microscope, one of the next logical steps would be to use other comparables, other comparables would be 2012, 2008, 2004, etc. There are publicly available results and data available for both the 2008 and 2012 elections however there is not enough detail and granularity in the publicly available data to provide any apples-to-apples analysis between elections. I could not find any election results or data for 2000 or 2004.
The comps for the 2008 and 2012 General Elections fall inline with 2016 and 2020, the total ballots, votes, and percentages are very similar.
SIDEBAR (NARRATIVE) - Metro Detroit and Michigan conservatives have an ax to grind with the City Clerk in Detroit. The incumbent city clerk, self identified as a non-partisan (for the position of City Clerk she is non-partisan, but certainly not a non-partisan beyond that), recently won their 5th term in 2021 as city clerk having first been elected in 2005. Having been elected to office in 2005, the current City Clerk has administered 4 General Elections (2008, 2012, 2016, 2020).
As rumors circulate, many conservatives will point their finger at the City Clerk as the "wire puller" and democrat puppet behind the scenes coordinating proposed election fraud. There are negative stories in the media about the current City Clerk however none of the stories in circulation have anything to do with voter fraud.
The sidebar narrative regarding the Detroit City Clerk, in context, may or may not be significant to the conversation of election improprieties. Given that the results for all general elections (2008, 2012, 2016, 2020) since the current City Clerk have had very consistent results. All presidential general election results between 2008 and 2020 fall within the range of 95-98% for Democrats and 1.5-5% for Republicans. Myself, I would certainly like to know the results, the data, the margins, and the spread for the elections BEFORE the current city clerk took office, i.e. 2000 and 2004.
DETROIT ELECTIONS, POLITICS & EXTERNALITIES - MY CONCLUSION
#1) My conclusion is that on the surface, in context, and in isolation there are no anomalies or reasons to believe that there was voter fraud with the 2020 election in the city of Detroit.
I am in the middle of researching US cities with populations above 500,000 people, analyzing and reporting on the percentage of vote for Democrats and Republicans. So far, the results and data I have researched have proved that Detroit has, by far, the biggest difference in favor of Democrats vs. Republicans. Please note, capturing data from different states, counties, and cities is EXTREMELY challenging and time consuming as all states, counties, and cities report their data differently. This is a hobby, not a job, so this research will take some time.
If you view the totality of all election results between 2008 and 2020 (not in isolation), one can make the argument that an average 96.5% for Democrat presidential candidates to 2.5% for Republican presidential candidates (the other 1% being for 3rd party candidates), this spread is certainly worth investigation, especially considering that other notorious progressive urban areas and large cities do not come remotely close to matching Detroit's Democratic voting history.
#2) Conservatives and republicans currently and have historically neglected Detroit in terms of campaigning and disseminating their message and platform. Elections are the process (game) of winning votes. Winning votes is partially a function of "Election Economics", meaning making conscious decisions how and where to spend your resources, time, and money. Conservatives and republicans have, by and large, written off major urban areas not worth their resources, time, or money.
Perhaps conservativism is incompatible with urban or big city politics, many people will make that argument. I believe contrary to that belief and that argument, I believe that conservativism is completely compatible with urban area and big city politics. Conservatives and republican candidates have just done a HORRIBLE job of constructing and delivering a message that resonates with urban America. There is a LOT of meat to put on the bones to what I mentioned above, unfortunately that is not in scope for this article (stay tuned?!?!).
The two opposing sides to the debate of voting and election integrity both have merit. I would surmise that everybody, or nearly everybody, agrees with the two following statements:
Voting is a RIGHT not a PRIVILEGE, as a society we should ensure that every single citizen has equal access and opportunity to vote.
Election Integrity is CRITICAL. Election integrity is not just preventing improprieties, it's about continuity of government, it's about confidence in our system, it's about mutual respect.
If we can all, or mostly, agree on the two statements above the challenge then becomes how do you develop policy that satisfies the masses. Unfortunately, the policy making part is what leads to gridlock, friction, political warfare, mudslinging, and name calling.
I truly believe the path forward is TECHNOLOGY, TECHNOLOGY, TECHNOLOGY, specifically blockchain or blockchain-life technology. I also believe we will not witness widespread election technology changes in my lifetime (FYI, I am 50 years d).
Widespread election technology changes will require citizens to understand and trust technology at a much more detailed level. That will just not happen until the citizens are more densely represented by generations of voters that grew up with technology, grew up with a smart phone in their hand.
Right now, older conservatives and their power elites will refuse to engage in discussions about introducing new technology to elections. They will cite Dominion Software, Amazon/AWS, Facebook/Meta, and technology censorship as reasons to not trust technology.
Right now, older progressives and their power elites will seriously resist discussions about introducing new technology to elections. Granted, my guess is that progressives are more willing (way more willing) to engage in discussions, newer technology is decentralized and ultimately flies in the face of concentration of power. More simply stated, decentralized blockchain technology means less power and control at the federal level.
Disclaimer: I am a Mugwump, a politically homeless conservative. Generally speaking, I view the world through the lens of issues vs. partisanship. I am objective, unhappy with "Republicans" as a whole but will NEVER EVER play for other team, Democrats.
For years I avoided Twitter but recently jumped back into the Twitter-Sphere. One immediate observation is that my "leftish" friends/followers are using pronouns in their bio. I knew pronouns was a "thing" but did not thoroughly understand the depths at which gender neutral pronouns have gripped society.
So, I send messages, emails, and even pick up the phone and discuss pronouns with some of my "woke" friends attempting to make some sense of it. To be brutally honest, after 5-6 conversations I had not received an explanation that made much sense to me, or appeased my appetitive to understand why it's such a big "thing". Then, finally an in-person conversation and debate with a progressive friend helped me better understand the "pro" gender neutral position, that is not say it persuaded me at all to change my beliefs, but I now certainly understand the other side of the argument better. That conversation and debate will follow, shortly.
Next step, I jump into the rabbit holes of the internet attempting to make sense of it all. Finally, I find some content, articles, and information that help me better understand pronouns.
As someone that has worked in technology (software developer) and sales/marketing automation for 25 years, I found the linked article below to be helpful in explaining, from a marketing perspective, the intent of pronouns.
In my Neanderthal mind, which my leftish friends like to refer to, here is how I interpret and perceive pronouns, specifically gender neutral pronouns.
Since the beginning of time, mankind has always made the assumption that a person with male body parts is a male (he, him) and female body parts is female (her, she). This assumption according to some is wrong and does not consider a percentage of the population in which this assumption does not apply. The introduction of gender neutral pronouns is a cultural and societal means of which to be more inclusive for the percentage of the population in which traditional pronoun assignment does not apply.
Now that I better understand the raging debate of gender neutral pronouns, I find it a necessity to dig a little bit deeper, actually a LOTTA bit deeper. For me, there are two very serious issues/questions that need to be addressed in this conversation.
Freedom of Speech - At what point does social acceptance and "education" of gender neutral pronouns intrude on Freedom of Speech?
Violating Other People's Rights - Essentially, anything and everything that is ever said will NEVER be 100% received an noble or righteous, inevitably someone will be offended. Do you draw a line, if so where do you draw the line?
I will write more in the future about Freedom of Speech, Hate Speech, and Violating 3rd Party's Rights. For the remainder of this article, I would like to share a real in person debate I had with a friend, a very smart, educated, informed, and passionate progressive (i.e. a self-admitted borderline communist).
A Recent Debate - Conservative vs. Progressive Perspectives
I want to share an exchange and debate, an in-person debate over a cup of tea, with MAWA contributor Beauregard "Bo" Bolshevik about gender identity. Bo is an attorney who has practiced law for 30+ years so these are NOT easy debates, always mutually respectful but never easy.
The conversation was prompted in discussion about the male turned female swimmer Lia Thomas, who is now breaking collegiate records as a female swimmer although they (please note my proper use of gender neutral pronoun here) were born as a male.
I asked Bo; What % of people do you think are trans, or people that struggle with trans identity?
Bo answered 3%.
My response to Bo; the number is far less than 3%, I believe it's closer to 0.1% (1/1000).
The conversation dovetails into the mental and physical conditions that contribute to transgenderism and our conversation focuses specifically on Klinefelter Syndrome, where a biological male is born an extra X chromosome. People with Klinefelter Syndrome have an affinity for transgenderism, an affinity in this case meaning physical, mental, and emotional.
Next, we search for the what rate of males are born with this condition, depending on the study or data you cite the prevalence will fall between 1/500 - 1/700, which is between 0.14% and 0.2%.
For this conversation and debate, we only focused on male-to-female transgenderism. That said, it's a safe assumption, I believe, to assume a relative similar percentage of female-to-male transgenderism, mathematically speaking; IT'S NOT ADDITIVE, IT'S RELATIVE AND PROPORTIONAL.
So, now that we have some REAL numbers to launch a debate from, I ask the question.
Can we agree that people who have transgender tendencies is far closer to 0.1% than 3%, can we assume 0.5% for the sake of this conversation?
Bo agrees, for the sake of this debate and conversation we use 0.5%.
NOTE: Bo and I understand and agreed that there are many other conditions that contribute to transgenderism, therefore we agreed 0.14-0.2% is low, 0.5% was a number we could use as a baseline for the conversation. In the moment, we used 0.5-1% as an acceptable assumed range, even though I believe 1% is high, we both agreed 0.14% is low.
The next question we discuss;
Since the beginning of time, regardless of whether you are for creation or evolution, there have been males and females. Why are we re-engineering society, culture, and mankind to accommodate 0.5% of the population?
Bo's position; "Until recently, humans have never fully considered gender identity. Historically, they always considered gender to whatever the doctor says when a baby is born, 'Congratulations on your baby boy/girl.' What the doctor has done is assigned SEX but not GENDER."
My position; "It's a biological fact that when a baby is born with a penis, they are a boy. When a baby is born with a vagina, it's a girl. Without any physical health complications, that baby boy will grow up with the ability produce offspring as a contributing male, and the baby girl will grow up with the ability to produce offspring as a contributing female."
This is where the debate train derailed! From this point forward we could not find any common ground, once again our frequent conversations are ALWAYS mutually respectful. When Bo and I get to this point we simply agree to disagree.
For me, a Type A, left brained, common sense, issue oriented, conservative, I have to ask the rhetorical question; "Is the world SERIOUS about re-engineering societal norms, history, tradition, etc. for 0.5% of the population?" If ever there is an issue that could or should be extended as a plebiscite, this may be one of those issues. Myself, I would relent to a vote of the masses, a true plebiscite. If my American brothers and sisters voted that indeed gender neutral pronouns along with gender identity is a road we wish to travel, I would not like it but I would follow the law. Likewise, I would hope that people with opposing views would relent to a popular opinion. Is "majority rule" realistic? Unfortunately, not.
Bo and I are friends and do business together, we are mutually respectful, we are not policy makers, and we understand that when we reach a point in a heated debate we better stop because we do not want ideological differences to ruin a long enduring friendship. That said, both Bo's representation (progressives) and my representation (conservatives) have a job to do, and that is to resolve differences and create policy that best reflects the wishes of the American people and THAT IS NOT AN EASY JOB.
Many on the right have questioned the effectiveness off mask requirements and vaccine mandates. I was one of them. But now that the end of the pandemic has suddenly appeared, I must reconsider my stance. It appears that mask requirements and vaccine mandates did bring about the end of the pandemic; not because the scientific evidence supports them, but rather because these two items drove down the democrat polling numbers so low, that the Biden administration and the DNC had to change course immediately in a desperate attempt to save their party heading into the next election.
We all know now, and probably most knew all along, if only in the back of their minds, that masks do not prevent the spread of Covid 19. Cotton masks have been nothing more than bite sized security blankets for NPR and MSNBC viewers, making them feel as though they have some control over a virus that can not be seen or controlled. The science has always shown that anything short of an N-95 mask is useless for preventing the spread of the virus.
But that has not stopped liberal politicians and their minions from requiring their use everywhere for nearly two years. They did however have their benefits. If accomplishing nothing more than helping intelligent people identify who you voted for, and what your mental state is, they also allowed NPR, MSNBC and CNN viewers to venture out into the world during these unstable times without having full on panic attacks.
We can also be quite certain that the politicians who mandated these face diapers, knew all along that they were ineffective, which is why so many of them were caught not wearing theirs. But the effectiveness that they were after was never the prevention of the spread of the virus, but rather the spread of complete panic. Much like instructing school children in the 60's and 70's to take safety under their desks in the event of a nuclear attack, these masks were an instrument for giving the ignorant a feeling of control over their destiny.
As you are reading this, you are asking the logical question: If they wanted to avoid complete panic, why didn't they just change the reporting and not oversell the fear? This is where the balancing act comes in. Democrats NEEDED widespread fear in order to manipulate the masses to win the 2020 election. You can't change voting procedures unless there is the possibility of death all around you. So they needed to keep everyone at DEFCON 1, but then they had to arm those same people with a weapon to defend themselves. And that weapon was the face mask.
I am by no means diminishing the seriousness of Covid-19. I have had more than my share of friends, family and associates get severely ill or die from it. So please do not take this writing as me making light of the virus. I am just shining light on the ludicrous manner in which it has been handled.
I am also not an anti-vaxxer. I had the vaccine, but not enthusiastically. I made a decision based on my health conditions, what I do for a living, and who I am around. But I strongly oppose vaccine mandates because I believe each person should be able to make their own decision whether or not they want the vaccine in their body or their child's body. It is unamerican to force people to do something to their body that they do not want to do.
In the end, both of these stances by the democrats, along with the destruction of our economy via their shutdowns, has led to enough unhappiness by the voting populous that they are now forced to change their direction or face the largest defeat ever seen in American politics this November. The democrats have been following the science all along. Unfortunately, that science has been political science, and as long as enough people were afraid and leaned left for protection, they were able to continue their stranglehold on America. Fortunately for us, that tide has turned. Their poll numbers are at all-time lows, and therefor, no matter what the Covid numbers are, they are declaring the Pandemic over. Stay Safe, and God Bless!
We are O-BLM. We are a quadrennially (sometimes biennially) active for-profit organization who receives the bulk of our income from woke corporations (and those trying to appear woke) during our active years. We then use those accumulated riches to sustain our leadership team and partners during our dormant periods between election cycles because "Our Black Lives Matter." Our black lives include our leadership team as well as white liberal politicians; all who benefit financially from the monetary donations of the previously mentioned corporations.
No one can argue against the three words "Black Lives Matter" because the statement "black lives matter" is absolutely true even if our organization represents a completely different mission. This allows us to soften our image and gain support from people who agree with the statement 'black lives matter', but who would otherwise disagree with what we actually do and teach. Much like planned parenthood, whose actual mission is to PREVENT, not plan, PARENTHOOD, our focus is not on saving thousands of black lives a year, or on improving millions of black lives using time tested and proven solutions like education and the strengthening the nuclear family. Rather, we use tragedies in the black community to anger black voters, shake down corporate donors, and then funnel that cash to radical liberal organizations and democrat political campaigns through our collection agency "Act Blue." In exchange for creating civil unrest, shaking down corporations, and shaming political opponents, we receive a portion of those donations; netting millions of dollars for our leadership team. This has allowed us to each own multiple large scale homes in predominantly white neighborhoods where we can escape the violence and rot that our programs foster in black communities. Because OUR Black Lives matter MORE than yours.
During slavery, white democrats worked tirelessly to break down the black family unit by selling off family members, and making it illegal for slaves to learn to read and write, knowing that a stable and educated nuclear family was a serious threat to their power. For the next hundred years, black people survived thanks to a tight knit culture comprised of church, the nuclear family and HBCU's. In fact, for much of the first hundred years following the civil war, a higher percentage of black babies were born and raised in a two parent household than was seen for white babies. It was these strong community and family bonds that allowed many black people to thrive in black communities and black business districts like Black Wall Street in America despite the horrific racism they faced under Jim Crow.
That all changed in the 60's. We had to rebrand in order to wrestle control of the black vote from the republican party. We quickly learned that government programs were the ticket to OUR prosperity. Our programs have driven down graduation rates, increased the percentage of black babies being born out of wedlock to over 75%, have increased the percentage of black people living in poverty, and have violent crime out of control in black neighborhoods. Breaking down black families and communities, and blaming the problems on our political opponents who do not govern them has been the perfect formula for our sustained success. Just imagine if we ever actually fixed the problems plaguing inner cities... they would no longer need us. That is why we promise solutions that never materialize, and accuse our opponents of trying to take them away. It is pure genius.
How did we do it? Today, we at OBLM promote the false concept of the nuclear family as well as math and other learning being racist in nature. By encouraging black people to make choices that are detrimental to their future success, we ensure their dependence on our government programs and their loyalty to liberal politicians during elections. We have even conditioned many black people to ignore the high numbers of violent crimes in the black community, particularly black on black violent crimes such as murder as racist dog whistles. Calling facts and statistics racist has been highly effective for us in getting people to ignore them.
Imagine if the majority of black citizens knew that less than a dozen unarmed black people a year are killed by police in a country of 350,000,000 people, or that they have a 10 times greater chance of being killed by a random falling object like like a tree branch of a hammer, than of being killed by police while committing a crime. Or that they are 30 times more likely to die from falling out of a chair, or from falling down stairs than they are of being killed by police WHILE committing a crime. And these numbers are based on 'if you are committing a crime.' These numbers change exponentially for the rest of the black population. But that doesn't stop us from promoting the narrative that police are hunting innocent black people.
We can't even imagine what would happen to our movement and our funding if people understood that an innocent black person is more than 5,000 times more likely to be killed by another black person than they are of being killed by a police officer. Our money shot is video on social media or the mainstream media of one of the handful of unarmed black people being shot by police a year. And we use the misperception that seeing something covered extensively on social media is evidence that it is prevalent in society. Even LeBron James has stated publicly that he fears for his life if he is pulled over by police, even though there has never been one famous black person killed by police; only people made famous by being shot or killed.
The trick is that we sell the lie that it is an out of control problem happening every day. Then we have our friends in the media play images over and over when they do happen, so it seems to be everywhere. And we set the bar at a level that is impossible to achieve; absolute perfection by police where zero people are ever killed. By setting this impossible standard, we ensure our own perpetual existence. These images are powerful, and move the average person to action based on their anger. But if people knew that in contrast to the 3 dozen unarmed people of all races each year killed by police, there are over 300,000 innocent people killed by medical malpractice, most people would be commending police for their amazing job performance and throwing bricks at doctors and nurses. But again, we should not point that out and risk taking the focus off defunding the police, and further endangering the lives of people living in predominantly black communities because we need to keep our narrative going, so the money keeps flowing. Because Our Black Lives Matter more than yours.