I have a feeling the 2020 election will be the most revealing and provocative event this nation has witnessed since the 1860s.

Republicans and Democrats both claim to know exactly what the majority of Americans want and what the United States is supposed to mean to its citizens and the world. There are major differences in how the politicians from both sides of the aisle view the issues and there seems to be no wiggle room for negotiations since the divides are so wide.

Everyone knows what the left wants. They won’t shut up about it. The left doesn’t know what the right wants because while Republican politicians may speak up, normal, conservative citizens on the right stay quiet. This was demonstrated by how big a surprise Hillary’s 2016 loss was.

I’m drawing no conclusions nor making any forecasts regarding how the 2020 election might go; but I think it will have a resounding impact…and maybe not a peaceful one.

Liberal progressives don’t care what the public wants.  It is their mission to try to change what the public wants to what the liberal progressives want the public to want. In other words, “We love fried beef liver. We don’t care if you don’t like it. We’re going to make you love it, too.”

Alexandria Ocasio Cortez put it this way, “That public ‘whatever’ is called sentiment. And wielding the power to shift it is how we actually achieve meaningful change in this country.”

This quote derives from a disagreement with Nancy Pelosi over whether traditional TV ads, or social media are more effective in trying to bamboozle the public.

Once again we see liberal progressives in their never-ending quest to manipulate human nature. Whenever this has been tried (and it’s been tried constantly since the stone age), it has always ended in miserable failure.

Einstein’s definition of insanity: “doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.”

On July 4th, Ridgecrest, California experienced an earthquake which measured 6.1 on the Richter scale. This was followed by over 100 aftershocks. On July 5th, the same area of southern California experienced another, even stronger quake measuring 7.1 on the Richter scale. More strong aftershocks followed and will continue for some time. There were fires, damage to roadways and some injuries.

I try to stay away from prognostication. I don’t claim to be able to foretell the future; but if I were to try to do so, I would expect California governor, Gavin Newsom, to ban earthquakes altogether. I think the legislature would easily ratify Newsom’s declaration and quickly pass a bill creating a new law.

Californian’s will not be allowed to have an earthquake. Henceforth, it will be illegal to import earthquakes from any other state or nation without a special permit. These permits would be issued by lottery and limited to applicants who submit haikus written to berate and demonize the National Rifle Association. The haikus will be submitted to and be  judged by philosophy students attending U.C. Berkeley.

The  biased label “earthquake” will be deemed inappropriate and hateful language and will be stricken from public and official discourse. Use of the “E” word will no longer be tolerated and will be justifiable cause for termination from employment and subject to a $250,000.00 fine and/or 36 months in jail.  It shall be replaced by the more appropriate and politically correct term, “temblor”. The non-word “tremblor” may continue to be used by those in the news media because they don’t know any better.

In the event a temblor purposely enters California illegally, with full understanding of the law, it will be immediately entitled to issuance of a California driver’s license and full, free  healthcare benefits as well as protections from its feelings being hurt by the threat of deportation until it has completed its damage. At this point, it will be able to vote and run for public office.

I know there are some prejudiced folks out there who will consider this legislation to be absolutely ridiculous, but those haters mustn’t forget that California will be the first state in the nation to enact this law and will continue to lead the nation with this type of progressive policies . That is, after all, the most important thing.

Quoting Californian, Nancy Pelosi on similar legislation, “We have to pass the bill in order for you to find out what’s in it, away from the fog of controversy.”

I watched some video of the recent protests in Portland, Oregon in which the Rose City Antifa group clashed with the Proud Boys. A number of people were injured, including police officers and a journalist.

People who have legitimate points to be made must stand up to be counted. People with the slightest amount of integrity must do the same. As I watched a right leaning journalist, Andy Ngo, peacefully walking away from the left leaning Antifa people, hiding their identities behind kerchiefs, who had allegedly punched him and who were pelting him from behind with so called “milk shakes”, I saw no legitimacy nor integrity. What I saw were lowly cowards.

Left leaning groups supposedly espouse peace and fairness. Those qualities were absent in the video. Nobody attempted to come to Ngo’s defense nor tried to defuse the situation or mitigate the attack. Ngo simply waked along, absorbing the physical abuse. He didn’t even try to, nor could he defend himself.

The media is happy to offer the video for public consumption with the explanation of why Antifa is upset. They are happy to point out the fact that the Proud Boys is a group that has been labelled by left leaning groups as a hate group. They don’t view Antifa as a hate group.

As of this posting, I understand three people who were allegedly involved in the protest have been arrested. According to the report, it is unknown whether the people arrested belong to the Proud Boys group or the Antifa group. I have my own guess. It also didn’t indicate whether they had any involvement with the sniveling attack on Ngo.

Speaking from what I believe is the viewpoint of noble intentions and valor, I believe any point the Rose City Antifa group was trying to make is completely void and each person found guilty of participating in the attack upon Ngo should be sentenced in a court of law to a public caning. Is that unfair?

As another presidential campaign season begins, the liberals are back at it. They are attempting to lure as many people as possible onto their MAGIC CARPET, promising them they will pilot that rug to A LAND WHERE SUFFERING DOESN’T EXIST.

There are two basic things standing in their way to ultimate success and neither is Trump.

Can you guess what the two reasons are?

When Democrats threaten increased gun control, the sales of guns skyrocket. When Republicans threaten to strengthen border enforcement, illegal immigration skyrockets.

Question: Can this type of behavior be predicted?

Answer: No and yes. People who believe human nature can be changed or manipulated don’t understand human nature. These folks end up surprised by what those who do understand human nature find obvious and completely predictable.

Actress, Julia Roberts, recently made a comment about being in the cast of the movie “Pretty Woman”. She said she “had no business being in a movie like that.” I think many people would agree with her; but we must remember that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

I just noticed a headline article on my homepage of MSN. It was all about how Obama “rocked” a leather jacket as he attended game 2 of the NBA finals. This is obviously important news otherwise it wouldn’t be a headline.

On a related subject: Are we really sure we’re ready to relinquish our personal responsibilities to a benevolent government so rabidly willing to take on the job? Do we have so little time to handle our own affairs because we are busy being guided by childish news editors into becoming absorbed by what former presidents wear to sporting events and to consider it worthy of important notice and commentary? If that is our decision, it will mean our lives and personal decisions will be ruled by a committee of power hungry strangers, almost all of whom couldn’t give a rat’s ass about what we actually think.

I recently watched a college commencement address given by Ronald Reagan in the early 90s. Reagan noted that adversarial nations/states didn’t fear any of the economic or charitable accomplishments of the U.S. and were only impressed with our military might. Reagan spoke a simple, historically proven fact. During Reagan’s life, the idea of exceeding the average was the ideal. This concept has been replaced by something else.

While it is true in a perfect world everyone would be equal, we are not. There are people who excel at certain things and are not as talented in other areas. That is diversity. The currently accepted concept of diversity is one in which different areas of endeavor are populated according to population ratios. In other words, if women comprise 51% of the nation’s population, 51% of congressional seats should be held by women. If blacks comprise 19% of the population, 19% of prison inmate populations should be black. There is a push to accomplish this. The push comes in the form of not holding people fully responsible for their misbehaviors. This push is not only unfair and poorly thought out, it is a direct road to weakness. I know this opinion  will sound both racist and sexist to many who’ve been indoctrinated into a skewed concept of fairness. It will not to  honorable people who have self respect and pride in their own efforts and merits.

If a robber enters a bank and robs it, is it wrong? If a robber accosts and robs an individual at an ATM machine, is it less wrong? Should that wrongness be quantified or can we agree both are very wrong?

If a college bases its admission policy solely on skin color, is it wrong? If a college bases its admissions policy on Affirmative Action directives  in denying more qualified students admission due to their skin color, is it less wrong? If a fire department bases its hiring policy upon sex, is it wrong? If a fire department bases its hiring policy partially on sex, is it less wrong? In an attempt to give advantage to some disadvantaged folks, basing policies upon sex and race are sexist and racist and are, therefore, biased. No amount of rationalizing circumvents that simple fact. The effects of the policies, if not intentional,  weaken our society.

Now, we must add a different concept to the mix. Will we be deciding to promote a diversity policy, by way of population ratio, how many drag queens are required to be employed as teachers in publically funded schools; or should we protest until a certain percentile of Boy Scout leaders nix practicing outdoor survival skills in favor of interior design? And how are the children to react if some teachers or scout leaders decide to behave and demand to be addressed as a different gender, if that’s what makes them feel fulfilled? The scouts should be sensitive to this, but the LGBTQ community has no requirement to show the same sensitivity in return.

In order to allow inclusion and to promote diversity, requirements for both physical and educational standards have been lowered. These policies are diametrically opposed to maintaining a strong and robust society and are, therefore, illogical in the minds of people whose goals are to assure safe, secure and competitive nation.

In our efforts to protect the feelings of youngsters, we adopted a “nobody is a loser” policy in which all participants in certain sports and other competitions receive trophies simply for having participated. What a shamefully low bar to set for youngsters to learn and appreciate the efforts and talents required for success in the real world. The aim is to keep kids’ feelings from getting hurt. It may work in the short run, but who is considering how do the actual achievers, who have put in extra effort, feel? The “nobody is a loser” policy does children a great disservice by denying them the opportunity to experience failure. This, while failure is the greatest teacher of direction toward success. The “No child left behind” policy, as it is currently practiced, is equally antithetical to a child’s future happiness.

Ronald Reagan would be disgusted in the way the national mores have changed. He would be sickened by the self-serving policies designed to entrap youngsters into believing that little is expected of them; that others will do for them that which they could and should be doing for themselves, and looking forward to growing into morons like the people who put these policies in place. These morons want neophyte 16 year olds to be able to vote to help perpetuate this farce. I think there are more people who think like Reagan than is openly known. When these people, who think like Reagan, don’t express their opinions more often than on election day, the morons are deceived into believing they hold the majority opinion. This is dangerous because it leads to a divided and weakened  society as we are experiencing today.

There’s an old saying, “If it ain’t broke…don’t fix it.” These are wise words derived from experience. There is another old saying, “Experience is the best teacher.” These are adages, the meanings of which are completely alien to liberal progressive Democrats and other  pubescents.

In the same way youngsters balk at their parents’ rules designed to keep the kids safe and guide them toward success, liberal America maintains its constant and alarmingly successful war against common sense. They believe change is good in and of itself.

Things in the world are always in flux. Change is constant. Some change is clearly beneficial. Other changes are idiotic. For example: Changes which result in consequences directly opposite from the original aims are stupid.

Stupid changes have their genesis in the employment of rationalization. Rationalization is completely separate from rational thought. Where rational thought attempts to follow a concept from point “A” to point “Z”, and attempts to determine a logical outcome; rationalization often doesn’t quite get to “B” before it falls apart. Imagine you are building a railroad stretching from San Francisco to New York City. Imagine you pick and choose where to lay down track and don’t install any in Wyoming and Ohio because you’ve never been to Wyoming or Ohio. If you hop on the train in California, will you get to your destination at Penn Station in Manhattan? According to liberals, you will. Don’t worry about it.

Some of the liberal policies which reside along that route are as follows:

The welfare system was originally designed to help people who were out of work due to “The Great Depression”. Franklin Delano Roosevelt started this idea with all the best intentions. As liberals continued its redesign, the result is more people in need of assistance.

Liberals hate guns because guns kill people. This idea assumes that guns can think. That guns are evil. The fact is that guns are simply tools. People kill people and if people want to do that, a lack of guns won’t stand in their way. This was discovered in England after banning guns. The murders are now committed in other ways without a reduction in homicides. Chicago has some of the strongest gun restrictions in the nation and one of the highest rates of gun related murders. These crimes have nothing to do with the guns. They are committed by people who know they will be championed by liberal politicians and judges not have to pay the full price for their crimes.

Liberal California decided to deny suspension of students for disruptive behaviors in class and direct disobedience of school staff, teachers and principles. It didn’t take long for students at Bear Creek High School to riot and throw a garbage can at law enforcement officers during the fracas. The reasoning behind not suspending students is the belief that doing so would give the students unsupervised vacations. Liberals believe it takes a village to raise a child and therefore the government (in this case the school) is better qualified to assume the role of responsible parent than the parent is. It is the goal of liberals to control the private lives of citizens via the elimination of personal responsibilities. This is very attractive to those raised in such a culture.

The goal of liberals is to systematically change our culture to one in which the pubescent is in control. They want the rules to be determined by the least experienced. They want to not only alleviate, but to deny people of their own personal responsibilities and consequences of misbehavior.

Rowe vs. Wade was originally passed with the idea that women who were raped or were involved in incest should not be forced to give birth to a child conceived in such a way. It has since evolved into a societal form of mass genocide. The goal of sex without consequence was reached.

Politicians, by nature, desire to be powerful individuals. They want to be famous. Those politicians who espouse the most time tested and successful policies are called conservatives. Conservatives wish to maintain the successful portion of the status quo. Politicians who espouse policies of historic failure cast the bait of “Cake and Circus” toward ignorant youth and lowest achieving citizens (and non-citizens), hook them and reel them in to being the majority of their constituents. “Cake and Circus” is defined as “Free food and entertainment”. Liberals label their policies “progressive”. This is a misnomer because their policies simply regress to previous failed policies. The democracy which was ancient Rome was famous for their “cake and circus”. As it must, that society collapsed.

Societies are most robust when individual veracity, honor and bravery are held in high esteem. These are qualities despised within the liberal community because they gum up the gears of their political machine. The ultimate success of the liberal machine spells the collapse of a society.

What can be done to prevent this collapse? History proves the moral values of a cultures swing like a pendulum. It never stops. The liberals will continue to fix the unbroken until our society violently collapses. This is inevitable. After the pain, bloodshed and slavery that always occurs during transition  (remember the power given to the youth of Nazi Germany? Cambodia/Kampuchea?), so, too, will come the inevitable recognition of what went wrong. That’s when the pendulum will begin to swing the other way.

Senator Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D. N.Y.) just determined that cauliflower is a racist vegetable. Keep that in mind the next time you, as an adult, are tempted to think liberals shouldn’t be in control.