First, the good news

By now everyone knows the Virginia gun ban bill was defeated — for now. That’s good even though we know they won’t give up on their plans to try to destroy the Second Amendment, or the whole Bill of Rights. But for now it offers a chance to regroup.

Lately it’s impossible not to notice the frenzied state of the left, as they introduce one extreme and totalitarian measure after another. One gets defeated (or wins) and they rush to introduce some other deranged and desperate idea. With their hyperactive scattershot approach to ”change” (that is, destroying the America that was) they are bound to succeed here and there despite their demented behavior.

But the latest craziness they’ve presented is a proposal for mandatory vasectomies for all men over age 50. This is being proposed in Alabama, incidentally, by a female lawmaker, Rolanda Hollis.

Why men over 50? How many children do men over 50 father? Apparently more than the controlling left likes. I do notice that when I search on the subject, a lot of hits come up which assert that older fathers produce unhealthy children, and unhealthy children cost $$$ and we can’t have that — unless the over-50 dads and their large families are, say, families of Dreamers or anchor baby families. Then of course it would be discrimination to force vasectomies on the fathers and genocide to prevent the potential children to be born — wouldn’t it? I’d be so disillusioned if those news anchors and reporters on CNN would lie to me about that.

I don’t know what the left is thinking of with this idea, but then if I started to understand how they think, I might be as delusional as they are, so for now I am content to accept that they are irrational.

The only reason I can think of for preventing older men from reproducing is that they are more likely to be right-wing and traditional than the younger men — they are, in fact; there are statistics. They are more likely on average to be ”right-wing” and to vote ”the wrong way.” They might also be more likely to be religious, that is, Christian. The younger men seem less likely, statistically, to have fathered children, and what with the woman-vs.-man rift in our society, marriage and family are far rarer among the younger generations.

Also, demographically speaking, the over-50s age group is less likely to be ”diverse” enough to be desirable as fathers, at least by our current criteria.

Apparently Ms Hollis is trying to make a political point by this extreme measure, actually, but it seems a very backward way to do so. How does preventing men (especially older men) from fathering babies equate to preventing women from aborting their babies? I fail to get the point of it other than just another bit of leftist shock-politics to shake up the remaining normal members of the population. If only it would shake people out of their lethargy.