In an old episode of the TV show, Monk, the detective is
staying at a bed and breakfast where he had once honeymooned with his now
deceased wife. Usually a loner, he ends
up having dinner with another guest and has too much to drink. In the morning he tries to seek out that man,
only to find that he has disappeared and all of the other guests claim to have
never seen him. It later turns out that
the other guests had discovered the man was a thief carrying a large sum of
cash, so they killed him for the cash and then denied his existence to a
mystified Monk in an attempt to get away with their crime. Before he could solve the mystery of the man’s
disappearance Monk first had to understand and deal with the conspiracy of lies
that stood in his way.
A similar scenario plays itself out every day in this
country whenever conservatives try to debate contentious issues with the Left,
debate being the cornerstone of our political system. One recent example is the debate over voter
ID laws. It is incomprehensible that
people do not understand the logic or accept the reasoning behind voter ID
laws. Voting integrity is fundamental to
the democratic process and the requirement of ID, which almost everyone already
has, is the most minor of requirements. But
democrats engage in a charade of pretending not to understand or agree, and as
I watch such debates on TV the absurdity of their position is always captured in
the look of disbelief on conservatives’ faces.
It is the same look of disbelief that showed on Monk’s face as he tried
to comprehend the behavior of people he knew to be lying.
This is our world, our reality. We play the game, according to the rules of
polite society, of trying to reason with and persuade people who have no
intention of playing by those same rules and whose only real goal, in essence,
is to get away with their crime de jour.
In the case of voter ID laws, it is patently obvious that the real
intent of the Left is to (A) compromise the integrity of the process so that
fraudulent votes, which favor democrats, are less likely to be discovered; and
(B) to not lose part of their voting base that they assume is too lazy to
bother with getting an ID. But knowing
how unacceptable these reasons sound, they lie about their motives, making the
“debate” completely meaningless.
And how about the debate over “free” contraception? Sandra Fluke, the newly contrived heroine of
the democratic party, talks indignantly about “women’s rights” and the faux
“war on women” as a means to justify her crime - stealing from others to pay
for her birth control. Her lie, which
says that free contraception is a woman’s “right,” is just like all other lies
that hide the intent to steal behind the banner of “rights.” It is a declaration of intent. Regardless of the law, regardless of the
Constitution, regardless of the opinions of those who will be stolen from,
Fluke and her fellow democrats intend to take they want. Any pretense at debate about it is just that
– pretense.
We have to engage in the debate. We have to make our case. But we don’t have to play along with the lies. Instead of arguing about voter responsibility
and how easy it is to get an ID, we could say, “You’re trying to encourage
voter fraud, THAT is your real goal, and we aren’t going to stand for it.” And instead of arguing over the phony war on
women and the imaginary difficulties of obtaining birth control, we could tell Ms.
Fluke, “You want contraception paid for by people who don’t know you, who have
no control over your behavior and who don’t owe you anything. How ‘bout you get a job or keep your knickers
on.”
More importantly, though, we have to recognize these
charades for what they are – subtle declarations of intent to steal and to
undermine our Constitution and our society – and we have to act accordingly. Let’s get serious about people who are
elected or appointed as judges, because they will be deciding whether or not we
can pass laws to protect voting integrity.
And maybe we should pass some laws of our own, such as a law against any
mandate that requires birth control (or anything else) be provided for “free.”
In the episode from Monk, it wasn’t long before he realized
the uselessness of arguing over whether or not the man who disappeared had
actually ever been to the bed and breakfast.
He knew the truth. Instead he solved
the case by first proving that the other guests were lying, and why. It’s time to take a page from his book.