Louisiana Voice

Not content with sabotaging medical benefits for US military veterans suffering from the ill-effects of toxic burning in the Mideast conflict, Sen. John Kennedy also voted last Wednesday to shoot down efforts to put the US on better footing in competing with China in the manufacture of computer chips.

The bill, HR 4346, aka the CHIPS Act, passed the Senate by a 64-33 vote with Sens. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Susan Collins of Maine, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina joining 13 other Republicans in voting in favor of the bill, which earlier passed in the House by a 243-187 vote.

True to form, Louisiana’s five Republicans in the House – Steve Scalise, Garret Graves, Clay Higgins, Mike Johnson, and Julia Letlow – voted no, pretty much falling in line with Ohio Rep. “Gym” Jordan who recent told POLITICO that Republican senators shouldn’t vote with Democrats to pass bipartisan bills backed by President Joe Biden.

That utter lunacy is also consistent with the stance of Rush Limbaugh who said when Barack Obama was elected in 2008 that he hoped Obama was a complete failure as President.

Rather than pull for the success of whomever occupied the Oval Office because his/her success would necessarily be reflective of the success of the US, people like Limbaugh, Jordan, and McConnell have openly expressed their desire to block any program of any Democrat president.

To me, that exemplifies the Republican philosophy of putting party above country and that somehow just seems wrong to me. And I’ll go on record here and now if the situation is reversed and Democrats united across the board to block all legislation offered up by a Republican president, that would be equally self-serving and certainly unpatriotic.

There is no place – or shouldn’t be – for such mentality in Congress.

Kennedy sniffed that the bill, officially known as the Supreme Court Security Funding Act of 2022, represented corporate welfare at a time when the country needs to “freeze our spending of what’s in the budget and spend extra money only on defense for obvious reasons.” (Emphasis added)

Well, there you have it. The guy who votes for massive corporate tax breaks also advocates that we pour even more money into defense “for obvious reasons,” while not a word is uttered about improving education (not by dictating what can and cannot be taught, but by investing in little ignored things like teacher pay), infrastructure (our interstate system is beginning to crumble, bridges are falling down, and water and sewer lines are corroding), and the environment.

Nope. Don’t need all those things. Instead, we can throw more money at the Pentagon but not for medical care of VETERANS of a frustrating 20-YEAR WAR that has already cost the US $6.4 trillion (with a ‘T’) and more than 10,000 American lives, including military personnel and contractors.

That is John N. Kennedy’s idea of fiscal responsibility, a philosophy shared by Louisiana’s Republican House delegation.

The only members of our state’s delegation to vote in favor of lowering costs to Americans, advancing scientific research, creating jobs, and enhancing national security were Sen. Bill Cassidy and Democratic Rep. Troy Carter.

“A nationwide shortage of semiconductor chips has severely disrupted American manufacturing,” said Carter. Production has allowed, prices have spiked and the US has experienced “increasing dependence on unfriendly foreign nations,” he said. “Only 12 percent of semiconductor chips are currently manufactured domestically – a dramatic drop from 37 percent in the 1990s while foreign competitors are investing heavily to dominate this critical national security issue industry.”

Statistically, by apportioning each state’s population to its voting senators, the vote represented 73 percent of the US population, according to the government tracking service that reports on voting by both chambers.

How John Kennedy supports our troops…

In 2015, John Bel Edwards scored a direct hit on the gubernatorial aspirations of then US Sen. David Vitter with his now famous “prostitutes over patriots” TV ad that sank Vitters’ campaign by informing voters that the senator had ABANDONED A VOTE honoring US war veterans in favor of waiting for a call from a prostitute.

For all intents and purposes, it was the death-knell for the Vitter campaign.

Luke Mixon, who is challenging incumbent John Kennedy (who, ironically, succeeded Vitter) would do well to follow the Edwards example.

You see, Kennedy on Wednesday of this week (July 27) likewise abandoned war veterans, though it was not for pleasures of the flesh so much as it was just another example of marching in lockstep with the demented Repugnantcan policy of funding the war machine while screwing (figuratively, not literally) veterans.

Kennedy was among 42 Senate Repugnantcans who blocked an otherwise bipartisan bill that would expand health care access for military veterans exposed to the Army’s own toxic burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Just in case you missed it, here it is again: John Neely Kennedy turned his back on US military personnel just when they needed it the most.

Oh, he wasn’t alone, by any means. Every. Single. Repugnantcan. Member. Of. The. Louisiana. Congressional. Delegation. Voted. No.

Every. One. Louisiana’s House Repugnantcans – Steve Scalise, Clay Higgins, Mike Johnson (the Marine veteran with the tattoo), Julia Letlow, and Garret Graves – each voted No last March 3 even though the full House passed the Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxics (PACT) Act.

Some promise.

Democrat Troy Carter was the only Louisiana member to keep the promise by voting for the bill.

In Wednesday’s vote, only eight Repugnantcans had the cajones to buck the party: Marco Rubio of Florida, John Boozman of Arkansas, Chuck Grassley of Iowa, Jerry Moran of Kansas, John Hoeven of North Dakota, Shelley Capito of West Virginia, Susan Collins of Maine, and even Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska took a walk and didn’t vote.

Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York was among three Democrats voting No.

Only 34 Repugnantcan House members broke ranks to vote for the bill last March.

It’s worth repeating that none of the Louisiana Repugnantcans had the courage to stand up to the party and support our veterans who need medical attention for damage done by the open-air combustion of trash and other waste in burn pits that is a common practice of military operations, the environment and soldiers’ health be damned. Among the materials incinerated in burn pits were human waste, paint, metal cans, food waste, unexploded ordnance, lubricant products, plastics, rubber, wood with the use of jet fuel as an accelerant. Service members who were exposed to these toxic chemicals are often plagued with life-threatening diseases and illness.

The measure was considered essential to provide increased health care services and disability benefits for veterans suffering from exposure to the burn pits. It would have streamlined the VA’s chronically snail-paced review process to recognize toxic exposure as a cost of war.

It goes without saying that the vote, seen largely as Repugnantcans’ obsession with revenge for being outplayed by Democrats earlier in the week to win passage of a $740 billion package that will increase taxes on the wealthy and invest in climate change and health care. In other words, it’s the same old tit for tat game played by oversized egos while what’s best for the country again manages to be relegated to back-of-the-bus status.

The outrage sparked by the vote and the ensuing thoughtless FIST BUMP between Ted “Cancun” Cruz (R-Texas) and Steve Daines (R-Montana) may have caught cocky Repugnantcans off-guard. Sen. Kristen Gillibrand (D-New York) was MORE THAN A LITTLE BLUNT in calling the action “total bulls**t. This is the worst form of politicization I’ve literally ever seen.”

Actually, Sen. Gillibrand, it’s merely validation of what writer Mark Leibovich said in his caustically humorous examination of the nation’s Capital in his book This Town: Washington is “predicated on the perpetuation of conflict, not the resolution of problems.”

One of those veterans of the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria is Luke Mixon, a graduate of the US Naval Academy who flew more than 3000 flight hours over 17 years, earning three Air Medals in the process. He is a graduate of the prestigious Strike Fighter Weapons School, aka TOPGUN and completed his military service as Commanding Officer of the Navy’s F/A-18 Squadron based in New Orleans.

Among other things, Kennedy “actively blocked efforts to get Hurricane Laura and Ida victims necessary resources to recover from the storms, he has stalled critical funding to upgrade our crumbling infrastructure, and he even voted against funding to support Louisiana families,” according to Katie Bernhardt, chairperson of the Louisiana Democratic Party. “We could not be happier to see a decorated veteran step up and answer the call to serve his country once again by fighting back against failed Sen. John Kennedy.”

Yes, Bill Cassidy also voted against the bill to help veterans. He deserves scorn as well.

But he’s not up for reelection this year; Kennedy is.

So, if Luke Mixon is smart and has a taste for going for the jugular, he will rip a page from the John Bel Edwards Play Book and fully exploit the fact that Kennedy chose “Party Politics over Patriotism.”

There’s something intrinsically sick about an obsession over what someone is reading.

Michael Lunsford and his Citizens for a New Louisiana don’t want a “new” anything. They want control over others’ thinking. It’s the openly espoused agenda of the national Repugnantcan Party as so often expressed by the likes of Ron DeSantis.

It’s really unfortunate that this group finds it necessary to concentrate its efforts of censorship and repression in the name of Christianity and decency. It seems that he and his organization are pulling their talking points directly from the books of Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy which, among other things, advocates the killing of gays and total domination over women – especially sexually.

Lunsford has never to my knowledge advocated killing anyone but he has spewed unfounded – and libelous – accusations toward decent, honest people who probably have a greater understanding of the real teachings of Christianity than he could ever hope for.

The man is an agent of hate and vitriol. It’s as simple as that. He’s sounding much like this idiot Nick Fuentes on TikTok, who actually calls for the burning of women at the stake. (Reader discretion advised: language)

Lunsford claims he wants a “new Louisiana,” and that’s commendable. There are so many areas in which this state could improve: teacher pay, healthcare, literacy, poverty, hunger, environment, corruption, crime, gender pay discrepancy, and the list could go on indefinitely.

But instead, he chooses to zero in on an effort to ban books – censorship – in open violation of the First Amendment.

My question to him is this: Why are you so concerned about what kids might read? As I said in an earlier post, straight kids more than likely aren’t interested in reading books about a kid with two daddies at home. And if a kid is gay, you ain’t gonna change him by banning books.

Lunsford probably (I don’t know this for certain) subscribes to the debunked belief that gays can be changed to straight through counseling and rehabilitation.

They cannot and let me say this unequivocally: Absent harassment from people like Lunsford (and, regrettably, me, when I was in high school), gays are probably happier and better adjusted psychologically that most of us straights who seem to find so much time to fret about gays and what other people are doing in the privacy of their homes.

I know several gays (one, a dear friend, recently died of a heart attack and I miss his humor and his terrific intellect) and they are, without exception, well-adjusted, productive, and creative.

Lunsford is so terrified that children will be adversely influenced – or molested – by gays. Here are the facts: in as many as 93 percent of abuse cases, the child knows the person already and 47 percent of abusers are family members. How are you going to protect against that, Lunsford?

Of course, as one might expect, a study conducted by the BAPTIST PRESS predictably says that gays are more likely to molest kids. But a likely more reliable source, the NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE, says that the risk of adult gays molesting children ranges from 0 to 3.1 percent.

If Lunsford is so concerned about protecting children, maybe he should take a look at the real sources of porn for kids: the Internet and cell phones. Porn is widely accessible online and kids do send sexually explicit photos to each other on their phones.

But you see, he can make more noise and garner more financial support by keeping his fight local and taking on innocent school librarians. That’s really low and sleazy.

Because of the Repugnantcan intellect of people like Matt Gaetz, Marjorie Taylor-Greene, Ted “Cancun” Cruz, Donald Trump (who the hell ridicules people with physical deficiencies?), and Lunsford, we have moved perilously closer to the mentality of a third world country.

As an illustration of how obsessed Lunsford is with his Quixotic library quest and to what absurd level he is willing to take his fight, he actually posted on Facebook a message that he is holding books he “unilaterally” (read: arbitrarily) removed from the Lafayette Public Library and that the public is invited to come to his office to view the books – “Appointment recommended.”

Could that be because he first wants to be sure he’s through reading them?

I don’t know. It’ probably a rhetorical question.

Were they not so frightening, the people behind Michael Lunsford’s Citizens for a New Louisiana would be almost comic in their efforts to stymie our basic freedoms.

Almost.

But they’re not, you see, because like their co-conspirators at the national level, the objective of the Repugnantcan Party is to strip us of our right of expression, our right of association, our right to read what we choose, and our right to watch which movies and television shows.

Extreme? Alarmist? Scaremongering? Call it what you wish but tread carefully before you call it specious hogwash. It was no less a personage than Henry Kissinger who said even paranoid people have real enemies.

The Supreme Court, now so heavily weighted to the right, has already struck down two important, long-standing fundamental rights: women’s right to control their own bodies and the rights of those convicted of crimes to APPEAL THEIR CONVICTIONS on the basis of poor legal representation, a ruling that removes the final safeguard against wrongful convictions and executions of innocent people.

Justice Clarence Thomas has hinted that the court may well also take a second look at same-sex marriage, voting rights, and even something as personal as contraception. Thomas himself could also be affected should the court take under consideration interracial marriage (then again, he may see it as an opportunity to rid himself of wife Ginny).

Sens. Rick Scott and Lindsey Graham have also intimated that the sharp reduction or perhaps even the elimination of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Likely to remain undisturbed, however, are laws THAT ALLOW GIRLS TO MARRY at ages at young as 12 in Massachusetts; 13 in New Hampshire; 14 in North Carolina; 15 in Hawaii, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, and Utah – all with parental consent and some with judicial consent. In all, 32 states and the District of Columbia generally have established 16 as the minimum age for marriage for females.

That is, or course, because women have long been considered chattel property in this country. Women weren’t even given the right to vote until 1920 when the 19^th Amendment was ratified. And if you don’t think I’m right consider that the national GENDER PAY GAP shows that men earn between 18 percent and 19 percent more than their women counterparts in similar positions.

Of 50 states and the District of Columbia, Louisiana ranks 49^th, just ahead of Utah and Wyoming, with a pay gap of 27 percent. A male’s average pay in Louisiana is $55,428 compared to $40,442.

So now, we have Michael Lunsford and his Citizens for a New Louisiana setting its agenda for combatting any tax issue, censoring the content offered by libraries and generally dictating other facets of our lives.

In its mission statement posted on its Web page, Citizens for a New Louisiana ostensibly advocate for transparency. But its been difficult to learn who the non-profit’s financial angels are because by law, they’re not required to divulge that. Nice. Transparency in everything except where they get their money.

We do know that one of his backers is a property management executive named Will Mills, III. Mills doesn’t just support Citizens for a New Louisiana, however. He has poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into various political campaigns, including $78,500 to the Repugnantcan Party of Louisiana, $9,500 to Public Service Commissioner Mike Francis, and $7,500 to Attorney General Jeff Landry who has participated in a spate of lawsuits ranging from environmental issues to overturning the 2020 presidential election. He even sued a reporter over the reporter’s audacity to request public records.

They preach transparency on the part of others but exempt themselves.

And make no mistake, they’re coming after every library in the state. They have only contempt for the First Amendment while holding the Second Amendment up as a sacred right. They want it both ways and the next logical step (as already articulated by this group) is public school curricula.

As already articulated by former Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, the goal of the Repugnantcan Party is to gut public education and replace it with a system of private and charter schools so that they may set their own curricula that will exclude mentions of the Civil War, the struggle for civil rights, gender equality and anything else they find “objectionable.”

This struggle over library books is just the first shot across the bow of individual rights, folks. Get ready. This is for the long term.

Below is the mission statement of Citizens for a New Louisiana lifted from their Web page:

MISSION

Fostering prosperity in Louisiana’s overall economy by simplifying complex issues, promoting TRANSPARENCY in LOCAL GOVERNMENT, and providing sound public policy insights based on thorough research and conservative principals.

principal

prĭn′sə-pəl

adjective

1. First or highest in rank or importance. synonym: chief.
2. Of, relating to, or being financial principal, or a principal in a financial transaction.

principle

prĭn′sə-pəl

noun

1. A basic truth, law, or assumption.
2. A rule or standard, especially of good behavior.
3. The collectivity of moral or ethical standards or judgments.

Michael Lunsford, who also named the wrong school in Livingston Parish, might wish to visit a library to take a look at a dictionary to learn the proper usage of the word principle.

(Full disclosure: I am the last one to poke fun at incorrect usage of words. I’ve done so myself, but I just couldn’t resist puncturing the ego of someone of such self-importance as Lunsford.)