For equality, we must redistribute eyeballs fairly, my friends

By David McElroy · June 30, 2011

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 7035, the Federal Eyeball Inequality Act of 2020.

Our great nation was founded on the principles of liberty and equality. Without liberty, we can’t be equal. Without equality, we can’t have liberty. So when some Americans are treated unequally, it’s an assault on the liberty of each and every one of us. We have a sacred duty to those Founding Fathers who fought and bled for our freedom to bring equality to every American.

Some may say that we are free and we are equal, because we see freedom and we see equality everywhere. But do we? Sadly, not all of us see those things equally — because not all of us see equally well. It is to rectify this incredible injustice that I beg you to join me in using the full moral might of this government to bring equal sight to all. To do less than pass this legislation is to confess before all of us that you hate equality and that you hate liberty.

Most people in our great land have two functioning eyeballs, while some struggle to exist in a dreary and barren land devoid of color or light or hope. No, friends, it’s not Detroit that I speak of. It’s the land of blindness. While most Americans take their sight for granted, these poor souls struggle to live. Those with two eyes aren’t morally superior. They didn’t earn their eyeballs. No, it was just a cruel twist of fate that gave some people sight and others darkness. And we are here today to bring light and hope to those without sight and without hope. No American could oppose this effort except out of greed and selfishness for himself and hatred for those who aren’t as fortunate as he is.

The plan we have presented to you is a compromise. Many activists in the Blind Rights Movement have long advocated cutting out the eyeballs of every sighted person, but this compromise legislation not only prevents complete blindness on the part of every driver and pilot in the land, but it shows just how far our blind friends are willing to go to compromise.

So how will our great plan work? This legislation will create a new Federal Sight Management Agency (FSMA), which will have the full power to control who has eyes and who doesn’t. As Jesus said in the Bible, “In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.” So Jesus was clearly teaching us that there should be no blind among us, but to be a one-eyed man is to be a king — something that any man should want. Our great new national plan will have the task of equally dividing the available eyeballs among all Americans. Yes, this will mean that some Americans will have to get by with only one eye for part of the time, but the FSMA will rotate the available eyes among the population every six months — to ensure that sight is shared and that partial blindness is shared by all.

If you can’t see that this program is all about liberty and equality, my friend, you are just as blind as the man with no sight at all. And if you feel that way, I’m very ashamed of your selfishness.

I do want to assure those who have asked that this bill includes a small provision that exempts members of Congress, their staffs and their families from this act. This small concession has been made in the name of national security, because we must always be vigilant in the protection of our citizens — and we need full sight to protect them.

My friends, some selfish people have tried to poison the discussion of this bill by discussing the issue of whether eyeballs are easily transplantable, but this is simply a diversion. We must trust the experts in the Blind Rights Movement and those of us here in Congress, not get bogged down in what eye surgeons might believe is possible or reasonable. Being fair and being equal is far more important than what might or might not be medically possible. Others have pointed to the deaths of thousands of people in 2015 when the Federal Kidney Redistribution Act was implemented, but to those selfish people, I say shame…. Shame on you. How dare you point to the past when sight and equality are shining as beacons calling us forward? Our good intentions are all that matter. The light of our moral goodness casts out the worries of the doubters who bring up unpleasant facts.

Bring the blessings of shared sacrifice to all, my friends. Make us all equal. Make us all free. Give Americans the vision they deserve. Make us all equal and make us all free by sharing the available eyeballs. Our Founding Fathers would be proud. Our blind children will be grateful — and never forget when you vote, we are once again doing this for the children. I urge you to join me in this moral crusade. Support this bill today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Note: This is a shameless ripoff of something my friend, Doug Douma, has already done. Doug came up with this idea months ago and the version you just read was my input on the direction I’d take with it. You can read his published version here.

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts