Minnesota: the Oregon of the Upper Midwest

Oh, Minnesota, was it really worth all of those mentions on the now-defunct  A Prairie Home Companion by the now-defunct Garrison Keillor? Was it worth all of the tie-ins in the Wireless and Signal catalogs? Yes, I know, you felt a flush of self-righteous affirmation when you elected Ilhan Omar and Any Klobuchar (we’ll leave Al Franken out of it for the moment), but look at you now.

You have been so intent on becoming progressive that you have progressed right off of The Cliffs of Insanity, which incidentally sounds like something out of an H.P. Lovecraft story. And frankly, you people are looking more Lovecraftian by the minute. Why not just elect Cthulu as governor in the next election? You Minnesotans would do well to cast a wary eye westward. Oregon is the perfect example of what happens when progressives get everything they want. Washington, too, for that matter.

First, it was the abomination of offering a veneer of normalcy to pedophilia. Yesterday, Matt wrote about a bill before the legislature which will do just that. As Matt wrote:

Subd. 44. Sexual orientation. “Sexual orientation” means having or being perceived as having an emotional, physical, or sexual attachment to another person without regard to the sex of that person or having or being perceived as having an orientation for such attachment, or having or being perceived as having a self-image or identity not traditionally associated with one’s biological maleness or femaleness. “Sexual orientation” does not include a physical or sexual attachment to children by an adult.

That portion striking out the part that reads, “‘Sexual orientation’ does not include a physical or sexual attachment to children by an adult,” is not a mistake. The Democratic majority in the House of Representatives has made the decision to eliminate a clause that explicitly excluded pedophilia from being considered a valid sexual orientation.

This doesn’t mean that pedophilia will be legalized in Minnesota… yet… but by specifically removing the clause excluding pedophilia as a protected sexual orientation, pedophiles will become a protected class, subject to the same legal protections against discrimination currently enjoyed by gays, lesbians, transgenders, etc.

But Minnesota is far from done. You would think that the above-mentioned bill alone would be enough for lawmakers there to tap the breaks. But it would appear they are on a roll in the Land of 10,000 Lakes. Perhaps Justin Trudeau is smuggling operatives across the border to undermine what is left of our republic, or maybe Minnesotans have just surrendered to the siren call of the new order and have come to love Big Brother.

In case you didn’t know, Minnesota is debating creating a “state bias registry” which would contain the names of those who violate the precepts of wokeness or may have just been accused of being an “ism” or a “phobe” of some kind. And now there is a move to increase the number of actual or potential violators. Showing support for J.K. Rowling or expressing an unapproved view of the origins of COVID-19 could land you on “The List.” Not specifically at the moment, but debate in the state house seemed to indicate that either of those social missteps could result in someone being designated as a public enemy.

Via America Wire:

State Rep. Harry Niska (R) asked State Rep. Samantha Vang (D) during a debate on the new bill whether either of those two instances could wind up with someone being put in a state government database that records bias. She supports the bill, House File 181, that lawmakers are considering. It would record alleged biased speech incidents even if they aren’t considered a crime.

“If a Minnesotan writes an article claiming or arguing that COVID-19 is a Chinese bio-weapon that leaked from a lab in Wuhan, and someone reports that article to the Department of Human Rights, is that something that the Department of Human Rights should put in their bias registry under your bill?” Niska asked Vang.

 

She responded by asserting that while not all incidents are considered violent or criminal, this sort of rhetoric is “bias-motivated” therefore “it can be considered a bias incident.”