To drum up support for the failing “Build Back Better” plan, Biden is recycling an Obama-era propaganda campaign with “The Life of Linda,” the perfect Democrat citizen: bland, governable, and dependent.

With Joe Biden’s $3.5-trillion “Build Back Better” package stalled in Congress, the agenda coming under fire from even moderate Democrats, and the American people getting angrier about broken promises, the Biden White House is resorting to a tried-and-true method to drum up support: colorful propaganda.

“President Joe Biden believes that there’s no greater economic engine in the world than the hard work and ingenuity of the American people,” boasts the White House’s latest campaign effort. “But for too long, the economy has worked great for those at the top, while working families get squeezed. President Biden promised to rebuild the backbone of the country – the middle class – so that this time everyone comes along. The Build Back Better Framework does just that.”

To show us all exactly how wonderful the Build Back Better plan will be once Senators Joe Manchin and Krysten Sinema get out of the way, the White House is proudly presenting “the Life of Linda,” a colorful cartoon slide show about the countless ways in which a fictional woman benefits from the government’s benevolence.

But far from being a window into the utopia of a society that has successfully “built back better,” “The Life of Linda” actually paints a vivid portrait of the true, insidious nature of an idealized Leftist society.

Perhaps a more accurate title for this propaganda campaign would be “Linda’s Living Hell.”

Meet Linda…

Our story opens with Linda, a sufficiently diverse, ethnically ambiguous resident of Peoria, Illinois, with an appropriately marginalized identity. When we first meet her, Linda is hard at work at her job as a factory production worker. Linda is also an expecting mother, pregnant with an unborn son named Leo…and as we’ll go on to discover, this impending responsibility would be incredibly difficult without the help of the Build Back Better plan.

Of course, there are a few things worth noting about Linda here, based solely on our initial introduction.

First, in a point seized upon by many conservative commentators and Biden critics, Linda has made the decision to not get married. No ring is visible on her cartoon finger in any of the snapshots of her life. If Leo’s father is in the picture, he is so marginalized and uninvolved that he never makes an appearance in Linda’s life story.

But don’t feel bad for this deadbeat father. This is exactly what the Left wanted all along! Taking a page from the now-deleted BLM Inc. handbook, the Democratic Party seeks to “disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family in favor of a village-centric approach to raising children.” (More on that later.)

Also, considering that Linda’s home state of Illinois currently offers abortion services even after 27 weeks (and, thanks to a state legislature ruling just last week, will now perform abortions on 17-year-olds even without parental consent), she doesn’t actually need to carry the child to term. If being pregnant posed a significant financial burden, limited her career trajectory, interfered with her social aspirations, or generally inconvenienced her in any way, pro-choice Democrats would encourage Linda to terminate the pregnancy at the nearest abortion clinic (which will absolutely not harvest parts from the fetus and sell them for a profit).

But, because she’s apparently decided to keep the child—thereby granting the fetus human rights, according to the Left’s framework—Linda faces some difficult days ahead, and the $40,000-a-year salary from her likely unionized factory job won’t be enough to care for her unborn son.

(Of course, how do we know it’s a son? We shouldn’t dare to assume the gender of a child until it’s old enough to communicate its preferred identity and pronouns, right Leftists? I’d dare say this entire advertising campaign is bigoted and transphobic! Isn’t that how this game is played?)

Fast-forward a few months, and we reconnect with Linda as she shops for groceries for herself and her newborn son, made all that much more affordable by the $300-per-month Child Tax Credit provided to her by the IRS. The White House’s slide show brags that the credit will help “cover essential costs like groceries, rent, and medicine.” There are, however, several points of contention to be raised with this celebration.

For starters, the national average for rent on apartments (as of summer 2020, according to relevant data courtesy of is steadily creeping upwards, and while the pandemic has caused significant fluctuation, the trend is obvious even in pre-pandemic data. By conservative estimates, assuming Linda and Leo live in a mid-range two-bedroom apartment, the monthly rent could be anywhere from $1,700 to $1,900.

Additionally, according to data from the USDA, the average grocery costs for a single adult female can range from $100 to $150 per week, further increasing with the addition of a child. For a household of two people between 19 and 50 years old, the average cost sits between $148 and $200.

So please tell us…what exactly is $300 a month going to accomplish for Linda and her son? As a single-income family, the tax credit the Biden administration is celebrating wouldn’t even cover Linda and Leo’s food expenses, let alone any other substantial costs. Of course, the credit is only supposed to supplement her income, not replace it, but even so, with a stated income of only $40,000 a year, Linda and her son are still facing the reality of living paycheck-to-paycheck.

And that’s to say nothing of all the other people in the US being taxed more every year just so the Democrats can pretend like they’re helping…

Also, assuming that, by this point in Linda’s life, Biden still hasn’t managed to find a solution to the ongoing supply chain crisis plaguing the US, Linda’s shopping experience might end up looking a little more like this:

From there, we move on to snapshots from Leo’s life as he grows and develops. Ironically, of the seven slides that make up “the Life of Linda,” four of them have nothing whatsoever to do with Linda herself.

Here, we see Leo’s journey from early childhood into adolescence and early adulthood, and despite his tragic lack of any real father figure in his life, he manages to do fairly well for himself.

And that’s all thanks to Joe Biden and the Build Back Better plan!

In the absence of a father, at least Leo has good old Uncle Joe to hold his hand through the ups and downs of life, becoming his surrogate parent after his nameless progenitor disappeared from Linda’s life.

Once Linda returns to her factory job (likely following an extended, well-paid maternity leave), Leo is enrolled in government-funded daycare where he and his ethnically-diverse classmates are cared for free of charge, ensuring their parents pay “less than 7% of their income” for child care. He then moves on to a free government pre-K program at the age of three, likely receives free elementary, middle, and high school education between slides, and then moves on to a community college thanks to “extended Pell Grants and investments in community colleges.”

Of course, if at any point in this process, his school district ends up becoming so egregiously underfunded, the staff so overworked, and the curriculum so woefully substandard that his education began to actively suffer, there’s little Linda or anyone else can do about it.

Democrats’ efforts to end school choice programs, ban charter schools, and use social pressure to smear private schools and homeschooling basically ensure that Leo will stay within his school district indefinitely, and the DNC’s ties to teachers’ unions mean that’s not likely to improve. After all, it’s not like Linda could just up and leave her factory job to move to another district, and on only $40,000 a year, private school isn’t even an option.

But, to our relief, Leo makes it through just fine thanks to his loving government. He even learns a trade in college and manages to land a “good-paying union, job as a wind turbine technician!” Now, had he any aspirations of one day working as a technician on an oil pipeline, the poor guy is out of luck. None of those left in the US under the Build Back Better plan’s environmental goals.

Under the Build Back Better plan, the many challenges facing the Green Energy sector have been overcome—though Linda and Leo’s perspective doesn’t actually explain how. Still, we’re led to believe that, with this system in place, unionized laborers have eliminated the California-style rolling blackouts and overcome the harsh conditions of freak Texas blizzards, powering this perfect utopia on clean renewables without having to even consider the terrors of *shudder* nuclear energy.

But let’s catch up with Linda. This is her story, after all. How have the last 25 years been treating the hardworking woman?

After a lifetime of hard work and childrearing, Linda—still ostensibly unmarried—is slowing down a bit, and the aging woman needs special care now. Luckily, the White House proclaims that Build Back Better has enabled her to “access affordable hearing care through Medicare, and Leo is able to afford at-home elder care for his mom.”

And so, lovingly cared for by her successful, environmentally-conscious son, Linda can live out the rest of her days in peace, held aloft by Social Security and Medicare.

And despite likely only being in her mid to late 60s, Linda is free to die at any time now. Her purpose has been accomplished, her story has been told, and with nothing possibly noteworthy about the remaining two or three decades of her life, Linda’s story ends and the Biden administration celebrates a life well lived under Build Back Better.

Aren’t we blessed to have this bold, innovative, original policy making its way through Congress as we speak?

Well…as it turns out, not only is this policy proposal not making much progress in the Legislature, but it’s also not that original, either.

“The Life Of Julia Linda”…Trust Us, It’s A New Thing

In 2012, running against Republican challenger Mitt Romney (remember back when the entire GOP loved that guy?), President Barack Obama launched a campaign eerily similar to the one Biden has just unveiled…although it focused on an entirely different girl, obviously.

In “The Life of Julia,” we meet the titular character at three years old when she is enrolled in a Head Start program that will enable her to “start kindergarten ready to learn and succeed.”

From there, we follow her throughout her life, checking in on America’s new favorite daughter as she grows and develops.

“As a toddler, she’s in a head-start program. Skip ahead to 17, and she’s enrolled at a Race to the Top high school,” reported the Wall Street Journal when the campaign was announced. “Her 20s are very active: She gets surgery and free birth control through ObamaCare regulations, files a lawsuit under the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act and pays off her student loans at a low-interest rate. We get updates at age 31, 37, and 42–and then the narrative skips ahead 23 years when she enrolls in Medicare. Two years later, she’s on Social Security, at which point she can die at any time.”

And through it all, every single slide reminded viewers that this was only possible “Under President Obama.” Each one also reminded us of the horrific fate awaiting Julia under Mitt Romney, who would have cut Head Start programs, sending Julia into a downward spiral of poor education, starvation, neglect, abuse, and likely an untimely death in a roadside ditch by the time she was 30…or something like that.

Of course, the blatant cradle-to-grave government provision narrative here was so obvious that it drew criticism even from Obama’s own party, and the advertising campaign was quickly shelved. Even now, records of “The Life of Julia” beyond screenshots and occasional analysis videos are hard to come by, as the material has been purged from all official Obama sources.

To see a slightly revamped version of such an obviously-failed campaign now proudly plastered across the White House homepage raises serious concerns about the agenda at play here.

But, glossing over any “Obama’s third term” commentary for the time being…let’s discuss what Biden’s version teaches us.

Learning From Linda

In the brief time we spend with Linda, we come to see her as the perfect Leftist ideal of a citizen of a liberal society.

She is placid, banal, and boring.

She is predictable. She is governable.

She’s a single, independent woman in the workforce, a union member, and she forgoes things like romantic relationships in favor of more practical pursuits. She does not demonstrate herself to be overly creative, doesn’t question the system that supports her, and any relationships or social connections she has beyond her job and her son are so minor as to not even bear mentioning.

She works where she is supposed to work, buys what she’s supposed to, and accepts money without a second thought.

And yet in all this, she is entirely dependent on the government to keep her afloat. The entire advertising strategy subtly implies that, were it not for the Child Tax Credit, Linda could not afford groceries, rent, and medicine. Were it not for the free daycare and preschool, her son would not be educated. Were it not for the subsidies of community college, her son would not have access to higher education at all, and certainly wouldn’t qualify for a private university. Were it not for Medicare, she would end her life destitute and in critical condition, unable to rely on savings to help her.

There’s also a point to be made about the fact that over half of Linda’s life story actually focuses on Leo’s development.

See, Linda was never actually the point.

As a compliant, productive, easily-governable subject of the Build Back Better framework, Linda’s primary function is merely to pump out another generation of the same. Where in this story do we see Linda educating her son at home, instilling values, work ethic, common sense, or a religious/moral framework within him? I’ll answer my own question: we never do.

Instead, we see her hand her son off to government education systems, where he’ll be educated by others while she goes back to working and paying union dues. That school system will teach Leo the tenets of Critical Race Theory, encourage him to question his gender and explore his sexuality, and foster even more dependence on the government, the source of his education, employment, sustenance, and ability to care for his aging mother.

If Linda were ever to question—or, God forbid, protest—any of this she would be branded a domestic terrorist by the school board! After all, according to Virginia gubernatorial candidate Terry Mcauliffe, “parents shouldn’t get to tell schools what they should teach.”

Then, once Leo reproduces and puts his own children back into the same system, he, like his mother before him, will for all intents and purposes be considered used up and irrelevant. The best thing they can do then, as good citizens of the Leftist utopia, is to die peacefully and quickly without becoming too much of a burden on the system or, worse, becoming conservative as they age.

In a system that exists merely to ensure its own propagation, each successive generation matters only because of its ability to produce the next one.

THIS is the future that the far Left envisions. It may not make for as pretty a cartoon, but mark my words…it’s all in there.

And that’s the true danger of Linda’s story…because Linda isn’t real. “The Life of Linda” is nothing more than propaganda.

Linda and Leo exist merely as ink on a page, representing concepts contained within a several-thousand-page bill. See, Linda and Leo are stand-ins for you!

They represent you, your spouses, your children, your friends and neighbors. They are every single one of us as the Left wishes us to be, moving like lambs to the slaughterhouse, approaching with wide-eyed, trusting innocence and awaiting out turn because the butcher has been our friend since birth. They view our lives as having no purpose higher than supporting and serving the state itself, and they’re willing to promise us everything we could ever need if only we give up our individuality.

And when at last the knife falls, the butcher will tell us not to worry because “it’s really for our own good.”

But that’s not what this country stands for. That is NOT America. Our nation was not built by the Lindas treading the prescribed path, or the Leos reciting all the right talking points, but by generations of men and women who saw the danger of letting other people do their thinking for them. They are the ones who made the United States great, and so long as those men and women still exist, they’re the reason it will stay that way.

THAT is how our country will “build back better”…and in the meantime, we can only hope that the Lindas of the world wake up and join the fight.


“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” ― C. S. Lewis