American Elephants


Nancy Pelosi Is The Gift That Keeps On Giving by The Elephant's Child

Nancy Pelosi is a gift to the Republican Party. After she explained about how the “wrap-up smear” that they applied to Judge Brett Kavanaugh, works, she has now explained how the Democrats will calm the political rhetoric that is traumatizing the nation.  When Democrats win the House, it will all calm down.

Just like your two-year-old will stop the tantrum when he gets the cookie he wants! I mean, we knew this, but it is extra-delightful to have the House Minority Leader confirm it, in public, on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert on Tuesday evening. 

COLBERT: There’s been a lot of talk about lowering the temperature of political discourse. Have you seen evidence of that?

PELOSI: Well, I think when we win, you will see evidence of that. Because when we do win, we will have, as we open the new Congress, we will honor the vows of our founders. E Pluribus Unum.

PELOSI: We couldn’t imagine how many we would be or different we would be from each other, but they did know we have to strive for oneness. “It’s okay to disagree in the marketplace of ideas. That’s exciting. But it is also important to find solutions that unify and not divide. And that’s what makes a big difference between Democrats and what’s in the White House now.”

Do try to avoid giving them the House. She already told us that the first thing they would do when they get back in charge, would be to raise your taxes.

Absolutely brilliant!

Advertisements


Illegal Immigration Is All About Power for the Left by The Elephant's Child

This seems to be Tucker Carlson Day at American Elephants, (I have two others on Free Speech waiting in the shadows). Of course illegal immigration is about power.  But how did they come to the conclusion that everything is about their power? They were thrilled with Obama as president, yet he did  a miserable job. Real good talker though.

What shifted? Was it that when Donald Trump made his campaign promises they sneered, and thought thank goodness we’re electing Hillary? And then when he was elected, it was a horrible shock Then, he began to fulfill his campaign promises, cutting taxes. That is unacceptable for Democrats. They need lots of taxes, big taxes, so they have the funds to dole out benefits to convince the deplorables to vote for them.

Is all the venom and hate because Donald Trump has cut taxes and the economy is booming as a result? Donald Trump has nominated outstanding Judges to the Supreme Court and successfully gotten them installed after all  the work Democrats did to fight the nomination? Is it because he got out of the useless Paris Climate Accords, and celebrates it? Is it because right in the middle of the Craziness of the Left every day, President Trump (You’ll notice that they never call him President Trump — it’s just Trump.) is inclined to brag a little about his accomplishments?  I think I may be onto something here.



Tucker Carlson on Free Speech and How the Left Uses Tragedy For Their Own Ends by The Elephant's Child

Tucker Carlson tackles today’s free speech problem. The problem is that the Left wants to decide what is and is not free speech, and eliminate the speech they don’t like. Which throws the whole idea of real free speech out the window. They are using tragedy to fuel their own ends. There was a mass shooting at a synagogue in Philadelphia. The Left immediately  twisted it so it is the fault of President Trump because they don’t like President Trump. They are offended when he wants to pay his respects at the synagogue, apparently unaware that his son-in-law, daughter, and his grandchildren are members of the Jewish faith. Leftists have said that Trump’s moving the embassy to Jerusalem “doesn’t let him off the hook for this shooting.” That  is absurd.

The man who committed the shooting was an anti-Semite who hated Trump, and is solely responsible, and has been charged and will pay for the crime. The deranged man who shot Steve Scalise at the Congressional Softball Game was a Bernie Sanders supporter. Bernie Sanders had no responsibility for his act. The man who sent pipe bombs to a number of Democrats was solely responsible for his actions.

The woman portrayed in this video, blaming President Trump’s unwelcoming comments on the Honduran Caravan, was incorrect on everything she said. The “Caravan” are not “refugees”. “There is a specific legal definition of a “refugee.” Immigration Lawyers often coach their clients in what to say to get admitted under the refugee laws. Hollywood types have adopted the illegal alien saying “No human being is illegal.” which is a nonsense phrase. We are a country with immigration laws. Those who break the law by trying to enter the country without permission, are by definition criminals. Those who owe their citizenship to another country are by definition, aliens. The Left’s ideas of such subjects are based on ‘feelings’, not on law, and for the Left, ‘feelings’ trump law every time. Unfortunately, you cannot run a government on ‘feelings’.

You cannot have a government nor a country that censors speech, where those in charge decide what may or may not be said. The technology people who dreamed up the ideas and algorithms of social media, with their backgrounds in math and electronics and engineering assumed that people would welcome the opportunity to share their lives with their friends and relatives online. They missed the understanding of human nature that you get from wide reading in history and literature. They expected to learn from what their customers did and said on the internet enough to be able to tell advertisers what they might be interested in. Advertisers jumped at the chance, and the technology people got very rich indeed.

We are seeing something quite new in the reaction to Donald Trump’s election, and it has a lot to do with social media. I would love to see some analysis of how things seem to be “catching”, and get repeated endlessly. The technology people like to feature celebrities, who people follow because they think they know them, because they have seen them on TV.

I thought Kathy Griffin’s severed head trick so disgusting that it should have ended not only her career, but anything in that line. Instead  it started some sort of “can you top this” contest, in which celebrities try to outdo one another in Trumpian insult. The trouble with being a celebrity is that you have to stay in the public eye,  or people might start thinking you are a has-been.

We are gradually learning that social media is damaging for kids. The social media people are gradually learning about the monster they have created, and don’t know how to fix it other than banning people from its use. Which places them in control of what is acceptable speech and what is unacceptable, which is a role that they are completely unqualified to fill.

They talk about “hate speech” which has no real definition, and depend on sources like the Southern Poverty Law Center or Snopes to tell them what is hate and what is false without any recognition that half the people in the country, at least, find that dependence laughable.

There has been an enormous decline in the civility of language. The comments on many popular websites are filled with profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, and scatology that used to be unacceptable, not just in polite society, but in public anywhere. But that speech was not limited by ‘elites’ who have appointed themselves as the arbiters, but by a general recognition that you just didn’t talk that way in public, because it wasn’t nice. That time seems very distant.



Democrats Don’t Understand Basic Economics by The Elephant's Child

I’m sure that you have heard Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats claiming that President Trump’s tax cuts only go to the rich, and the common people get shafted. Uh huh. Of course they know better, but Democrats want high taxes so they can give stuff (benefits) to the deplorables out there to get their votes. Or, it’s also possible that they just didn’t do well with percentages when they were in school. The rich, and among them are many of the Democrats in Congress, including Ms. Pelosi, earn a heck-of-a lot more than most of us.

The most recent figures I could find are for 2015, indicating that the top 1% pay nearly half of all federal income taxes.  The bottom 80% are expected to pay about 15% of all federal income taxes in 2014. That’s because the rich earn an outsized share of all income. You can also add in the notation that they can afford the very best accountants and lawyers to help them pay as little as possible. Surprisingly, no one seems to want to pay a cent more than they have to. Since their income is outsized, when there is an across the board tax cut of – say 2% – that means a far bigger chunk of money to the big income people than it does to the small income people.

That simple exercise in percentages is why the Democrats get away with proclaiming that the Trump tax cuts only go to the rich. They are trying to make the deplorables angry and envious of the rich and hate the president who came up with the tax cuts that weren’t fair. They haul it out for every Republican tax cut, so that people will think that all the economic expansion, the full employment, the prospering economy that needs more workers, is somehow a fraud, and for God’s sake don’t even thing of voting for any Republican. Vote for Democrats who will stop all this nonsense and give you a nice familiar recession.

There’s also the very real possibility that they just have no understanding of basic economics.



About the Constitution and The First Amendment by The Elephant's Child

We talk a lot about Free Speech in America because we believe deeply in the First Amendment. I’m not sure that all of us are aware that it is solely directed at the government, not at us. You can say whatever you want, but it may get you expelled or censored or punched in the nose.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Europeans are free to say only what the courts allow them to say.

When he was 50, the prophet of Islam took as his wife Aisha, who was then six or seven. The marriage was consummated when Aisha was nine.

This is not a smear. It is an accurate account of authoritative Islamic scripture. (See, e.g., Sahih-Bukhari, Vol. 5, Book 58, Nos. 234–236.) Yet it can no longer safely be discussed in Europe, thanks to the extortionate threat of violence and intimidation — specifically, of jihadist terrorism and the Islamist grievance industry that slipstreams behind it. Under a ruling by the so-called European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), free speech has been supplanted by sharia blasphemy standards.

Mrs. S appealed, relying on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. That provision purports to safeguard “freedom of expression” although it works much like the warranty on your used refrigerator.  It sounds as if you would be covered, but the fine print doesn’t follow through.

Article 10 starts out: Europeans are free “to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”  Followed by the legal details: One’s exercise of the right to impart information, “carries with it duties and responsibilities.” What is called “freedom” is actually “subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties” that the authorities decide are “necessary in a democratic society,” including for “public safety” and for “the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others.”

Translation: Europeans are free to say only what they are permitted to say by the unelected judges of the European courts. Truth is irrelevant. As the jurists reasoned in the case of Mrs. S., a person’s freedom to assert facts must be assessed in “the wider context” that balances “free” expression against “the right of others to have their religious feelings protected,” as well as “the legitimate aim of preserving religious peace.”

In other words, you cannot say anything that might upset Muslims. Child marriage, violent jihad, the duty to kill apostates, the treatment of women as chattel, that sort of things. Doesn’t matter if these tenents are accurately stated or supported by scriptural grounding makes no difference. Reliance on what their scriptures say could be classified as “an abusive attack on the Prophet of Islam, which could stir up prejucdce and put religious peace at risk.

There is no free speech in Islam. Sharia does not merely forbid speech that insults or denigrates Islam; they regard as blasphemy – and punish viciously – any form of expression that places Islam in an unfavorable light. Enacting laws against child marriage would be tantamount to saying that Mohammed was in the wrong, and that is unacceptable. So child marriage, among other things, remains a major problem in Islamic countries. In Saudi Arabia, efforts to establish the marriage at age 15 and some hope to raise it to 18 have been rejected by sharia authorities.

As we have said before, Europe seems bent on committing suicide.

Here, the Left’s increasing reliance on feelings as the most important guidepost is worrisome, and their contempt for the Constitution is even more a matter for very deep concern.



Democrats Have Gone Far Round the Bend and They are Becoming Laughable. by The Elephant's Child
October 28, 2018, 9:57 pm
Filed under: Politics | Tags: , ,

Kevin Williamson hits a home run again today with his column at National Review titled “Rage Makes You Stupid.” “People have the strongest feelings about the things they know the least about.” That covers the indignant celebrities who sound off from Hollywood whenever there is an event in the news.  Do they assume that it is career-enhancing to provide an example of Williamson’s headline?

An editor at New York magazine has just published a book celebrating “the revolutionary power” of anger. September 21, the Washington Post insisted that “rage is healthy, rational, and necessary for America.” NBC News praised a television show on Friday for depicting “anger as righteous and necessary.” Earlier it had run a segment encouraging certain political partisans to “embrace their rage.”  Do read the whole thing.

At American Greatness  Chris Buskirk asks “Why are Fake Bombs Sent to Democrats More Shocking Than Real Ricin Packages sent to Republicans?” Did  You even know that the deadly poison ricin (contact with the skin can be deadly) — was sent to President Trump, Republican Senator Ted Cruz, Defense Secretary James Mattis and Admiral John Richardson, the Chief of Naval Operations? Of course that was way back on October 2.

Again at American Greatness, Adam Ellwanger, in “The Rhetorical Art of Blame- Laying” listed a few of the things that are absolutely not responsible for creating a “climate of political violence” in the United States:

You should be aware of what they are doing, but don’t join in their hate-fest. Make fun of them instead. It’s pretty pathetic, and they really hate being laughed at.



For Arizona, A Splendid Lawsuit Against Tom Steyer by The Elephant's Child

The Arizona Attorney General, Mark Brnovich has filed a lawsuit against Tom Steyer and a renewable energy campaign Steyer supports for launching, what Brnovich claims is a defamatory campaign against him.

Filed on Wednesday, the lawsuit names Steyer and Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona as defendants. Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona — which has benefited from millions of dollars in donations from Steyer — is campaigning to require Arizona electric utility companies derive half their power from renewable energy sources by 2030. The ballot proposal is officially known as Proposition 127.

Brnovich’s lawsuit is in response to Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona’s campaign against him. The renewable energy group has aired attack ads against him, claiming he “bailed out” the state’s largest electric utility company by wording the Proposition 127 ballot language in a way, it argues, puts the proposal in a bad light.

Originally written by the Arizona Secretary of State’s office, Brnovich added language to the ballot measure that said utility companies would have to meet the renewable energy mandate “irrespective of cost” if the proposal passes.

The attorney general argues that his office has acted to word ballot language in a way that is most informatie to voters. Brnovich has maintained that the changes are “factually accurate.”

We always want to err on the side of giving voters as much information as possible, especially consumers, he told the Arizona Republic. “When you add a provision to the constitution that starts mandating that 50 percent of that energy has to come from different sources and non-nuclear sources, that will have an impact on the cost.”

Brnovich’s lawsuit is in response to the Clean Energy for a Healthy Arizona’s campaign against him. The renewable energy group has aired attack ads against him, claiming that he “bailed out” the state’s largest electric utility compny by wording the Proposition 127 ballot measure language in a way that puts their proposal in a bad light. CEHA has aired attack ads calling Brnovich, who is running for reelection, “corrupt” and called openly for Arizona voters to boot him from office. This has happened in the wake of the renewable energy proposal lagging in the polls.

The battle over Proposition 127 has become the costliest ballot measure campaign in Arizona history with each side spending about $40 million. Arizona Public Service, the state’s largest electric utility is against the proposal and has funded the effort to defeat it.

Billionaire Tom Steyer has spent millions to push his favored renewable energy mandates. He seems to be a “true believer” in the horrors of global warming and has led similar campaigns in Michigan, Nevada and other states. “Renewable” energy, with the exception of nuclear energy and water power dams, remains mostly hogwash.

The wind does not blow steadily, but in puffs and wafts or else gales that are too much for a turbine. Solar energy is too diffuse. There are clouds and rain. Wind turbines kill birds at a disturbing rate, and solar arrays fry them. I don’t know if anyone has studied the effect on the local ecosystem when you are killing off all the birds. Neither wind nor solar can produce the energy required by a normal economy, which requires a steady source of energy that can be depended on.

I wish Mr. Brnovich the best of luck with his lawsuit.




%d bloggers like this: