American Elephants


The Always Quotable Dr. Thomas Sowell by The Elephant's Child

Economist Mark J. Perry featured a quote from Thomas Sowell’s 2012 column “Socialist or Fascist?” in his Carpe Diem column at AEI.

“What socialism, fascism and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people – like themselves – need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat.”

And here’s another:

“The left’s vision is not only a vision of the world, but also a vision of themselves, as superior beings pursuing superior ends. The self-flattery of the vision of the left also gives its true believers a huge ego stake in that vision which means that mere facts are unlikely to make them reconsider, regardless of what evidence piles up against the vision of the left, and regardless of its disastrous consequences.

Only our own awareness of the huge stakes involved can save us from the rampaging presumptions of our betters, whether they are called socialists or fascists. So long as we buy their heady rhetoric, we are selling our birthright of freedom.”

Advertisements


There Is A Natural Tendency Towards Tyranny by The Elephant's Child

Why are Democrats so angry? Why do they have such a hard time accepting defeat, or even accepting disagreement? They are indignant when we find fault with their statements or ideas. They call us racists, white supremacists, and they cannot think of words terrible enough to call President Trump. They call him a Nazi, they call him Hitler, with no justification whatsoever, except that they are furious that we disagree. There are a lot of tyrants in the world, but Trump is not one of them.

Hitler was a piker.  We rightly excoriate him for the mass murder of Europe’s Jews, for the concentration camps, for the death squads of the SS.  The Nazis populate hundreds of thrillers, movies, histories, and all sorts of scholarly work.  But we are probably more affected by the thrillers and the movies, for Nazis make fine villains with their boots and death heads and dramatically evil flag.  When frustrated lefties want to express their rage, they plaster Hitler mustaches and haircuts on photos of the objects of their anger.

Mao Zedong, founder of the People’s Republic of China, qualifies as the greatest mass murderer in world history, according to a Hong Kong-based historian who had unprecedented access to official Communist Party archives.  Frank Dikötter is the only author to have deeply studied the Chinese archives since they were reopened four years ago.

Between 1958 and 1962, Mao’s state waged war on China’s peasants.  The nation was facing a famine and the systematic torture, brutality, and starvation and killing of Chinese peasants were comparable to the Second World War in its magnitude.  More than 45 million people were worked, starved or beaten to death in China over those four years.  A third of all homes in China were destroyed to produce fertilizer.  In one region, 13,000 opponents of the regime were killed in just three weeks.

It is indisputable that Mao himself and the Party leadership were afflicted with economic incompetence, wholesale ignorance and ivory-tower utopianism. It was called ‘The Great Leap Forward,’ but the misallocation of capital and resources were disastrous leaps in the wrong direction.  This is the toll for only four years.  The total is far above 75 million.

The Soviet Union, of course, was responsible for upwards of 25 million deaths of innocent victims, systematically butchered.  That policy of ideological hegemony found it a crime to be middle-class, of noble birth, a kulak, a Ukrainian or even a member of the Communist Party.  Mikhail Tomsky, head of the Soviet trade unions stated in 1927 :”We allow other parties to exist.  However, the fundamental principle that distinguishes us from the West is as follows; one party rules, and all the others are in jail.”

The fascinating thing has always been the Left’s attempts to consider Nazi Germany (the National Socialists) as a party of the right, and thus freely despised, but the socialist Soviet Union was long admired.  People still remark that the Cold War was unnecessary overreach. And they simply do not recognize the similarities between Hitler and Stalin.

There are the regimes of the Soviet satellite states of Eastern Europe, now free.  Kim Jong Il’s North Korean despotic captive state needs little more explanation than the famous nighttime satellite picture of the Korean peninsula with only one tiny light for Pyongyang and constant evidence of the starvation of the North Korean people.  At least 2 million dead.

Pol Pot’s Cambodian killing fields where the entire educated class were slaughtered — some identified only by the fact that they wore glasses — too, are explained by only a few pictures, and an estimated toll of at least 2  million innocent victims.  Communist Vietnam and Burma Myanmar add unknown numbers to the toll.

Latin America accounts for at least a 1½ million.  The bloody killer Ché Guevara enjoyed doing his own executions personally, and is celebrated by having his image on tee shirts and the fantasy of his romantic story told by Hollywood.  New wannabe communists keep popping up in South America, which seems to have a predilection for dictators.

One common theme that runs through all these destructive regimes is complete intolerance for disagreement. How can you possibly have free speech and yet be intolerant of someone else’s disagreement?

I am simply trying to point out that American society is built on argument, debate and dispute.  We try to persuade, present evidence, show examples and convince.  When that fails, we  look for more evidence and more persuasive materials.  Our disagreements are worked out through messy, argumentative political campaigns, where we use all the tools available to us to win the argument.

In all of this there is a temptation towards tyranny.  A temptation to hate those who see the question differently.  A temptation to forcibly stop the other side of a question from disagreeing with our ideas. That’s where the Left has landed. Hollywood celebrities cannot wait to get to a microphone or to Twitter to call us names because we dared to disagree with them.

The founders wisely provided three separate divisions of government to provide checks and balances on each other.  But the initial rendering of the Constitution all too soon showed cracks — in spite of the clear designation that “we the people” gave certain rights and duties to the government — people were being imprisoned for criticizing the government. So the Bill of Rights was enacted to make crystal clear the protection of political speech and disagreement, as well as our other rights. Why is that so difficult to understand?

 



Democratic Socialism is Still Socialism by The Elephant's Child



The Democratic Party Is a Crazed, Howling Mob! by The Elephant's Child

I was just mulling over my first sentence, when John Hinderaker at the Powerline Blog wrote it for me. “The Democratic Party has turned into a crazed, howling mob. It is degrading our public life to a degree that has not been seen since they seceded in 1861.”

Front Page Magazine, David Horowitz’s website, wrote about how they had updated their “Discover the Networks” site, so to investigate, I went there and entered “Antifa” because of all the riots in Portland. The same bunch comes to Seattle when the possibility of a good riot seems imminent, probably adding on some locals.  Antifa is pronounced ón–tee–fah, emphasis on the ón.  It’s a shortened form of antifacist, but they’re more correctly identified as anarchist. They simply want to permanently wipe the United States off the face of the earth.

Thus those designed to protect and defend the nation’s civil society are illegitimate as well, so they’re against the police, ICE, federal state and local governments and want to make the United States “ungovernable” by engaging in mass insurrection, and mass resistance and all manner of physical violence against supporters of President Trump in order to advance social justice and crush “fascism.” Nice bunch.

It’s a long and thorough article, and very interesting. Lots of druggies among them, and perhaps even more people who get a high or rush from physical violence. I came away with the feeling that it’s all the high from physical violence, for their understanding of politics, political systems, social justice, or fascism is severely lacking. Made me think that we desperately need to imbue our educational system from the very start with a deep understanding of what it means to be human. Any vision of a serene society where we all just get along and we all help each other and share our stuff, and food, and shelter, is simply bonkers. There is no such thing as “social justice.” Socialism is not a system for sharing and equality, but a system for coercive control by greedy leaders. Doesn’t work, cannot work, has never worked, as would-be socialists assume.

Our “social media,” supposedly designed to bring people together, does no such thing. Families don’t get along. Siblings fight or detest each other. You lose friends. Some people are deeply ignorant. Some are mean. Some get a high from violence. We are each solitary individuals in a complicated world in which we have to learn how to make our way. And our journey will be filled with hope and misery. We will lose friends and family, we will be fired from jobs, get into accidents and be cheated. So revel in the good days and appreciate them as a triumph over adversity which is always waiting just around the corner. Add Discover the Networks to your list of useful websites. They explain just who the organizations are, and who the players are, and what they are all up to.

How extremely odd this is when we are just discovering again what a blessing we enjoy to live in one of the freest societies in the world, with a free economy that is growing and prospering.  And the opposing party can only demand that we shut all the prosperity down. A strange world indeed.



Susan Collins Explains Her Vote For Judge Kavanaugh by The Elephant's Child

An end to the Democrats’ war against a fine man and highly qualified Judge, (although now they’re threatening to Impeach him). Can’t have conservatives on the Supreme Court who might rule against Democrats attempts to turn the United States of America into something more controlled, more Socialist, for that’s what the impulse to control means.

I really do not understand why Democrats are so opposed to Capitalism, which has brought so much freedom and invention and raised so many into the middle class. Unemployment has reached a new low, not seen since 1969, more people are getting raises, more people are working, and happier than they have been for years.

Republicans are inclined to be collegial and cooperative, but there are limits, and Republicans can get really angry too.

Will Christine Blasey Ford face charges for lying under oath?



Slowly, Slowly, the Truth is Coming Out by The Elephant's Child

The more one reviews accuser Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony, the worse it gets — as I expressed in the previous post. There’s the little girl “up-talk”— the last syllable at the end of a sentence goes higher in tone. It’s another little girl thing. She’s just so unsure, she needs help to recall, doesn’t name anyone who can verify her memories.

I cannot imagine how anyone who talks like that could be a professor at a university and at Stanford Medical School. Nobody would take her seriously. Yet she seems so wounded, that it’s easy for viewers to take her defenseless little girl pose as the plaintive plea of a wronged woman, and assume that she is credible.

She pretends that she doesn’t understand the questions, needing more time to reply. When we first heard from her, she didn’t really know who it was, only that someone got on top of her and put his hand over her mouth. Then she was suddenly absolutely clear that it was Brett Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge.  All four of her confirming witnesses did not confirm her story. At Breitbart, John Nolte explores the veracity of her testimony with devastating results.

Christina Blasey Ford testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that she began having memories of her abuse returned when she and her husband put, at her demand, a second front door on their house. She said she had never told anyone about anything until May 2012 when she went to couples counseling.

In explaining why I wanted a second front door, I began to describe the assault in detail. I recall saying that the boy who assaulted me could someday be on the U.S. Supreme Court, and spoke a bit about his background at an elitist all-boys school in Bethesda, Maryland. My husband recalls that I named my attacker as Brett Kavanaugh.

The second front door was already installed by March 2011, perhaps earlier,  and apparently installed as a door to an office where she had a private business called The Couples Resource Center.

According to information found on the Internet, a business was located at the exact same address as the Ford house (please note that the address of this house was released on the Internet weeks ago). The Couples Resource Center was located at the exact same location as the Ford’s home.

Michael Walsh takes on the profession of journalism as it relates to Ford, and the media does not come off well.

Victor Davis Hanson summed it all up nicely in a single paragraph:

The “process” of memorializing Ford’s testimony involved a strange inversion of constitutional norms: The idea of a statute of limitations is ossified; hearsay is legitimate testimony; inexact and contradictory recall is proof of trauma, and therefore of validity; the burden of proof is on the accused, not the accuser; detail and evidence are subordinated to assumed sincerity; proof that one later relates an allegation to another is considered proof that the assault actually occurred in the manner alleged; motive is largely irrelevant; the accuser establishes the guidelines of the state’s investigation of the allegations; and the individual allegation gains credence by cosmic resonance with all other such similar allegations.

The descriptions of the house, what one can hear of people going up and downstairs , she contradicts herself. Supposedly her friend Leland drove her home, but Leland denies the whole thing, says she never encountered Kavanaugh at all, and has no knowledge of the party. Ford reports proudly of her polygraph, (her lawyers made her do it) and neither the lawyers nor herself as a practicing psychologist should be unaware of the limitations of polygraphs.

And at Powerline, John Hinderaker comments on the smear:

Brett Kavanaugh enjoys one of the most spotless reputations of anyone in American public life. He has been enthusiastically endorsed by those who have known him all his life–by girls he knew in high school and college, by judges he has served with, by professors and students and Harvard and Yale law schools, by judges who have worked with him, by his judicial clerks–most of whom have been women–by the American Bar Association, by sitting Supreme Court justices. In short, everyone who has ever known or dealt with Brett Kavanaugh endorses him.

I think that Judge Kavanaugh’s pristine reputation is one reason why the Democrats have unleashed against him a smear campaign unparalleled in American history. This is the message they are trying to send: If we can do this to the Boy Scout Brett Kavanaugh, we can do it to anyone. Are you thinking of serving in a Republican administration? Or accepting an appointment to the federal judiciary from a Republican president? Think twice, and then think again.

Nope, I don’t believe a word of it, including her claim that she was sexually abused. Her story just falls apart.



Joe Biden Explains FBI Investigations by The Elephant's Child

Here’s Joe Biden, a bit younger back in 1991, during the Clarence Thomas hearings, explaining that FBI investigations, such as the one demanded today of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, do not reach conclusions. That’s not their job, nor how they do things. Embarrassing to Democrats to have us dredge up ancient evidence, but there it is. The FBI investigates, but they do not reach conclusions.

Democrats really hate it when we do this. They have no concern about consistency, and hate it when we make fun of them.




%d bloggers like this: