American Elephants


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?

Advertisements


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.



Jordan Peterson: The Fatal Flaw in Leftist American Politics by The Elephant's Child

What is political extremism? Professor of psychology Jordan Peterson points out that America knows what right-wing radicalism looks like: The doctrine of racial superiority is where conservatives have drawn the line. “What’s interesting is that on the conservative side of the spectrum we’ve figured out how to box-in the radicals and say, ‘No, you’re outside the domain of acceptable opinion,'” says Peterson. But where’s that line for the Left? There is no universal marker of what extreme liberalism looks like, which is devastating to the ideology itself but also to political discourse as a whole

. Fortunately, Peterson is happy to suggest such a marker: “The doctrine of equality of outcome. It seems to me that that’s where people who are thoughtful on the Left should draw the line, and say no. Equality of opportunity? [That’s] not only fair enough, but laudable. But equality of outcome…? It’s like: ‘No, you’ve crossed the line. We’re not going there with you.'” Peterson argues that it’s the ethical responsibility of left-leaning people to identify liberal extremism and distinguish themselves from it the same way conservatives distance themselves from the doctrine of racial superiority. Failing to recognize such extremism may be liberalism’s fatal flaw.



Essential Reading for September 25th by The Elephant's Child

SHOCKEDBALDEAGLE

— California State College, Long Beach:  Is removing “Prospector Pete,” a statue celebrating the 1849 Gold Rush that brought California to request statehood and become part of the Union, aside from all the benefits of the gold rush itself—like Levis, sending ships around the Horn, San Francisco sourdough bread. The problem is, of course, “political correctness”—which is nonsense. “Prospector Pete” was a fairly silly idea in the first place, but removing the statue because a statement on the university website said the gold rush was “a time in history when the indigenous peoples of California endured subjugation, violence and threats of genocide.”

Long Beach, a suburb of Los Angeles, is pretty far removed from the discovery of gold in Sacramento, the Indigenous peoples of California were already subjugated by the Spanish Friars who built the missions that dominated California in the early days. All over the world, indigenous people have been displaced by more advanced invaders, from the earliest man on down. Of course we could go all the way and banish all non-native Americans from Los Angeles and give it back to the tribes. Los Angeles has become pretty disgusting anyway, and losing Hollywood would be no great loss.

But I jest. I abhor Los Angeles. I lived there, and loathed the place. It’s just that the Leftist universities are going way too far with this political correctness bit, and it has to stop. I am terminally sick of the evil of white males, with whiny feminists who want more money, more benefits, more abortions, more personal freedom without the slightest idea that they should actually contribute something in exchange. And the silly protestors, male and female, who are sticking their fists up in the air and demanding that any female accusers of Judge Brett Kavanaugh should be believed because they are female? Because Hillary lost? Because Judge Kavanaugh is nominated by a conservative president and might interfere with a Democrat-run Supreme Court’s regulating from the bench? That’s getting a little closer.

—Then, fuming over the “political correctness” destroying the ability of our young people to get a worthwhile education, I encountered an article about a “Third-Grade Civics Textbook that Butchers American History.” Howard Zinn’s communist history of America for little kids. We have to start indoctrinating our little kids by third grade?

—I know I am basically upset about the Democrats’ disgusting treatment of an honorable man and his family because they don’t want him on the Supreme Court because they are furious at being out of power. Deservedly out of power. So the most essential reading is this piece by Victor Davis Hanson, in which he clearly lays out just how we got here. “Obama Won.”   So he did.

 By traditional metrics, Barack Obama’s presidency was mostly a failure. The economy, in a new first, never hit annualized growth of 3 percent. His signature domestic policy—Obamacare—caused chaos. Millions lost their coverage and doctors, and paid far more in deductibles and premiums. The stagnant recovery after the 2008 recession was the worst in 50 years.

Myriads of new regulations, higher taxes, and socialist jawboning vegetated the economy. Scandals at the IRS, Department of Veterans Affairs, FBI, CIA, National Security Agency, Justice Department, General Services Administration, and National Security Council abounded. … (Be sure to read this one. )

I’m fed up with these theatrics and you should be too. Go ahead, get mad.



We Need to Take the Idea of “Control” A Lot More Seriously by The Elephant's Child

413800-jinping-98

The news is, at best, as disturbing as could be imagined, but it takes a lot of reading to understand the developments. Let’s start with China. President Xi Jinping is not merely an authoritarian leader. He evidently believes that the Party must have absolute and complete control over society, and he must have absolute and complete control over the Party. China returns once more to totalitarianism.

“By 2020, Chinese officials plan to have about 626 million surveillance cameras  operating throughout the country. The cameras will, among other things, feed information into a national “social credit system.

That system, when it is in place in perhaps two years, will assign to every person in China a constantly updated score based on observed behaviors. For example, an instance of jaywalking, caught by one of those cameras, will result in a reduction in score.

Although officials might hope to reduce jaywalking, they seem to have far more sinister ambitions, such as ensuring conformity to Communist Party political demands. In short, the government looks as if it is determined to create what the Economist called “the world’s first digital totalitarian state.”

That social credit system, once perfected, will surely be extended to foreign companies and individuals.

A journalist named Liu Hu was prevented from taking a flight because he had a low score. According to the Global Times (a communist controlled paper) by the end of April 2018, authorities had blocked individuals from taking 1.4 million flights and 4,25 million high-speed train trips. Liu said “I can’t buy property. My child can’t go to a private school” You are being controlled by the list all the time.

Chinese leaders have long been interested in making defiance virtually impossible. With the the capabilities they are developing it would seem that absolute control is in the works.

Americans who have studied up on Communism as practiced in Russia, the eastern European nations, and Castro’s Cuba, and now Venezuela, find our own Democrat party’s fight to be in control of our country and our Politics off-putting. But this kind of control is far beyond anything that we even could imagine. Do Read the Whole Thing. It’s not that long.



A Brief History Lesson: What Was The Cold War? by The Elephant's Child

British historian Andrew Roberts explains what the Cold War was all about. Oddly enough, even those who lived through it are apt to forget. The left really thought that communism might be a better system.

You still hear the echoes in Nancy Pelosi’s comments  that tax cuts have nothing to do with growing an economy, but are simply gifts for the very wealthy who clearly don’t deserve it. (That’s what the Left wants the poor to believe) Since she is very wealthy, who knows what she really believes. Democrats want people to pay more taxes so they will have more money to give to the poor to buy their votes.

The idea that free people, able to keep more of their own money, can create, invent, expand their businesses, or act on their own ambitions, somehow is not as important as control by their betters.

It’s followed by a fireside chat with Dennis Praeger.




%d bloggers like this: