American Elephants


Goodbye Columbus Day, and Farewell to History by The Elephant's Child

Advertisements


Nancy Pelosi Inadvertently Explains Democrat Tactics by The Elephant's Child

The peculiarities of the Kavanaugh case and his confirmation as a Justice of the Supreme Court keep surfacing. Here is a transcript from C- SPAN in which Nancy Pelosi explains the Smear Tactics to be used on Trump-Kavanaugh.

Pelosi Wrap up Smear Transcription;

“You demonize – we call it the wrap up smear. If you want to talk politics. We call it the wrap up smear. You smear somebody with falsehoods and all the rest and then you merchandise it. And then YOU ( the press ) write it and we’ll say, see it was reported in the press that this this this and this so they have that validation that the press reported the smear. And then it’s called the wrap up smear – now I’m going to merchandise the presses’ report on the smear that we made. It’s a tactic and it’s self evident.” – 6 / 22 / 17

**********

That was followed up by her letter to her “Democratic Colleagues:”   Do read the whole short letter. She speaks of the dignity and bravery (of the exposed lies of Christine Blasey Ford, and the heartbreak thereof.  Yes. Didn’t work.

She explains the Democrat’s agenda, and with it, manages to explain their total lack of understanding of basic economics and how capitalism works.

**********

Then just posted by John Hinderaker at Powerline,

James Kunstler is a liberal who has a site called Clusterf*** Nation. Although a liberal, he casts a cold, intelligent eye on the follies of our time. The linked post begins by questioning why anyone would believe Christine Ford. What follows is an explosive theme:

I believe that the Christine Blasey Ford gambit was an extension of the sinister activities underway since early 2016 in the Department of Justice and the FBI to un-do the last presidential election, and that the real and truthful story about these seditious monkeyshines is going to blow wide open.

Stunning if true.

It turns out that the Deep State is a small world. Did you know that the lawyer sitting next to Dr. Ford in the Senate hearings, one Michael Bromwich, is also an attorney for Andrew McCabe, the former FBI Deputy Director fired for lying to investigators from his own agency and currently singing to a grand jury? What a coincidence. Out of all the lawyers in the most lawyer-infested corner of the USA, she just happened to hook up with him.

Read the whole short piece, it may be all coming apart.

ADDENDUM: I just found the video of Nancy Pelosi’s explanation of how they would go about smearing Judge Brett Kavanaugh.  One of the most disgusting episodes in Congressional history.



What Is Justice? How Is It Defined? by The Elephant's Child

justice
Lady Justice is the symbol of the judiciary. She carries three symbols of the rule of law: a sword symbolizing the court’s coercive power, scales representing the weighing of competing claims, and a blindfold indicating impartiality. This particular representation says:

Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civilized society. It ever has been, ever will be pursued until it be obtained or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.

The judicial oath required of every federal judge and justice says “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I…will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me… under the Constitution and laws of the United States, so help me God.

“Empathy” is the word that has caused so much concern. For empathy has no place in jurisprudence. Federal judges swear an oath to administer justice without respect to persons. If they are to feel more partial to the “young teenage mom,” the “disabled,” the “African-American,” the “gay,” the “old,” then they are not and cannot be impartial, and the rule of law counts for nothing. The “depth and breadth of one’s empathy” is exactly what the judicial oath insists that judges renounce. That impartiality is what guarantees equal protection under the law.

That is what the blindfold is all about.



Democrats Are a Disgrace to the United States Senate by The Elephant's Child

What a day!

What explains the spectacle, the scandals and the melodramas? Victor Davis Hanson takes on the question, and deals with it quite successfully. Do read the whole thing, it’s not long.

Francis Menton, the Manhattan Contrarian asks: “What Is This About Not Accepting the Results of Elections?” (last Monday).

The fundamental thing that distinguishes the United States from everywhere else in the world is our collective commitment to our Constitution. What does that mean? It’s not a long or complex document. It defines the structure of the government (legislative, executive, judicial), and lays out a series of rights in the first ten amendments. But most fundamentally, it provides for an electoral process for selecting our legislative and executive officials. Commitment to the Constitution means accepting the results of the elections, and the subsequent peaceful transfer of power. During my entire life up to now, that has been how it worked. Now, not so much.

Democrats, having just had an 8 year successful presidency, with the first Black President, and preparing to elect the first woman as president for another 8 years and another Democrat triumph, were totally unprepared for a loss, and a loss to Donald Trump was somehow more than they could bear. Those in power had never imagined that Donald Trump either could or should win the 2016 election.

In an article from the Wall Street Journal, Shelby Steele explains: “For many on the left a hateful anti-Americanism has become a self-congratulatory lifestyle.

It began in the 1960s, when America finally accepted that slavery and segregation were profound moral failings. That acceptance changed America forever. It imposed a new moral imperative: America would have to show itself redeemed of these immoralities in order to stand as a legitimate democracy.

The genius of the left in the ’60s was simply to perceive the new moral imperative, and then to identify itself with it. Thus the labor of redeeming the nation from its immoral past would fall on the left. This is how the left put itself in charge of America’s moral legitimacy. The left, not the right—not conservatism—would set the terms of this legitimacy and deliver America from shame to decency.

The Democrats’ behavior at this hearing and in this confirmation process has been so far from what was intended by the Constitution, it is embarrassing. They clearly don’t care about truth, honor, a hearing conducted by the United States Senate, only about removing Brett Kavanaugh from any possibility of serving on the U.S. Supreme Court—because he might rule against their agenda. The Supreme Court is supposed to be about the Constitution and the law, not about feelings. This is why the Democrats deserve total condemnation for their behavior. This is the third time they have pulled this kind of stunt. Even today I have heard Democrats claiming that Justice Clarence Thomas, confirmed to the Court in 1981, is a sexual predator. Claims made during his hearing, and rejected. Inexcusable.

This has been a total Democrat smear, as has been their posture when their power is questioned or rejected, as it has been. The economy is booming in a way previously unseen in the 21st century. Unemployment is near record lows, and the stock market is reaching new highs. Domestic energy production is reaching record highs. Trump is helping to crush the Islamic State, he has beefed up the military, restored good relations with Israel and with the moderate Arab world. It’s clearly bad enough that Trump won, but he is actually suceeding, when he was supposed to be crude and incompetent. The failures of the previous administration are being fixed, one by one. That’s the source of the fury, which is now focused on Judge Brett Kavanaugh and his family. Disgusting.



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.



Kavanaugh: Continued, On and On. by The Elephant's Child

The fourth person that Christine Blasey Ford identified as being at the fabled party when she was assaulted, put a damper on Ford’s charge. In a Saturday evening email, an attorney representing Ford’s former classmate, Leland Ingham Keyser, stated that his client “does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party of gathering where he was present, with, or without Dr. Ford.” She’s the fourth person to refute Ford’s story.

Claire Berlinski from the Manhattan Institute commented that: “news organizations could render a valuable service if, whenever they report that someone has taken or proposes to take a polygraph, they reminded readers (or explained to them) that polygraphs are voodoo.  Junk science. They are no more reliable than a pack of Tarot cards. Polygraph evidence is inadmissible in court. There is a good reason for that. To check Brett Kavanaugh’s qualifications for the Supreme Court, Congress would do well to ask him whether he believes Frye v. United States and United States v. Scheffer were correctly decided. …

A polygraph measures your heart rate, breathing, and galvanic skin response. There is no evidence that any pattern of physiological responses is unique to deception. Polygraphs are useful to investigators trying to elicit a confession, however: if you convince suggestible people that these measurements are associated with lying, they are more likely spontaneously to confess when you tell them, “The machine says you’re lying.”

And Heather MacDonald, also at Manhattan Institute: chimes in with a little common sense. “If Supreme Court Justice William Brennan were posthumously discovered to have aggressively groped a girl once in high school, should that fact discredit his landmark opinions expanding press freedom, legal protections for criminal defendants, and voting and welfare rights? Would it have been better for the country, from a liberal perspective, if Brennan’s judicial career had been derailed from the start? What about Justice John Marshall Harlan, whose groundbreaking 1896 dissent from the majority opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson declared that the Constitution was “color-blind” and rejected state-sponsored segregation? If Harlan had once jumped on a girl as a 17-year-old, should that one-time outbreak of boorish adolescent male hormones efface his contributions as a public thinker?

The Democratic response to the allegation that three and a half decades ago, Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh assaulted a girl during a pool party bears many hallmarks of campus culture, from the admonition that “survivors” should always be believed to the claim that the veracity of the accusation matters less than the history of white-male privilege. But the most significant import from academic feminism is the idea that a long-ago, never-repeated incident of adolescent sexual misbehavior (assuming that the assault happened as described, which Kavanaugh has categorically denied) should trump a lifetime record of serious legal thought and government service. (Now, a new allegation, reported by The New Yorker, that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted a Yale classmate at a party—though the New York Times regarded the evidence as too flimsy to publish—has ramped up outrage to the point that feminists are demanding that the Ford hearings they had called for be cancelled.) The feminist nostrum that the personal is political is being weaponized to subordinate the public realm of ideas to the private realm of sexual relations—all, ironically, in the service of a highly political end: preventing a judicial conservative from being seated on the high court. The domain of Eros and the domain of public action are, however, in most cases distinct. If it turned out that James Madison had groped his domestics, it would be absurd to discard the constitutional separation of powers on that ground. Madison’s political insights are more important to civilization than any hypothetical chauvinist indiscretions.

Sleazy porn-star lawyer Michael Avenatti has located someone who will claim gross drunken college parties. Avenatti, with his representation of Stormy Daniels discovered media attention, and loves it so much that now he even wants to run for president. Apparently there is something intoxicating about appearing on camera, getting attention—we know that Hollywood celebrities will do or say anything to get the attention of the public. If it’s outrageous enough, maybe they will get into People or maybe just one of the movie magazines that you find at the beauty parlor.

I expect that most of you are as tired and angry about all this as I am. Judge Kavanaugh should be promptly confirmed, and enough of these phony stories.



An Encouraging Word: by The Elephant's Child

An encouraging word from Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, at Powerline.

“You’ve watched the fight. You’ve watched the tactics. … In the very near future, Judge Kavanaugh will be on the United States Supreme Court… Don’t get rattled by all of this. We’re gonna plow right through it and do our job.”




%d bloggers like this: