It appears that the Democrats — like the dinosaurs of the Jurassic Period – have wandered into the political version of the La Brea Tar Pits. Having stepped into the black muck on several issues, they are stuck. They cannot escape, and their very attempts to do so only draws them down deeper.
The three pits that the Democratic Party has stumbled into are impeachment, automatic believability for women and every-thing-for-everybody socialism.
Most American are not keen on the impeachment of a President – any President. When Democrat leaders like Maxine Waters add both Vice President Pence and now Justice Brett Kavanaugh, it starts to look like a coup to topple the government and nullify the election. If crazy Maxine was alone in rattling the impeachment saber, it would not mean much. But she has been joined by other Democrats in Congress. Even the generally cautious and hugely ambitious New Jersey Senator Cory Booker says the door of impeachment should not be shut.
Those in the Party leadership with any residual sense of pragmaticism – speaking of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi — are horrified by the promises of impeachment should Democrats take the House of Representatives. They know that impeachment is not popular with the public and even the threat could turn voters away from the donkey party. But they are stuck.
President Trump and virtually every Republican candidate and office holder are more than happy to give the Waters & Co. impeachment plan as much exposure as possible. Democrats do not have a good or united response. There are not enough voices in what is left of the slightly more moderate Democrat establishment to silence those carrying the pitchforks. So, every time Schumer or Pelosi say “no, no, no,” the others scream “yes, yes, yes.”
Even if Schumer and Pelosi could prevent the impeachment effort, the public is getting more and more convinced that the Democrats will, indeed, plunge the nation into constitutional and political chaos. As that belief spreads, Republican polling numbers improve.
In the second issue, Democrats lay claim to the women’s vote. They have been doing that for decades without much justification when you look at election results. They operate under a misconception that all women issues are defined by a monolithic embrace of the liberal feminist platform.
The Democrats’ problem can be seen in the #MeToo Movement. It started out as an important social movement to embolden women to come out of the shadow of sexual oppression to tell their stories for both emotional relief and even justice in the criminal courts. Unfortunately, the Movement was hijacked by the feminist extremist. The slogan could well have been “justice for the victims of abuse” – meaning applying the rule-of–law where possible.
But that was not good enough for the man-hating wing of the radical feminist movement. Now it is enforceable believability of each and every accusation. The demanded that women be believed … period. No rule-of-law, no due process, no presumption of innocence until proven guilty, no requirement for corroboration or evidence and no consideration of false testimony. A man is to be determined to be guilty solely on the word of a woman.
That is unacceptable – and not only to men. We have seen more and more women express concerns for their sons, brothers, fathers and husbands under such a system. They understand the inherent wrongness in such a concept. The idea that believing makes it so may have worked for Peter Pan, but in the real world it brought us the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, vigilante justice and the reign of terror by Ku Klux Klan in the old solid Democrat southland.
Like the impeachment issue, Democrats are divided on the accusation-is-proof issue – a division between the rational and the rabble. The latter demand unanimous acceptance of accusation by all women – and no few men. Women who hold out for the rule-of-law – as did Main Senator Susan Collins – are deemed to be “gender traitors.”
The Democratic Party is conflicted on this issue. They are stuck. If moderates call for common sense and the rule-of-law, they fear the radicals bolt – stay home on election day or vote third party. If the moderates allow the radicals to push the accusation-is-proof concept, the entire Party loses.
Finally, there is the issue of socialism. For the Democratic Party, avowed socialist Bernie Sanders has been the political equivalent of Typhoid Mary – spreading the virus throughout the Party. Even though he does not consider himself a Democrat, the Party gave him aid and comfort in return for his fraction of a faction being added to the Democrat base. Democrats made the mistake of allowing the failed policies of socialism to mutate the Party’s genetics like one of those scientists in those iconic horror movies.
America remains a right-of-center nation. Sander’s arcane and anachronistic political language is a relic of different times and different places. The concept of everything for everybody has been the malignant promise of authoritarians throughout history.
Socialism creates anticipations that can never be met. Radicals like Alexandra Ocasia-Cortez can stump for free education, free medical care, high minimum wages and any other snake oil proposals that can be sold to the gullible, but she cannot explain where the $40 trillion will come from to enact those programs. Socialism will do for America what it did for Maoist China, Stalinist Russia, Castro Cuba, Kim North Korea and everywhere else it has been imposed.
In many ways, these three issues have come to define the increasingly left-leaning Democratic Party. We can only hope that the historic good judgment of the American people will again manifest itself.
In commenting after the final vote putting Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said that they – presumably the Republicans – do not respond to “mob rule.” Of course, he was referring to all those folks screaming and yelling in front of the Supreme Court Building, in the halls of Congress and those in the gallery attempting to disrupt the vote.
Hawaii’s Democratic Senator Mazie Hirono defended the crowds as examples of legitimate “activism” that is an important part of our constitutional democracy. When asked if assaulting political figures on the streets was wrong, Hirono missed a unifying opportunity by suggesting it was just the result of the current political atmosphere – after all, people are angry.
Her defense of the left’s actions on the streets is understandable when you consider that she has established herself as one of them. Assemble more than 20 left-wing activists in proximity of a camera and you can count on Hirono to show up. In a recent tweet, she wrote: “Proud to stand with activists in the Capitol and across the country …”
If Hirono cannot find a crowd to join, she will form one. You need only recall how she assembled a bunch of Christine Blasey Ford’s fellow – oops – lady high school alumni to announce that they believe Ford. This was a peaceful protest and well within Hirono’s and the ladies’ rights. It was, however, a cheap political trick.
None of these women were witnesses, corroborators or even contemporaries of Ford. They were a bunch of mostly Democrat women who were participating in a political stunt that had nothing to add to the substance of the Kavanaugh debate. They had no basis for their opinions other than the desire to stop Kavanagh’s confirmation. They had their voices heard and were summarily ignored, as they deserved.
The Daily Beast’s D.C. bureau chief Jackie Kucinich, appearing on CNN’s Inside Politics, said that the difference between a mob and protestors is merely perspective. She referenced how Democrats referred to the Tea Party folks as a mob. That may have happened, but certainly not very often. I mostly heard Democrats refer to them as “right wing extremists, racists, sexists, misogynists, xenophobes, homophobes, gun nuts, white supremacists and, of course, a basket of deplorables.” Against that litany of pejoratives, calling them a “mob” would have been downright complimentary.
Hirono, Kucinich and even McConnell might benefit from a rational dialogue on the difference between a mob and protesters – and there is a BIG difference. Conservatives, like me, will not take second place to anyone in terms of defending our rights of free speech or “the right of the people to peaceably assemble.” The operative word is “peaceably.”
Upon that one word written into our Constitution is the difference between the conservative view and the liberal view. Conservatives tend to believe in peaceful protests, while those on the left believe in some unprovided right to break the law – and even violate the constitutional rights of others. This is not an abstract opinion, but an empirically provable fact. One measure would be to count the number of people arrested during left-wing protests and conservative demonstrations.
However, before concluding this analysis, we must eliminate the violent extremists on the tips of the philosophic continuum. I am referring to such groups as the neo-Nazis and Antifa. These elements, which promote and engage in clearly illegal activities – and see violence as a legitimate tool of protest — are to be condemned by all good Americans.
Unfortunately, rare condemnations are too often one-sided and based on narrow partisan political perspectives. The white supremacists on the right and the authoritarians on the left are the ever-present evil viruses that universally infect politics. Their commonality is that, in pursuit of their malignant agenda, they would eradicate virtually every personal right articulated in the Constitution.
But even in the more traditional expressions of public dissent, there is a difference between the left and the right. In most cases, conservative demonstrations are legal and peaceful. This is true for those women who come to Washington each year to oppose abortion. It was true of all those Tea Party demonstrations around the nation. Unfortunately, these do not garner the same level of news coverage because they do not create disruption or result in violence – and they are contrary to the general biases of the left-wing media.
The left, because they carry the authoritarian gene, believe that neither the Constitution nor the legitimate laws of the land should stand in their way. They seek to rule over the people, not govern with the consent of the people.
Martin Luther King was correct in standing up against laws that, themselves, violated the constitution – laws that deprived classes of people their inalienable rights. Yes, he supported people taking any seat at a lunch counter, moving to the front of the bus, going to the school of their choice or exercising their right to vote. In breaking these laws, King was supporting the greater authority – the Constitution.
But even then, King judiciously adhered to peaceful protest. He did not send thugs in to smash up the diners, burn the buses, vandalize the schools or attack the registrars and police. Like Mahatma
Gandhi, King understood the power of exposing injustice – not competing with it. That is a lesson that has been lost on the new left.
The basic difference between a mob and a protest is legality. When a protest becomes disruptive or violent, it transmutes into mob action. While violent demonstrations are rare on the right, they are very common on the left. Part of the reason is that we have become too tolerant of illegal demonstrations. Police are often ordered to “stand down” as the mob blocks highways, interferes with commerce, trespasses on private property, loots stores and, in the extreme, burns, vandalizes and kills.
In response to the Kavanaugh vote, you witnessed the two characteristics of left-wing protest. Most of the assembled were exercising their constitutional right – and we should always celebrate that whether we agree with the cause or not. But … there were some who opposed Kavanaugh that took to mob action. It resulted in more than one hundred being arrested. Unfortunately, these symbolic arrests have become a badge of honor because the mobsters know they will not suffer the legal consequences they deserve.
The vote on the Kavanaugh confirmation was interrupted several times by a strategic series of outbursts from the gallery. These were not peaceful protestors. They were seeking to illegally disrupt the proceedings. They were an organized mob.
When Hirono excuses the mob action as just activism on the part of angry people not getting their way, it should have no more credibility than excusing bank robbery because the person wants money. The first amendment does not give us the right to break the law – and we should stop being overly tolerant when protestors do.
It would take a symposium of political scientists, sociologists and psychologists to explain why the left believes that they have some sort of entitlement to disrupt, pillage, burn and injure whenever they are not happy with an election, a piece of legislation, a political appointment or even a speaker exercising his or her right of free speech. They are the modern-day Philistines.
The Bible advises that only a person without sin should be casting any stones. It is worth considering that advice when judging the work of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee who were passing judgment on Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
Among the most self-righteous and pompous of the inquisitors was New Jersey Senator Cory Booker. He was willing to risk expulsion from the Senate by releasing classified documents that would further point the finger of guilt at Kavanaugh. It was, by his own hyperbolic description, his personal “Spartacus moment.”
Truth be known, the documents were not classified, he was in no danger of being booted from the Senate and the information contained in the documents provided no more evidence of sexual misconduct by Kavanaugh than the unverifiable accusation itself.
What made Booker’s performance so ironic was his own self-confessed sexual misconduct. Specifically, Booker, at the age of 15, “groped” a drunken high school friend as they kissed and rolled around on a bed. Sound familiar?
She rejected his initial attempt to fondle her breast, but Booker was not about to take “no” for an answer. He again imposed himself on the inebriated young lady. This time, as he put it, “I reached my mark.”
We know she was drunk because Booker said that she told him later as an excuse for her naughty behavior. Are we to believe that Booker was unaware of her vulnerable condition when he put himself upon her?
In 1992, when he was in his junior year at Stanford University, Booker ‘fessed up to the incident in his newspaper column. In the column, he claimed that he had reconsidered his role as an aggressive male looking to score — abandoning the advice he once received that “liquor is quicker.” Given his propensity for seeing himself in epic proportions, Booker may have fancied this as his St. Paul en route to Damascus moment.
While Booker seems to take great pride in having given up his brutish behavior, it seems – no, it is – hypocritical to disregard Kavanaugh’s exemplary adult life.
Booker was not the only hypocrite on the Democrat side of the panel. You had Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal, who seems to be in a contest with Booker for partisan pomposity.
In querying Kavanaugh, Blumenthal referenced a standard judicial instruction to jurors, si parum est considerare potes insidias omnia. For those of you who had neither a law school nor a Jesuit education, it means “if one lies in small things you can consider them lying in all things.”
For Blumenthal to bring up this bit of legal counsel is the very definition of chutzpah. (And for those who never go through a bar or bat mitzvah, it means “unmitigated gall”). Blumenthal’s case only deviates from the aforementioned jury instruction in that his notable lie was not a small thing. It was a disgraceful lie – or as my grandfather would say, “a whopper.”
On many occasions – in statements and in writing – Blumenthal referred to his service in Vietnam during the war. I was untrue. He claims it was inadvertent – a mistake. I mean, who couldn’t mistakenly believe you were in a war when you were not. It is sort of the opposite of being AWOL “absent without leave.” Blumenthal was PWOP, “present without presence.”
Blumenthal’s proof that it was an honest mistake was his claim that on other occasions he “more accurately and honestly represented his military service.” In other words, they were not lies because he did not MISrepresent his military service at every opportunity.
What is egregiously offensive about this lie is that it can be viewed of a violation of the law against “theft of valor” – claiming military activities and awards that never happened or were never earned. Those of us – like my own family – who have lost young men in war take particular umbrage at Blumenthal’s contemptible lies. And he is correct in referencing the judicial instruction because each time I see him on television, I see and hear a liar.
Hypocrite number three is California Senator Diane Feinstein. She ranted against what she considered Kavanaugh’s demeanor and his political partisanship. How could he be trusted to act and rule objectively within the restrictions of the sworn constitutional duties of a Supreme Court justice? He is too political – to partisan – she says.
But wait! Isn’t she the lady who manipulated the entire Christina Blasey Ford accusation for maximum political impact? Didn’t she violate her sworn duty to uphold the constitutional advice and consent process in favor of colluding and conspiring with Ford and her radical leftist attorneys – attorneys that Feinstein, herself, recommended? Didn’t she strategically withhold information from the Committee for six weeks – preventing the accusations by Ford to be addressed in a proper and timely manner?
The answer to all-of-the-above is yes, yes and yes.
I have often stated that hypocrisy is not a sin in politics. It is a condition of employment. Just that sometimes the sin is a lot bigger than others. Booker, Blumenthal and Feinstein might sound like the name of a law firm, but it is really a triumvirate of hypocrites.
Sounding more and more like a proud patriotic American, superstar rap artist Kanye West is shocking the music establishment down to its very foundation.
The MAGA wearing, Trump supporting, Grammy award-winning entertainer and business mogul has come out of the “Kool-Aid” progressive closet with a vengeance – in full support of President Trump’s economic agenda.
Kanye tweeted out Sunday, “We will no longer outsource to other countries. We build factories here in America and create jobs. We will provide jobs for all who are free from prisons as we abolish the 13th amendment. Message sent with love.”
The Sunday tweets followed the 41-year-old musician’s appearance the night before on SNL’s 44th season premiere. Wearing a red MAGA cap, Kanye doubled-down on his support for the president at the conclusion of the show. This apparently caught the show’s producers “off guard” as they attempted to cut Kanye off in mid-air, in the middle of his impassioned speech.
“The blacks weren’t always Democrats. You know it’s like the plan they did, to take the fathers out the home and put them on welfare. Does anybody know about that? That’s a Democratic plan,” Kanye orated before an enthralled audience.
Kanye continued to stress America’s need for a serious “dialogue, not a diatribe.” A portion of the speech was captured by comedian Chris Rock and went viral on social media.
Kanye referenced the news coverage of President Trump, stating that “ninety percent of news are liberal.”
“Ninety percent of TV … LA, New York, writers, rappers, musicians; so it’s easy to make it seem like it’s so, so, so, one-sided. I feel kind of free. I thought this country said that I could be me.”
That’s when SNL momentarily went black, cutting off the mega rapper mid-sentence, expounding on “freedom of speech.”
Deranged progressive and CNN co-host Alisyn Camerota went after Kanye on her most recent show, stating: “I am wondering if it’s time to start worrying about Kanye because he does go on sometimes nonsensical rants. I haven’t heard this whole one, so I don’t know if it’s nonsensical. And look, he has taken a break, I think, for some sort of stress-related issues, so I am concerned.”
It would appear by her statement, anyone who supports the president must be suffering some type of “stress-related issue”…which begs the question: Has anyone seen the CNN host lately going into hyper-overdrive regarding Russian collusion, the Kavanaugh hearings, or anything remotely related to the administration? The irony is not lost on us.
Defeating the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh is the latest battle being carried out by those collectively known as the #NeverTrump Resistance Movement. Twice they have stopped team Kavanaugh within inches of the goal line. The first time was with a carefully choreographed series of accusations of sexual misconduct – each more sensational and less credible that the previous.
The second time was on the eve of the Judiciary Committee vote to send the Kavanaugh nomination on to the Senate. With the help of retiring Republican and occasional renegade Senator Jeff Flake, of Arizona, the full Senate vote has been postponed pending a brief FBI investigation of the accusations of Christine Blasey Ford.
While the work of the FBI is to be rather perfunctory and limited, you can bet that the Democrats and their media allies on the political left will be using the time to concoct and implement all sorts of strategies to further delay and ultimately defeat Kavanaugh. They will not be waiting for the report from the FBI.
Senate Republicans remain optimistic that when the dirty dust has settled, Kavanaugh will be heading to the Supreme Court a few days late from the traditional October 1st opening day. But what if the left is successful and the Kavanaugh vote is a couple short of victory? What then?
The prevailing wisdom is that it will be a great day for the Democrats and their hardcore left-wing base. Their friends in the news media will hype their success as the greatest victory since V-J Day officially ended World War II.
It may be a Pyrrhic Victory, however.
No matter the outcome of the 2018 midterm elections, Republican will still have the power to confirm a nominee before Democrats would take over the House and, even more critically, the Senate in January of 2019. Under any circumstances, the second candidate would be harder to defeat. That is just the nature of these things. All-out extreme opposition would wear thin with the public.
President Trump can play one-upsmanship by appointing a candidate that terrorizes the left even more than Kavanaugh, and there is a good one out there. When Trump narrowed the list down to a precious few, Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals was on that list. She is in the same tradition as Kavanaugh. Even though both are Roman Catholics, Barrett is considered a much greater opponent of Roe v. Wade.
Barrett puts the Democrats in the unhappy position of having to fight a woman – something that is incompatible with their political genetics. This is especially true if she were nominated before the midterm elections. On the other hand, waiting to make such a nomination until after the midterms could produce some very positive results for the GOP.
I can think of nothing that would energize that coalition of Republicans, populists and freedom loving conservatives that put Trump in the Oval Office more than having a Supreme Court seat hanging in the balance on Election Day. We only have to recall that it was the prospect of filling the vacant seat of Antonin Scalia that motivated a lot of voters to go to the polls and vote for a man they admittedly did not like all that much. Voters had to decide if that open seat would be filled by President Hillary Clinton or President Donald Trump.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s hardball political gambit of not moving ahead with President Obama’s choice, Merritt Garland, paid off big time. It can be reasonably argued that it was that seat dangling out there on Election Day that motivated so many conservative voters to get off the sofa and head to the polls. Many, including this writer, believe it was that issue that put Trump over the top.
It is entirely conceivable that by defeating Kavanaugh, the Democrats may suffer actual losses in the Senate and see that much talked about blue wave ebb out to sea.
Though hypothetical, the aforementioned scenario is not impossibility. Democrats should be careful what they wish for.