Democrats are talking a lot about the gains they expect from Millennial voters – the 18 to 35 age group. Much of the energy necessary to produce the blue wave depends on those younger Americans. Democrat optimism is predicated on a hope-based theory that, itself, is based on two assumptions – that young voters will come out in greater numbers than ever before and that they will be voting overwhelmingly for Democrats.
This theory poses a problem for pollsters in creating their all-important demographic samples. What happens if they build in the assumption of greater Millennial participation and it does not come to pass? The answer is easy. The polls will show more theoretical Democrat voters than show up on Election Day.
To set up the sample, pollsters first had to ask the Millennials if they intended to vote. In a recent poll, 56 percent of them responded that they do intend to vote. Personally, I think that number is wrong. If the pollsters use that number in building their sample, and I am right, they could overestimate the Democrat vote by a few percentage points.
With the Democrats holding a lead of fewer than five points in the so-called generic ballot, that error alone could switch the predicted outcome to the Republicans.
So, why do I believe that the 52 percent is an unreal expectation with regard to Millennials? The most obvious answer is that a very low percentage of young eligible voters – and even registered voters – actually make it to the polling place. That 52 percent would be an extraordinarily high turnout for a midterm election.
For many, it is a hassle. They are away at college where distractions abound. In a sense, they are visitors to the area and not involved in the local political issues. If they are registered to vote, it may be back home.
So, what would drive Millennials to the polls? Democrats are playing the healthcare card, but most Millennials are healthy and do not anticipate needing significant healthcare services in the near future – and many are still covered by their parents’ insurance. They are not agonizing over Medicare and Medicaid. If they think about Social Security at all, it is far in the future, and many already believe it will not be there for them anyway.
Perhaps their most important concern is getting or keeping a good paying job – and with the economy booming, that issue plays well for Trump and the Republicans.
There is also a unique subculture within the Millennials: The Bernie Sanders constituency. They may be the most politically engaged of all Millennials and, at the same time, the most frustrated – the most turned off by both parties. Outside of a couple of congressional districts with Bernie-style candidates – and those are already safe districts for Democrats – the radical left Millennials do not feel they have skin in the game. If they do not have a Bernie candidate in their voting district, many are likely to skip out on Election Day or vote third party.
By giving excessive attention and encouragement to Millennials to get out and vote, the left-wing media is potentially creating a false impression regarding the potential size of the Millennial vote – an unwarranted optimism for Democrats. It would not be the first time.
But even if you accept the polling results that suggest a 52 percent turnout by Millennials, there is a second number in that same poll that has not been given a lot of attention. According to the poll, less than half of those likely Millennial voters — 42 percent of them to be exact — do not like President Trump. That means that more than half either like Trump or are indifferent – and indifferent voters are not highly motivated.
The major pitfall for the Democrats is that their blue wave is totally dependent on specific voting blocs – including Millennials – behaving in a way that they have not done in the past. Hardcore left-wing Princeton University Professor Eddie Glaude — a regular CNN/MSNBC contributor, of course – conceded in a recent appearance that he and his compatriots are relying on groups turning out in numbers that have not been seen in the past.
It is not the first time that the political class relied on the rising up of an unseen voting mass. Republicans, in the days of Democrat dominance, spoke optimistically of the “silent majority” which, once in the sanctity of the polling booths, would cast their votes for the GOP. It did not happen then, and it is not likely to happen now.
If the Democrats succeed in taking over the House of Representative, I do not think it will be due to unprecedented support from Millennials.
So, there ‘tis.
I am an extremist when it comes to free speech. The only limits we should respect are the restrictions against defamation by slander – making oral false and damaging statements about another person — or libel – making false written statements or creating false images damaging about another person. That’s it. Everything else is protected – or at least should be – by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
Obnoxious, offensive and disturbing as it may be, hateful speech must be protected by the First Amendment or no speech is safe from censorship and oppression. Once we step on to the slippery slope of arbitrarily determining the boundary of free speech based on controversy or political viewpoint, we will have nullified the First Amendment.
Truly free speech means that we have a right to say things that are not popular or even offensive. That is why I am offering up a new hashtag in defense of our inalienable First Amendment right to say whatever we damn please. #CROW means that when we want to “crow” about anything – whether it is Crude, Rude, Offensive or even Wrong – it is our right to do so.
It is proper that our legal system protects us from the destructive power of slander and libel, and it is reasonable to restrict speech that incites riots or violence – and even prevents us from yelling fire in a crowded theater where no fire exists, as Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote. But when our language is being censored by private interests or by political pressure, we are undermining that First Amendment.
When Facebook, Twitter or any of those other social media platforms arbitrarily censors #CROW speech – that’s Crude, Rude, Offensive or Wrong, in case you forgot — we have already gone too far. Those platforms should be free of ALL restrictions on content.
Conversely, we should not hold the social media platform legally libel for content that appears. If one Facebook friend slanders another, there are laws to deal with that. Facebook does not have to get involved. If folks post fraudulent information, we already have laws to address that – as that recently indicted Russian lady learned.
The problem of regulating speech stems from the word “arbitrary.” Under the current left-wing culture of the social media giants, we see the capricious or maybe the intentional banning and censoring of a lot of language that is only politically offensive to their philosophic viewpoint – or even some that is generally offensive to those of use with more refined tastes.
Under their evolving corporate policies, you can get knocked off for using the n-word, but not if you call old white men “toxic” human beings – which one might see as violating the political correctness protection of old white men on the basis of ageism, racism and sexism. It’s a threefer.
The attack on old white men is so acceptable that the New York Times hired and defended Sarah Jeong, who unleashed the most vicious verbal attack on white men on Twitter, especially we older variety. Why is it that Nation of Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan’s rants against Jews survive the social media censors while Alex Jones gets booted? That is the problem with “arbitrary.”
Now, don’t get me wrong, I do not want to take away Jeong’s right to say all those ugly things about me and my kind. Same for Farrakhan. It is their right. And if the New York Times has no interest in protecting its fleeting credibility by defending Jeong, that is their right, too. It is up to an unfettered free society to judge them by their words, not by the government restrictions, not by social media censorship and not by some unofficial political correctness police force. We the people can ignore them. We can speak out against them. We can defend the people they attack. We can boycott the New York Times or withdraw from the Nation of Islam. Or … we can even respond with our own version of #CROW.
It is ironic that the oppression of #CROW speech should come at a time in our cultural development when hitherto offensive words that were limited to whispers and locker rooms are now to be heard across the news and entertainment spectrum – and overheard at almost any gathering outside the cloistered confines of the Sisters of Mercy. And God knows, how even they talk in private.
One of our most basic freedoms – and the foundation of all the others – is our right to #CROW.
So, there it ‘tis.
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren has issued her long-sought DNA report along with a campaign-style video romanticizing her claimed Indian heritage. Before we get to addressing the new information that she has provided, we should look back on the life of First Lady Edith Wilson, wife of President Woodrow of the same last name.
Mrs. Wilson? What on earth could that Victorian-born lady have to do with Elizabeth Warren and Indian ancestry? Well, allow me to explain.
First Lady Edith made quite a stir in the upper circles of society when she “revealed” her Indian ancestry. Ironically, this was a time when Indians were not held in high regard. In fact, they were still considered a subspecies by the snobby elite – of which Edith and white supremacist Woodrow were members-in-good-standing.
Edith, however, was not just given the nickname “Pocahontas” but actually claimed descendancy from the famed Indian princess. The grand ladies in the parlors and the gentlemen in the smokers were not put off by Edith’s claimed bloodline because she was … get ready for this … royalty.
She was a much sought-after dinner guest among American society and the Brits – who still had real royalty at the time. In advance of a trip to England, one headline read, “To be greeted as was Pocahontas in 1616, England prepares for President’s wife.” Based on her claimed ancestry, Edith was given the task of providing Indian names for American battleships.
Yes, I know she was the wife of a president and would automatically be popular among the upper crust, but her claimed descendancy from Pocahontas preceded her marriage to Woodrow and was a substantial social enhancer. Edith didn’t even need a DNA test to have her word accepted. The woman was believed … period. Conversely, Warren’s ethnic #MeToo moment has been far less successful.
And what about Warren’s claim?
It would appear that in an attempt to establish her oft-stated claim of Native American ancestry, she proved the opposite. Her private test reported the “probability” of Indian ancestry – probability. It could be that she is 1/1024th Native American – maybe.
Prior to this recent DNA test, Warren relied on her “high cheekbones” to legitimatize her claim. I guess you could argue that Warren’s entire effort to sell the Indian blood story was rather … cheeky. I shall pause until you finish groaning.
Back to the point. Under any objective or official standard of judging ancestry, Warren’s results would mean that she is NOT Native American. Not Indian. Not Cherokee – the tribe she adopted. Warren’s position in our nation’s capital does not even qualify her to be on the same field as the Washington Red Skins.
That is also the opinion of her adopted Cherokee Nation. They issued a statement that said Warren’s claim, “makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven.” It went on to accuse Warren of actually “undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.”
You can put Warren’s claim alongside that of her Democrat colleague Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal, who falsely claimed to have fought in Vietnam. Both used dishonest resume enhancers to further their careers. Shame. Shame. Shame.
Oh! And what about that “me” in the headline? Yes, that “me” is me. You see, my DNA showed that I am one percent Nigerian. According to the Warren theory, I should have been claiming minority status when I was applying for college admission, scholarships, government contracts, and even private sector jobs. Maybe I could have headed up one of the chapters of the NAACP like Rachel Dolezal, who pretended to be Black to get the job in Spokane, Washington. Unfortunately, I was not aware of the Warren rule of genetic ancestry at the time.
FOOTNOTE: Many on the politically wrong on the left claim that “Indian” is a pejorative – a slur. That claim is usually issued by a bunch of palefaces residing on the east and west coasts – well-tanned palefaces in the case of the west coast. This writer follows the lead of the Indians themselves. I was once made an “honorary Indian” by the folks at the Indian Center in Chicago. I recall seeing Senator Warren, herself, giving a speech in front of a sign that read, National Congress of American Indians. I tend to use both “Indian” and “Native American” interchangeably, just as I use “Black” and “African American” interchangeably. So, there it ‘tis’
President Trump has been calling for the return of the police procedure commonly known as “stop and frisk.” Basically, it means that if a police officer has reason to believe that a person is carrying a gun, possesses illegal drugs or has pocketed stolen loot, he can detain the person and search him or her.
The practice was green-lighted by then-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani to combat a rising crime wave in the Big Apple. It is credited with reducing crime and getting a lot of guns off the street.
By the time Trump uttered “stop and ….,” his critics were already piling on. Those know-it-alls of cable news assembled panels to pronounce the President a fool. Doesn’t he know that stop and frisk is unconstitutional? Doesn’t he know that it was a federal judge in his own hometown of New York who declared it so? What a dummy.
Facts be known, if there are any dummies in this debate, they are all those folks on the telly who said stop and frisk is unconstitutional. First of all, such a declaration by a District Federal Court is not the final word on the subject. It can go up to the Federal Appellate Court and then on to the Supreme Court.
But, that is not even what happened. Stop and frisk was never declared to be unconstitutional and it is, in fact, perfectly constitutional today for those who would wish to take up Trump’s call to have it enforced. Stop and frisk is in practice in police departments around the country at this very moment.
This is not the first time Trump created controversy with his call for stop and frisk. During a campaign debate, he was shot down by both Hillary Clinton and moderator Lester Holt for not knowing that it had been declared unconstitutional in New York City. They were correct that the manner in which it was carried out had been declared unconstitutional, but not the practice itself.
What was declared unconstitutional by New York federal Judge Shira Scheindlin was the WAY it was being implemented. It was being used primarily against minority citizens and that, said Scheindlin, was unconstitutional racial profiling – essentially violating Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.
It was not Scheindlin’s intention to ban stop and frisk when fairly implemented. So, as to avoid any confusion – though she obviously did not — Scheindlin specifically wrote in her opinion that she was “not ordering an end to the practice of stop and frisk,” but ONLY how it was implemented in New York … period.
One can debate the effectiveness of stop and frisk or the fairness of it. You can agree with Trump that it would help curtail crime or believe the critics that it is inherently an abusive practice. But what is not debatable is that stop and frisk is 100 percent constitutional if carried out in an unbiased manner – as it is by many police departments today.
One has to look at history to find a time when a Black American made more news by being a guest at the White House than did rapper Kanye West. Yes, the election of Barack Obama was historic, but not as a guest in the White House, but as the first person with significant and notable Black heritage to reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
West is more in the tradition of Frederick Douglass and Booker T. Washington.
Douglass was a friend and informal advisor to President Abraham Lincoln. Many believe that he was the very first Black American to enter the White House as a guest of a President. In one instance, Douglass was an invitee to an inaugural party in the mansion. However, he was detained by guards who were unfamiliar with his friendship with the President. Upon seeing Douglass at the door, Lincoln directed the guards to allow his good friend to enter.
Some 35 years later, President Teddy Roosevelt made history by inviting Booker T. Washington to the White House for dinner no less. Black leaders had visited the White House for business meetings, but none were ever invited to dine with the President in the private quarters. According to the southern Democrats at that time, it was a breach of social custom. After all, segregation was still legal in much of America, including the nation’s capital.
Just as in the case of Kanye West, the invitations were offered by controversial and strong-willed Republican Presidents. All three events resulted in the leaders of the Democratic Party and their friends in the press in going bonkers. One difference was that West was not a former slave, as were both Douglass and Washington – unless you consider him a former slave to Democratic Party orthodoxy and authority. You might say all three had escaped racial oppression.
With the Civil War still raging, the friendship between Lincoln and Douglass was particularly grating on those Democrats who seceded from the Union over such interracial relationships. Southern editors wrote scathing editorials and published the most offensive political cartoons.
(Warning, the next paragraphs are a bit disturbing, but history should never be sanitized or eradicated.)
When word got out of Washington’s dinner with Roosevelt, the Democrats attacked both Roosevelt and Washington. South Carolina’s racist Democrat Senator Pitchfork Ben Tillman said, “The action of President Roosevelt in entertaining that n****r will necessitate our killing a thousand n*****s in the South before they learn their place again.”
Democrat Governor William Oats, of Alabama, declared that “No respectable white man in Alabama of any political party would ask him to dinner nor go to dinner with him.”
Mississippi Governor James K. Vardaman said, “President Roosevelt takes this n****r bastard into his home, introduces him to his family, and entertains him on terms of absolute social equality.” Vardaman added, “I am as much opposed to Booker T. Washington as a voter as I am to the cocoanut-headed, chocolate-colored typical little coon who blacks my shoes every morning. Neither is fit to perform the supreme function of citizenship.”
There are scores of similar sentiments by a lot of those southern Democrats, but you get the point.
While such coarseness of the language is not acceptable today, those current Democrats among us – and most notably in the press – heaped the most disgraceful attack on West – and by implication upon President Trump for arranging the meeting.
It seemed like every host, pundit, panelist and contributor on CNN and MSNBC was committed to the most scurrilous attacks on West. They were not rebutting the issues he raised. Rather, it was a vicious ad hominem attack on West as a Black man.
Black Georgetown Sociology professor and racist raconteur, Michael Dyson, said West was a ventriloquist dummy with his “black mouth moving” but the words of Trump coming out. He declared West the victim of a mental health breakdown due to the death of his mother. He renamed West as “Kanye Mess” – even as he incredibly professed to be an admirer and friend of West.
The mental illness theme was shamelessly advanced by Public Urban Radio’s April Ryan and NPR’s Yamiche Alcindor – both Black journalists, Hardball’s Chris Mathews, of the tingling leg fame, compared West to a “drunken uncle at a wedding.”
These Democrats even brought up that old canard about a Black man not knowing his place. They jumped on his use of a profanity – and his attire – as disrespectful to the Oval Office. Yep! West just did not know his place.
While Dyson may have offered up the most over-the-top unhinged rant, CNN’s Don Lemon may have taken the prize for the most low-level attack. The entire event was so beyond Lemon’s grasp that he had to turn off the television before the end of the meeting.
In one of the most sickening attacks, Lemon said that West’s deceased mother – who West adored – would be “turning over in her grave” over his comments in the White House. Personally, I think she would have been very proud to see her boy sitting in the Oval Office across from the President of the United States. Just my thought.
Lemon insulted West’s intelligence and character by saying he was being used. West was gullible, stupid. It was an attack similar to Dyson’s ventriloquist dummy analogy. As if that was not disgusting enough, Lemon then wade in on the mental health issue by pleading with West to get help.
One hundred and fifty-two years after Lincoln invited a “Negro” to the White House, the Democrats still seem to have a problem with it. They fear Kanye West because he threatens their preconceived social order based on racial – no racist – definitions.
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.
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.
Inscribed in marble in front of our National Archives Building in Washington are the words “What is past is prologue.” In terms of the confirmation hearings for Judge Brett Kavanaugh, the opposite may be true. What is past is meaningless. His confirmation will depend almost totally on what happens at the hearing – and both the Republicans and Democrats on the Judiciary Committee understand that.
Republicans have been smart and successful in moving the hearing along even though the Democrats have been smart and successful in interjecting delaying tactics.
Republicans made an incredibly smart move in bringing in a female attorney to do their questioning of accuser Christine Blasey Ford. They understood that any questions – no matter how appropriate or polite — from old men would create a problem of optics. They well understood that no matter how judicious they may be, the bulk of the liberal mainstream media would be twisting their comments as sexist, hostile, anti-women and anything else that would comport with the jaded media’s preconceived anti-Republican narratives.
Instead, Ford will be cross examined by a woman in a very professional manner. The same questions coming from a competent prosecuting attorney will have an entirely different optics than from some old geezer who looks like he is modeling for a Tobey Mug. In these biased times, and with the prejudices in the reporting, no man could escape the predictable reportorial propaganda that would ensue.
This will put Ford on the defensive if she cannot credibly change her testimony from the things she has already said. “Where was this party?” “I do not recall.” “When was this party?” “I am not sure.” “How did you escape the encounter? Did you run from the room in panic and did other see your distress?”
I do not know.” Since you did not have a driver’s license, how did you get to the party? How did you get home?” “I cannot recall.”
It now leaves the Democrats in a bit of a predicament. They have been setting the stage for the bad optics strategy. They have been chest pounding over their insistence that they would never use a counsel to ask questions on their behalf. Even though the use of attorneys to serve in that capacity has occurred in the past, one Democrat after another has claimed that they would never do that.
They can be up front with their inquiries, they figure, because they know they will only ask the most supportive oh-you-poor-girl questions. They will also use the opportunity to create the most salacious images to offset the lack of evidence. “Did he put his hands up your dress?” “Did he come into contact with your bare breast or vagina?” They will repeatedly find her unsubstantiated contentions as credible. That will be their version of the optics.
That strategy may be about to backfire, however. Suddenly, their circus-like antics will be seen in stark contrast to the professional approach on the Republican side. There political motivations will be on full display. In an ironic twist of fate, their questions could even make Ford appear even less credible.
It is because of this potential that a number of Democrats on the news shows have suggest that Democrats should bring in their own counsel. It is noteworthy that these suggestions came from pendant-lawyers with considerable courtroom experience. Suddenly the problem of optics rises on the minority side of the panel.
By attempting to pump credibility into the laughably flimsy statements of the so-called second accuser, Democrats and their friends in the press have already weakened the impact of the Ford testimony and damaged their own credibility. The fact that even the New York Times and the Washington Post would not publish the accusations of the second accuser should say a lot about the credibility of her claims and the about the quality of the journalism of The New Yorker that did publish that rubbish.
Speculate as the media is prone to do, no one can predict the outcome of the hearing. In fact, there will be no universal opinion after the hearing. This is a fight that will not end in a knock out but in a TKO declared by the American public – and that verdict may not come for another seven weeks.