Can Pelosi & Schiff Get Away With Running a Star Chamber Impeachment?

What are the issues at the heart of the impeachment farce, and, as between the President and the progressives in the House, who has the superior legal argument?

Everything wrong with progressives today is playing out in the Star Chamber that Democrats are running as an “impeachment inquiry” in the House of Representatives.  The Democrats’ have dispensed with due process, precedent, and Constitutional limitation to create a juggernaut designed not to reach a just conclusion, but to ensure a vote impeaching the sitting President and bringing this nation half way to overturning the 2016 election.  Today’s progressives feel themselves above the law and believe the rest of us, including very much President Donald Trump, are unworthy of its protection.  Nowhere is that more apparent at the moment then in this impeachment farce.

The issues are two-fold.  First, may the House exercise the power to conduct an impeachment inquiry without formal authorization voted upon by the full House?  Second, is Nancy Pelosi constitutionally able to manipulate the House rules of impeachment to deny any due process or procedural protection to President Trump and to the minority members of the House?  In other words, is it true that Impeachment is nothing more than a particularly one-sided Grand Jury investigation?

A bit of background first.  A formal decision to investigate for impeachment is not a meaningless decision or a mere label.  At a minimum, once the House formally decides upon impeachment, the House accrues powers beyond that which it normally possesses.  Thus, it is a substantive legal question whether a House impeachment inquiry requires a House vote or whether the Speaker of the House can unilaterally announce the beginning of an impeachment inquiry. I know of no precedent in American or British history supporting Nancy Pelosi’s contention that she can accrue these formal powers of impeachment by simple fiat.  More on that below.

The House of Representatives normally only has “legislative” authority.  Thus House members are limited to investigating and holding hearings on matters that relate directly to producing legislation. As with so much in our Constitution, this is not a thing of bright line clarity.  But as is almost always the case, the fact that there’s no bright line does not mean that there is no line.  Perhaps the clearest example of line drawing outside of the impeachment context comes from recent House efforts to use a subpoena to force the IRS to release Trump’s tax returns.  When Trump refused to honor the subpoena, his attorneys pointed out that the House, while its members may have a political interest in reviewing Trump’s tax returns, have no legitimate legislative interest.

Continue reading

Progressives See Themselves As Above The Law And The Rest Of Us As Below It

American Progressives want to be above the law and the Constitution, while treating Trump and his supporters as below the law and the Constitution. This can’t end well.

By Wolf Howling

INTRODUCTION

We live in two Americas today, two parts that are in a cold civil war.  The divide is between progressives who believe their moral superiority makes them above the law and the rest of us, whom progressives strongly believe should be subordinate to the law and the Constitution. To this end, progressives believe the Constitution, both its mandates and its limitations, are an obstacle that they can dispense with when any provisions do not redound to their benefit.  If Trump does not return us to an America in which the law is applied equally to all people, ending the progressive’s raw will to power and reuniting the two Americas, the current situation will spell this nation’s end.

I.  Trump and Charges of a Cover-up of the Ukraine Affair v. Hillary Clinton and her Private Server

Once the auditors to the Trump phone call with Ukraine’s president finalized and consolidated their notes from the call, the Trump Administration stored that document on a government top secret server for a few weeks — just as Trump’s predecessor, President Obama, did so with many of the memorializations of his phone calls with foreign leaders.  However, when congressional Democrats said that they wanted to see the transcript from the call, the Trump Administration immediately produced it. Nevertheless, the Democrats in Congress and in the media are now claiming that merely placing the document on that server is one of the grounds for impeaching Donald Trump and Attorney General William Barr for a “cover up.”  It is ludicrous.

Hillary Clinton ran a private server out of a bathroom to hide her communications as Secretary of State for years, placed thousands of secret and top secret emails on the server, and then used “bleach bit” to wipe her server months after receiving a subpoena.  The Obama DOJ and FBI then engaged in the single most obscene travesty of justice in this nation’s history to exonerate her and they did so with the whole-hearted support of every progressive in and out of Congress.  The progressive left, repeatedly claiming her innocence, is only angry that she didn’t win the presidential election to which they — and she — felt she was entitled.

II.  Interpreting Campaign Finance Law One Way For Republicans, Another Way For Progressives v. Trump, Clinton & The DNC

Progressives interpret campaign finance laws differently depending on the needs of the moment.  The campaign finance laws, as stated in the IG IC letter that accompanied the Ukraine Whistle Blower Complaint, are:

U.S. laws and regulations prohibit a foreign national, directly or indirectly, from making a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election.  Similarly, U.S. laws and regulations prohibit a person from soliciting, accepting, or receiving such a contribution or donation from a foreign. national, directly or indirectly, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election.

Information may be valuable, but information, particularly information that is not itself bought and paid for, is still not within the ambit of the actual law that Congress passed. Information is not a “contribution of money or other thing of value.”  Seeking and receiving “dirt” does not violate the above laws, nor is it, standing alone, foreign interference.  As Andrew McCarthy points out at NRO, to hold otherwise would interpret the law in a novel way that no court opinion supports. Thus, when the DOJ analyzed the complaint and the actual memo of the July 15 phone conversation:

The Department of Justice declined to investigate the July call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that prompted a formal presidential impeachment inquiry into allegations of a quid pro quo scheme.

“Relying on established procedures set forth in the Justice Manual, the Department’s Criminal Division reviewed the official record of the call and determined, based on the facts and applicable law, that there was no campaign finance violation and that no further action was warranted,” read a Wednesday statement from Justice spokesperson Kerri Kupec.

“All relevant components of the Department agreed with this legal conclusion, and the Department has concluded the matter,” she added.

Yet it seems that conservatives have elected to run with this wholly novel interpretation of the law. This impeachment is not criminal; it is political.  It is not to punish a crime; it is to erase an election.

The Trump / Zelenskyy phone call became an impeachable “high crime and misdemeanor,” not because Trump violated the law, but because, when it comes to Trump, if merely seeking information from a foreign source implicates a progressive, it’s automatically deemed unlawful. Adam Schiff spoke for all progressives the other day when he called the phone call’s contents “dirt” — they potentially harmed a progressive (Biden) are thus tantamount to unlawful foreign interference in an election.

That is an interesting take on things given what the DNC and Clinton campaign paid the retired British agent Christopher Steele to solicit information from inside of Russia.  The DNC and Clinton Campaign didn’t merely seek out information, they then spread their paid-for, demonstrably-false information to the FBI in order to start investigating Trump, then sought to swing the election to Hillary by publicizing both that information and the FBI’s investigation into the information a month before the election.  And then of course, when this sordid tactic failed, the progressive left did not call for Hillary, the DNC, or Perkins Coie to be investigated and prosecuted for campaign finance violations.  To the contrary, they demanded that Trump be investigated and impeached on the basis of the “dirt.”

And what of the three Democratic Senators who, last year, wrote to Ukraine demanding an investigation of Donald Trump?  Do the same rules not apply to them?  To have to ask the question is to answer it.

III.  Seeking Foreign Information as a Campaign Finance Violation – Hunter Biden v. Trump Jr.

During the campaign, after the DNC / Hillary campaign had started the bogus charges of criminal Russian collusion, Don Jr.  was invited to a meeting with Russians at Trump Tower to receive embarrassing information about Hillary Clinton.  That became a cause célèbre among progressive for two years when they touted it as a campaign finance law violation.  It instantly became the subject of hundreds of front page MSM articles, and a full investigation.

Joe Biden’s son Hunter has been using his father’s position in government for years to enrich himself, all with his father’s knowledge.  As the NY Post recently laid out, “Wherever Joe Biden Went, Son Hunter Cashed In,” to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars from Ukraine, Iraq, and China. The left has no interest whatsoever in looking at any of that, whether as it pertains to Hunter Biden or implicates his father.

This double standard is too much even for left wing comedian Bill Maher:

“The more I read about this- no, I don’t think he was doing something terrible in Ukraine, but it’s just- why can’t politicians tell their f—–‘ kids, ‘Get a job, get a godd–n job!”” Maher told the panel. “This kid was paid $600,000 because his name is Biden by a gas company in Ukraine, this super-corrupt country that just had a revolution to get rid of corruption. It just looks bad.’ . . .

[I]f Don Jr. did it, it would be all Rachel Maddow was talking about. . . .

Biden corruption in the Ukraine was such an obvious issue that even the NYT ran a major article on it in 2015, at a time when Trump was not yet elected President and progressive strategists were advising Joe Biden to step aside to let the Hillary juggernaut advance.  But now, for the NYT and rest of the MSM, it’s the mafia law of omertà.

IV.  Extortion Using American Aid – Donald Trump v. Joe Biden.

Donald Trump is about to be impeached merely for requesting that Ukraine finish its investigation into the 2016 election mess, locate the DNC server, and finish investigating Bursima, and then noting in passing that what Joe Biden did was outrageous.  There was no quid pro quo in the July 25 conversation between the American and Ukrainian presidents nor, according to Ukrainian President Zelenskyy, did Trump pressure him in any way. At the Pentagon’s request, the administration had in place a temporary hold on American aid, but Ukraine was not aware of that hold at the time of the July 25 phone call.  Yet Trump stands accused of committing a campaign finance violation regardless.

National Review has done the definitive time line on Joe and Hunter Biden.  It is not pretty.  Joe Biden knew about Hunter Biden’s business interests in Bursima.  The Ukrainian prosecutor had two ongoing investigations into Bursima. One of these investigations was for corruption and targeted, among others, Hunter Biden at the exact time Joe Biden arrived in 2016 and then extorted Ukraine to fire the prosecutor as a precondition for receiving a billion dollars in American aid.  Then, in typical Biden mock-heroic fashion, he boasted about his conduct.

Biden did what Trump stands accused of doing.  Yet for the progressives, the only one of the two who should be in any legal peril is Trump.

As Andrew McCarthy states at NRO:

There was no impropriety in President Trump’s asking Ukraine’s president to assist the Justice Department’s investigation of Russiagate’s origins. Okay, you say, but what does that have to do with Biden?

Well, Biden was the Obama administration’s point man in dealing with Kyiv after Viktor Yanukovych fled in 2014. That course of dealing came to include Obama administration agencies leaning on Ukraine to assist the FBI in the investigation of Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign chairman. So, Biden’s interaction with Ukraine is germane: The fact that he had sufficient influence to coerce the firing of a prosecutor; the fact that, while Biden was strongly influencing international economic aid for Kyiv, a significant Ukrainian energy company thought it expedient to bring Biden’s son onto its board and compensate him lavishly — although Hunter Biden had no experience in the industry.

That aside, I do not understand why there has not been more public discussion of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in light of the instances of Hunter Biden conveniently cashing in with foreign firms while his dad was shaping American policy toward those firm’s governments. As we saw with the collusion caper, it does not take much evidence of any crime for the FBI and the Justice Department to open an investigation and scorch the earth in conducting it. And if it would have been legit for the Justice Department to open an FCPA investigation of one or both of the Bidens, then it was appropriate for President Trump to ask President Zelensky to help the Justice Department determine if an FCPA crime took place – even if doing so could have affected the 2020 fortunes of Biden and Trump.

Democrats have been silent about the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act because laws apply only to non-progressives.  There’s been lots of talk about the Emoluments Clause though.

V.  Selective Prosecution Under Campaign Finance Laws

Campaign Finance laws only seem to apply to punish conservatives, whether it be the very selective prosecution of Dinesh D’Souza or the ludicrous non-crime that Michael Cohen confessed to as part of his plea agreement (namely, that his paying Stormy Daniels from private funds that Trump then reimbursed from his own private funds constituted a campaign finance violation).

No one in the Deep State, though, blinked when it became clear that the DNC and the Hillary Campaign paid for Christopher Steele’s explosive, and completely fake, opposition research by laundering their funds through the Perkins Coie law firm.  This was illegal and forced the government to expend countless dollars and months in litigation to learn what should have been information in the public realm.  It also added greatly to the Russia Collusion Hoax / Coup attempt that this fact was hidden from the public for two years.

D’Souza was fined and jailed.  Cohen is in jail.  No one associated with Perkins Coie, the DNC, or the Hillary Campaign has even been investigated for blatantly violating campaign finance laws.

VI.  False Statements At A Congressional Hearing – Michael Cohen v. Adam Schiff

Michael Cohen was charged with lying to Congress.  Adam Schiff also lied to Congress. Thus, he sat before Congress and the television cameras and began a formal hearing by horrendously falsifying the July 25 conversation between Donald Trump and Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy, describing their conversation thusly:

“[I] reads like a classic organized crime shake down. In essence, what the President Trump communicates is this: We’ve been very good to your country. Very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what, I don’t see much reciprocity here. You know what I mean? I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you though. And I’m going to say this only seven times, so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand? Lots of dirt, on this and on that. I’m going to put you in touch with people, and not just any people. I’m going to put you in touch with the Attorney General of the United States — my Attorney General, Bill Barr — he’s got the whole weight of American law enforcement behind him. And I’m going to put you in touch with Rudy, you’re going to love him. Trust me. You know what I’m asking, so I’m only going to say this a few more times, in a few more ways. And don’t call me again. I’ll call you when you’ve done what I asked.”

The actual transcript says no such thing. The “favor” in question was Trump seeking Ukraine’s assistance with the Department of Justice’s probe into the previous Ukrainain government’s meddlng in the 2016 election. Only 540 words after raising this issue did Trump suggest (not demand, but suggest) that Ukrainian officials could further root out corruption in their country by looking into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter for their shady business dealings with a Ukrainian energy company. Both Trump and Zelinskyy understood that this aside referred to the fact that, while he was overseeing the administration’s policy toward Ukraine, then-Vice President Biden played a role in firing the Ukrainian prosecutor going after the Ukraine company on whose board Hunter sat for $50,000 a month, even though he lacked any experience working in the industry.

Later in the hearing, and only after he’d been called out for his fabulism, did Schiff admit that his opening statement was pure fiction, belatedly calling it a “parody.”  That was anything but a parody.  It was designed to set in stone a narrative for the country.  What does it say about the strength of the progressive’s case that they have to lie in order to make it.  As George Stephanopolous (of all people) asked Schiff, after playing a snip of his lies before Congress,  “That was you making up dialogue, putting it in the president’s mouth. If the facts are as damning as you say, why make up dialog for dramatic effect, . . .?”

Michael Cohen is in prison for lying to Congress.  Adam Schiff blatantly lied not just to Congress, but to the entire American public, in order to set a false narrative in the public mind — yet he will not suffer a penalty. Instead, he will be lauded for opposing the President.  The rules don’t apply to him.

VII.  Due Process Can Be Dispensed With When It Is To Progressives’ Advantage

Procedural due process is a foundation of our government and our legal system.  Without it, no nation, including ours, can remain free.  Yet the progressive left, determined to make victims of women and oppressors of men, has declared war on the latter. To this end, academia is riddled with systems that dispense with due process as part of kangaroo courts designed to “believe all women.”

Sadly, what starts on college campuses provably does not stay on college campuses.  Progressives have been happy to abuse any legal government process if they thinks it advantageous.

For example, take how Dianne Feinstein maneuvered around due process to keep Justice Kavanaugh, an originalist, off the Supreme Court. Senator Diane Feinstein received Christine Blasey-Ford’s complaint in July 2018, over a month before the September Senate Judicial Committee Hearing to decide on Justice Kavanaugh’s fitness for office. Rather than submit the complaint to the committee or to the FBI where it could be vetted — it was so weak no one believed it could withstand even the most superficial scrutiny — Feinstein held onto it so that she could release it at the hearing’s conclusion, hoping to gin up a public outcry that would defeat Kavanaugh’s nomination without actual investigation.  What she did was underhanded and, at the cost of slandering and destroying an innocent man’s life and reputation, designed to thwart a fair public process because the outcome would not have favored progressives.

VIII.  Court Packing To Insure Permanent Progressive Dominance Of The Supreme Court

For the last near century, progressives have dominated the Supreme Court, working fundamental changes to our nation outside of the ballot box and with nothing but derision for the original meaning of the Constitution and its amendments. Their efforts have included forcing the Judeo-Christian religions out of the public square, as well as creating out of whole cloth a Constitutional right both to abortion and, most recently, gay marriage.

Now that it appears that originalists who would interpret the Constitution in accord with original intent may form a majority on the Court, thus forcing the left to try to achieve through the ballot box what it cannot achieve through an activist Supreme Court, the left no longer wants the same rules to apply.  Numerous progressive politicians have come out in favor of packing the Supreme Court to assure that the Court will henceforth have an entirely progressive ideology. Progressives don’t believe that the same rules by which America has played for over a century continue to apply when they do not work to progressives’ benefit.

IX.  Challenging Elections & Changing The Rules To Insure Progressive Victories

Elections themselves are only valid when progressives win, whether that be Al Gore, Stacy Abrams, or Hillary Clinton.  Indeed, Trump’s true impeachable offense in progressive eyes was winning the 2016 election.  Progressives have been trying to overturn that election since December, 2016, a full month before Trump took office.  And if the progressives don’t win an election, it is always for some illicit reason — Supreme Court interference, imagined malfeasance , or Russian interference (with hysterics over tens of thousands of dollars and a blind eye to Hillary’s entire corrupt scheme).

Moreover, any Constitutional system that does not redound to progressives’ benefit is illegitimate because of . . . slavery, misogyny or some other specious justification . . . and must be nullified, from the electoral college to the Senate’s composition to the First Amendment’s protections for speech and religious conscience.  And no worries if progressives do not have enough votes to enact their preferred laws or to alter the Constitution.  If they cannot achieve their goals through fair means, then foul will work, whether that be by governing around Congress through the regulatory bureaucracy; using a progressive president’s executive orders, which progressive courts then rule have the power of law if a conservative president tries to reverse them; having courts rewrite laws and new Constitutional provisions; or simply enacting laws that, if successful, would serve to nullify the electoral college process set forth in Article II Section II of the Constitution.

XI.  Progressives’ Belief That They Are Entitled To Break or Manipulate The Law To Resist Non-Progressives In Office, or Hillary Clinton v.  Donald Trump & Michael Flynn

Progressive bureaucrats believe that they have the right to exert extra-constitutional and, at times, unlawful veto power over American policy and the composition of this nation’s government.  These bureaucrats went to extraordinary lengths to obstruct justice and protect Hillary Clinton.  These same bureaucrats, as Neo opines:

Right after the 2016 election, I read some articles describing people in government who had decided to stay put and secretly sabotage Trump. These articles weren’t exposes written by the right; they were proud confessions from the left, part of the righteous Resistance.  We are seeing the fruit of that today.

That raises a rather profound question: Who runs our government?  Our elected officials or the faceless bureaucrats who feel their morality is so superior that see themselves as justified to commit sedition?  We are in the midst of finding out.

Let’s go back to 2015 and 2016, when the FBI and DOJ were working to exonerate Hillary for committing thousands security violations and destroying government records.  The FBI and DOJ required that everyone who worked on her case sign strict non-disclosure agreements:

FBI agents involved with the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server were required to sign a non-disclosure agreement barring them from discussing the case with anyone else unless called to testify.

Agents who spoke with the New York Post said they had never heard of the “Case Briefing Acknowledgement” form before working on the Clinton email probe. Signing the form prevented personnel from speaking about the investigation publicly.

“This is very, very unusual. I’ve never signed one, never circulated one to others,” a retired FBI chief said.

FBI sources close to the case also were reportedly disappointed with Director James Comey’s decision not to recommend that Clinton be charged for a crime, according to the New York Post.

Another source said that “FBI agents believe there was an inside deal put in place after the [Attorney General] Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton tarmac meeting,” referring to when the two met on Lynch’s plane in Phoenix, Arizona days before Comey’s announcement to not recommend charges.

Now when it comes to Trump — or Michael Flynn for that matter — bureaucrats who are politically motivated feel free to exercise their veto on our democratic republic.  When the bureaucrats failed to take down Trump over Russia or a process crime, despite help from a group of rabidly partisan progressives in the special counsel’s office and with access to general warrants (the most powerful search warrants available) as part of a counter-intelligence — not criminal — investigation, the Deep State still had “resistance” left in it. This Ukraine Whistle Blower Complaint is the Deep State’s second attempt to politically assassinate President Trump.  It comes from the same Deep State resistance and manipulation of the rules and laws, this time with a bit of steaming Schiff thrown in.  As Professor Jacobson opines:

It’s not so much a whistleblower complaint as a closing argument crafted by lawyers [including, at least one former CIA agent believes, Adam Schiff and his staff] based on information the complainant never witnessed in order to create a pretext for impeachment, or at a minimum to damage Trump’s 2020 prospects.

The complainant, by his or her own account, is but a figurehead for a broader community within the government united against Trump. . . .

The question becomes, how in the world did the Intelligence Community Inspector General even entertain this whistle blower complaint given that it is entirely based on hearsay evidence coupled with speculation, bald assertions and improper statements of the law?  The story of the Assistant IG IC’s handling of this complaint is set out in a letter released to the public along with the whistle blower complaint.

Here’s a quick primer for non-lawyers:  Speculation and bald assertions are never allowed into evidence.  Hearsay means that the person stating the evidence has no first-hand knowledge of the facts he’s asserting. He heard someone say something that he is reporting as true.  Such hearsay evidence is never credited in a courtroom — subject to a few age-tested, well-defined exceptions, none of which apply to anything in the whistle blower complaint — because hearsay information is inherently unreliable.  All of that is itself a part of the due process of law.

With that primer in mind, never before has anyone been able to submit an actionable whistle blower complaint through the Inspector General without it being based on his own knowledge.  And neither should this one.  It appears that this whistle blower complaint was pushed through by someone in the Inspector General’s Office, who only in September went back to revise the standards requiring first hand knowledge in order to allow this complaint based on hearsay.  And to classify it as raising a matter of “urgent concern” even though it did not meet that legal definition since it did not concern intelligence, but rather foreign policy.  With that in mind, this letter from Devin Nunes to the IG IC raises all of the proper questions.  It appears that there has been more than a little chicanery.

Moreover, how the hell did the IC IG forward this complaint and mark it as a matter of “urgent concern” without reviewing or, by the IC IG’sown admission, even asking to review the contents of the 25 July conversation?  This is a breathtaking political hit.  But progressives are fine with that.  Some would like to see many more:

Of course, this also has parallels to the political assassination of Michael Flynn, another Deep State operation, though the FBI and Sally Yates (in the DOJ), not the intelligence community, coordinated the Flynn take-down.  As with Trump, the operation run on Michael Flynn was ideological and had no basis in an actual crime.  As with Trump, bureaucrats manipulated the system to leak classified information ensuring that Michael Flynn would be driven from office.

So at any rate, this could not be a more obvious double standard.  When progressives are involved in wrongdoing, they are protected by the bureaucrats.  When people whom the progressives view opponents hold office, the bureaucracy feels justified to sidestep due process and exercise a veto on our democratic choices.

XII.  The Move To Impeach Trump & Barr Is Aimed At Ensuring Progressives Are Not Held Accountable For Any Of Their Criminal Acts In the Coup Attempt That Was The Trump Russia Hoax

I’ve saved the worst and most important for last.  The bum’s rush to impeach Trump — as illustrated by the fact that progressives have planned minimal hearings, intend to have the articles of impeachment prepared by the end of October, and want to bootstrap into that an impeachment against Attorney General Bill Barr — is not merely meant to overturn the results of the 2016 election and ensure Trump is not reelected in 2020. Instead, it is every bit as much aimed at making sure that the progressive left is not subject to being held accountable for the failed Trump-Russia coup attempt.  This from Thomas Lifson:

Lost in all the frenzy over impeachment . . . is the trio of ticking time bombs that Democrats know are about to detonate in their faces.

The three time bombs have names: Horowitz, Huber, and Durham.  When the Department of Justice inspector general issues his report, then John Huber and John Durham, the U.S. attorneys tasked with investigating crimes suspected in the Clinton Foundation; Uranium One; and the FISA warrants used to spy on the Trump campaign, transition, and presidency will be free to start seeking indictments, or to unseal indictments that may have already been issued by their grand juries.  The reports and the unleashing of the two U.S. attorneys are coming soon, as those mentioned in the I.G. report are currently submitting their responses for inclusion in the final report.

One poker tell of the Dems’ panic is the demand that Attorney General Barr recuse himself, or even be impeached.  Having left his lucrative law practice and returned to the attorney generalship out of a sense of duty to correct the corruption that has spread through the Justice Department and its subsidiary, the FBI, William Barr will not flinch in going after miscreants once they are indicted.  That’s why they desperately want him out of the game. . . .

That really is the ultimate double standard.  With their attempted coup, progressives engaged in sedition.  Having failed, progressives want to ensure they pay no price at law.  They know that the price won’t merely include long jail sentences; it will also see the Democrat party being painted as a collective of immoral criminals who used unlawful means to destroy this nation and overturn an election.  That poses a mortal threat to the progressive movement.  It is the reason for the attack on Barr.  And it’s the reason the NYT and all other Lefitst media who are on a tear to discredit that investigation.  As Kimberly Strassel tweets:

It is possible that Barr, as an honest broker, will find nothing criminal in what happened.  He has, after all, already let Comey off the hook for repeatedly leaking confidential information and violating FBI regulations.  But the progressives don’t believe that will be the case (nor do I), or we wouldn’t be seeing this utterly ludicrous charge being made to impeach Barr as part of the Ukraine narrative, nor the push to insure that the investigation itself is portrayed as illegitimate.

It is long past time for a reckoning.  Bottom line: If progressives manage to subvert Barr, so that he is unable to reassert equal rule of law, that spells this nation’s eventual end.

CONCLUSION

I don’t see how any of this ends well.  Either rule of law is restored in this country  and the law applies equally to everyone — something progressives will fight tooth and nail — or this nation descends into chaos with blood in the streets.  I’m reminded of Thomas Jefferson’s famous letter of 1787 which seems quite applicable in the midst of the progressive push for dictatorial rule of our country at any cost, an effort that comes immediately on the heels of an unsuccessful coup attempt and some 154 years since the end of our last Civil War:

. . .  The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong . . . will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. . . .  What country before ever existed a century and [a] half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.

Let the progressives succeed in two or three of their efforts above and it may well destroy this nation.  Let them succeed in all of them and we will be in a civil war.

The New & . . . Well, NEW Progressive Constitution

With Rep. Clyburn admitting that the proggies would prefer to govern without a Constitution, it’s time to take a look at their constitutional goals.

By Wolf Howling

Let’s face it.  Progressives have gone a long way to making our Constitution a dead letter already.  But as Rep. Clyburn makes clear in the video below, they are not yet wholly satisfied with the result.  Work remains to be done.

What progressives want is nothing more than permanent power.  That would be impossible to accomplish were they starting from scratch, but clearly they aren’t.  A lot of the most important groundwork has already been laid over the past century.  So with that in mind, let’s take a look at the state of our Constitution today, how it has already been altered, and how it would look once the proggies are done rewriting it.

———-

Art 1 Sec. 1:    Out — All legislative power is vested in Congress.  In — Government by regulatory bureaucracy and Executive fiat (Presidential pen and phone).

This is one we don’t have to imagine.  Progressives won this fight nearly a century ago with FDR’s court packing scheme, but it was not until Obama that we were treated to Congress becoming a secondary, and comparatively unimportant, source of legislation.  And that is how progressives want to keep it.  It’s much easier to make “fundamental changes” to society when bureaucrats write the laws without being subject to any of the checks and balances written into the Constitutional scheme.

As Justice Kagan stated recently in Gundy v. U.S., if Art 1, Sec. 1 of the Constitution actually means what it says, that “all legislative power” resides in Congress and cannot be substantively delegated, “then most of Government is unconstitutional.”  She says it like its a bad thing.  Of course, this is the same Supreme Court Justice who accused plaintiffs of “weaponizing the First Amendment” by relying on it to challenge forced union dues.  This is a woman who should not be allowed to sit on a public park bench in the U.S., let alone the Supreme Court bench.

Two notes — One, Senate Republicans and Democrats alike are fine the way things are.  That way, they don’t have to make any of the tough decisions.  It is the only way to interpret the fact that the Republican controlled Senate killed the REINS Act.  Worthless bastards, all of them.  Two, the Supreme Court as it is now sitting (and if it does not get packed by the next Democrat administration) signaled in Gundy that it is probably going to force legislative authority back into Congress, whether Congress likes it or not.  The proggies will die to a man (woman, or pick your favorite fantasy gender) on the hill before they allow that to happen.

———-

Art. 1 Sec. 2:  Out — Each State is entitled to two Senators.  In — Let’s have two Houses of Representatives.

Letting small conservative states have an equal vote in the Senate with large states (the Connecticut Compromise) was necessary in 1787, but there was no progressive imperative then; now, it just sucks.  Per The Atlantic just a few months ago, this equal representation of states in the Senate is a problem in need of a progressive solution.

Today the voting power of a citizen in Wyoming, the smallest state in terms of population, is about 67 times that of a citizen in the largest state of California, and the disparities among the states are only increasing. The situation is untenable.

Under the new proggie Constitution, there will be equal representation in both Houses . . . at least so long as that continues to yield a progressive majority.

———–

Art I Sec. 8:  Out — Enumerated Powers of Federal Government;  In — Unlimited Power of Federal Government (for Progressives Only)

It’s been a long, long time since progressives started running wild with the “Commerce Clause” to justify federal legislation reaching every aspect of life in America.  Its reach is practically unlimited today, though it did suffer a small set back a few years ago in the Obamacare cases concerning the mandate to purchase insurance.  Not to worry though, for while even the power of the commerce clause can’t be stretched that far, our inventive Supreme Court can find other justifications.  Our modern taxing authority, as Chief Justice John Roberts reinterpreted it, can substitute in a pinch to save the progressive bacon.

We are already a very long way from the Founder’s Constitution of limited federal powers, but under the Constitution as rewritten this will be a settled issue.

Of course, the flip side of this new doctrine is also worthy of mention.  As courts repeatedly make clear in the Trump era, most recently here, even if a Republican president uses federal power in a wholly legal way, s/he can be stopped by a progressive in a black robe who doesn’t agree with the policy.

———-

Art II Sec. 3:  Out — The Electoral College.  In — Pure Democracy

The Electoral College is, according to Chiquita Khrushchev, a “RACIST scam” standing athwart the progressive will to power.  We could be enjoying nirvana under President Hildabeast today were it not for the horrible, racist Electoral College.

One man (woman, or pick your favorite fantasy gender), one vote sounds fair . . . unless you know a bit about political history and why our Founders would not even consider democracy as a viable option for this nation.  As John Adams said:

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

Democracy invariably devolves into mob rule. Of course, that’s okay with the proggies, for any rule that gives them a benefit at the moment is, to hear them tell it, the only one with moral standing — whether it is actually in the interests of minorities or not.

And in that vein, a special mention here of Art 1 Sec. 2 clause 3’s Three Fifths Compromise.  While it hasn’t been operative since about 1865, word is that AOC wants to revive it as part of the new proggie rewrite of the electoral college.  She wants to have the votes of white people counted as only three fifths of a vote.  As quoted at the Bee, AOC said “What if we count all white people as three-fifths of a person instead of a full person? Then, good votes would count more than bad, racist votes. Like, four or five times more or something, because 3/5ths is only like 10% of a real vote.”

Sometimes it is hard to figure out whether the Babylon Bee is satire or not.  No wonder Snopes is so confused.

———-

Art II Sec II:  Out — Limited Presidential Powers; In — Presidential Powers\ Limitations Depending on Party Affiliation

This rewrite is wholly situational.  A non-Progressive President is an obscenity who cannot Constitutionally wield any power (under the progressive rewrite at least).  But put a non-progressive in as President and the sky’s the limit, from unilateral legislation of DACA (the textbook definition of tyranny) to unilateral execution of treaties with Iran and the Paris Accords, etc.

———-

Art. III  Out — An Independent Judiciary Limited to Exercise of Judicial Power;  In — A Progressive Judiciary with Statutory Legislative and Constitutional Amending Powers

For nearly a century, our judiciary has leaned progressive and has busily been rewriting our Constitution by assuming the powers of legislation (Art. 1 Sec. 1) and amending the Constitution itself (Art. V) (abortion, gay marriage, etc.).  Now, with the Court in danger of becoming non-Progressive, well, that cannot possibly be allowed. It would be too blatant to rewrite the Constitution to require a progressive majority on the Supreme Court, but the practical way of accomplishing that is to pack the Court.

Actually, I can’t think of anything more likely to ignite a shooting civil war in this country, but . . . what’s a civil war when progressive dominance over the evil that is non-progressives is at stake.

———-

The Bill of Rights

1st Amendment:  Out — Religious Conscience Clause;  In — Progressive Conscience Clause

The whole purpose of the progressive embrace of sexuality, and in particular, homosexuality and gender identity as moral imperatives, has been as a cudgel to attack the Judeo Christian religions and drive those religions out of the public square.  Bookworm had the definitive look at this years ago at American Thinker.

1st Amendment:  Out — Anti-Establishment Clause;  In — Secular Religion Clause

The progressive war on the Judeo-Christian religions has been ongoing in this country for over a century.  Socialism requires the replacement of a monotheistic God with government.  It has been that way from the moment of socialism’s inception:

Sixty years after the French Revolution, Karl Marx, socialism’s greatest philosopher, famously wrote in his Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right that religion is the “opium of the people” and that “[t]he abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness.” The British socialist party wrote in their 1911 manifesto that “it is a profound truth that Socialism is the natural enemy of religion.” Lenin, the father of the Soviet Union’s bloody experiment in Communism, wrote in 1905, “The modern class-conscious worker, reared by large-scale factory industry and enlightened by urban life, contemptuously casts aside religious prejudices, leaves heaven to the priests and bourgeois bigots, and tries to win a better life for himself here on earth.” Lenin further noted that “every socialist is, as a rule” an “atheist.” And Hitler himself was of like mind – “National Socialism and Christianity cannot co-exist together.”

1st Amendment:  Out — Freedom of Speech;  In — Freedom for Progressive Approved Speech Only

Speech control equals thought control, so that progressives’ love for speech limitations, such as on “hate speech,” almost goes without saying.    It is right out of Orwell.  Of course, as an alternative, if speech cannot be fully controlled, progressives are fine if it can be effectively suppressed on social media or by sending out ANTIFA thugs to shut down speakers.

2nd Amendment:  Out — Right to Keep & Bear Arms;  In — The Right of Government to Disarm the Populace

This is another one that needs very little elucidation.  A prerequisite for tyrannical government is a disarmed populace.  Unarmed cows become Big Macs and Whoppers. Cows with guns on the other hand . . .

4th Amendment: Out: General Warrants are per se Unconstitutional; In — The police power of government can be used against political opposition

Whether it was using the IRS to target the Tea Party or using general warrants under the guise of a counter-intelligence operation against the Trump administration, this obscene abuse of power is okay as long as progressives use it against evil non-progressives.  The only surprising thing about the Obama administration’s incredible abuse of power as to the investigation of Trump is that the proggies found nothing to actually charge as a substantive crime.  Beria would be most unimpressed.

——————–

So as you can see, the rewrite need not be too much more extensive than already exists.  Then we can finally have progressive heaven on earth.  Somehow, I think it is more likely to resemble biblical hell.

No. 11 Bookworm Podcast: The Left is returning us to the horrors of tribalism

In their desperate grab for power, the Left is abandoning the unity of America’s ideas in favor of tribalism, with all its attendant violence.

(If you prefer listening to reading, the companion podcast is embedded below, or you can listen to it at Libsyn or at Apple podcasts. I’m trying to make a go of my podcast so, if you like it, please share it with your friends and on social media. Giving it good ratings helps too.)

One of the books I’ve recommended for some time now is Steven Pinker’s The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. The title pretty much says it all: We live in a safer, less violent world than at any time in human history. It’s the kind of book people should read if the news is getting them down. While our media operates on the “if it bleeds it leads” principle, the real world operates on an “it’s never been better” principle even in the worst parts of the world.

Pinker wrote the book in 2012, before the world felt the full effect of Obama’s lead from behind policy in Syria, his attack on Libya, and his passivity regarding the Arab Spring, all of which turned large parts of the Middle East and North Africa into blood-soaked hellholes, with Angela Merkel then helping the violence to leak into Europe, which means that his book is based on a less violent time than the one in which we live. Nevertheless, his greater point is still a good one: Over the centuries . . . no, over the millennia, we humans have become less violent. We’ve become less violent in warfare, less violent in daily life, less violent in dealing with criminals, and less violent in entertainment.

Just think that a “mere” 2,000 years ago, the Romans were the apex of civilization, complete with their “Pax Romana” (or Roman Peace). For those who forgot to pay attention in Roman history class, the Pax Romana was a relatively peaceful period from about 27 B.C. to about 140 A.D. when there was minimal strife within Rome itself.

Of course “minimal strife” is a relative term. Rome expanded rapidly during this period, so there was actually constant warfare. Indeed, it was during this time — in 70 A.D. — that the Siege of Jerusalem took place and it proved to be one of the bloodiest wars in which the Romans engaged. Josephus, who wrote the history, believed that over 1.1 million non-combatants died in Jerusalem alone. He was probably exaggerating, but a good guess is still about 350,000 non-combatant deaths.

This was also the time during which Tacitus said of Rome’s conquering tactics, “They make a desert [or desolation] and call it peace.” In other words, it was not “peace” as we think of it.
This so-called peaceful time also saw crucifixion — which is one of the cruelest forms of execution — routinely used as an ordinary punishment, including against Jesus. Entertainment during the Pax Romana consisted of up to 80,000 Romans gathering together in the Colosseum to watch gladiators fight each other to the death or, for a change of pace, enjoying the spectacle of seeing wild animals tear apart prisoners who had been sentenced to death. During big celebrations, thousands of people would die before a delighted crowd. (The same was true 1,500 years later under Aztec rule.) And of course, there were the depraved Roman emperors, who delighted in torture, especially sexual torture.

Cruelty was the name of the game — yet, as I said, Rome was the apex of world culture and its idea set European standards for centuries to come.

(As an aside, I’m very tempted to buy Jerry Toner’s new book, Infamy: The Crimes of Ancient Rome, which takes a close, and apparently very colorful, look at just how awful the Roman empire was for those not lucky enough to live at the very topmost rungs — and given how frequently emperors were assassinated in Rome’s waning days, even the topmost rungs weren’t very nice places.)

Outside of Rome, life was just as awful. Large chunks of the world — most of Europe outside of Rome’s borders, the Americas, Asia, Africa — were tribal.

Of course, given the Left’s relentless attack on Western civilization, that’s not what our children learn. In schools today, our children are routinely taught that Native America tribes were peaceful tree huggers. They were not. Sure, there were some tribes that really were peaceful harvesters (the coastal Miwoks in Northern California, for example), but for most of them, life was a series of endless battles with other tribes over scare resources.

Beginning with one of the proto Leftists, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who was in love with the idea of the “Noble Savage,” and continuing with early anthropologists such as Margaret Mead who, in the wake of WWI and WWII, were in love with the idea of anti-civilization, we’ve been instructed that Stone Age tribes, especially the indigenous people in the Americas, were peaceful compared to modern man. And this is the point at which I loop back to the start of my post, to Steven Pinker. He addresses the type of violence attendant upon Stone Age tribes, whether 10,000 years ago or 5,000 years ago or, in the Americas, even 200 years ago (and do keep in mind that Native American tribes were devoid of writing and books, devoid of math and science, and devoid of smelting and metallurgy — in other words, they were Stone Age).

Pinker begins by noting that it’s easy to think of Stone Age tribes as relatively peaceful. In our imagination, neighboring tribesman face off against each other across a river, trash talking and shooting a few arrows. A couple of men are wounded or die and then the two sides retreat, having proven their honor and honored the process. As one historian, William Eckhardt, wrote, “Bands of gathering-hunters, numbering about 25 to 50 people each, could hardly have made much of a war. There would not have been enough people to fight, few weapons with which to fight, little to fight about, and no surplus to pay for the fighting.”

Those are all assumptions, though — and they are all wrong. In fact, Stone Age tribes were exceptionally deadly, opting for unending stealth warfare with an appallingly high attrition rate:

A party of men will slink into an enemy village before dawn, fire arrows into the first men who emerge from their huts in the morning to pee, and then shooting the others as they rush out of their huts to see what the commotion is about. They may thrust their spears through walls, shoot arrows through doorways or chimneys, and set the huts on fire. They can kill a lot of drowsy people before the villagers organize themselves in defense, by which time the attackers have melted back into the forest.

Sometimes enough attackers show up to massacre every last member of the village, or to kill all the men and abduct the women.

In North America, William Bradford, who arrived on the Mayflower, described how the Native Americans dealt with their enemies:

Not being content only to kill and take away life, [they] delight to torment men in the most bloody manner that may be, flaying some alive with the shells of fishes, cutting off members and joints of others by piecemeal and broiling on the coals, eat collops of their flesh in their sight while they live.

Pinker provides other examples of indigenous people brutality, whether the Yanamamo’s in Venezuela in the 1930s, the aborigines in Australia in the early 19th century, or the Inuits in the early 20th century.

So how bloody was all this tribalism — that is, one tribe fighting for resources or vengeance against another tribe? Pinker has the answer to that: Very, very bloody. While modern societies have killed in greater numbers, simply because we have a larger population, the percentage likelihood of death in pre-modern tribal society was tremendously greater. Men of fighting age had a 25% chance of dying in some form of tribal warfare.

For society as a whole, Pinker tries to give a relative sense of the risk of violent death. In pre-2015 Europe, before Merkel’s migrants raised the violence rate, Western Europeans had a homicide rate of about 1 per 100,000 per year. America, at its most dangerous in the 1970s and 1980s, had an average homicide rate of about 10 per 100,000 per year, with Detroit leading at 45 per 100,000 per year. (In 2107, by the way, Baltimore had a murder rate of 56 per 100,000, which is why President Trump characterized it as a hellhole for those poor people trapped within its borders.)

Pinker notes that a society with a rate of 100 homicides per 100,000 would mean that “violence would start to affect you personally: assuming you have a hundred relatives, friends, and close acquaintances, then over the course of a decade one of them would probably be killed.”

With the above numbers in  mind, what does Pinker was happening in non-state tribal societies, i.e., tribal societies? “The average annual rate of death in warfare for the nonstate societies is 524 per 100,000….” Oh, my!

Pinker devotes a lot of time and words to explaining how and why violence has dropped. One of the main reasons was the creation of the state, which did away with constant Hatfield-McCoy types of revenge killings.

Another reason is one that Pinker doesn’t address, but that Nicholas Wade did in A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History, the book that got him fired from the New York Times. In his book, Wade explains that Western society has bred out some of its most violent DNA. Because we created civil societies with the rule of law, violent people (especially violent men) ended up either imprisoned, executed, or simply socially disfavored, which prevented them from passing on their DNA. Meanwhile, in societies that remained tribal, violence continued to be a survival advantage, meaning it was also a genetic advantage.

Even though tribalism was eventually constrained by the state in most parts of the world, it continued in the form of nation-state battles. Across Europe, tribal battles were the norm, although they were on a grander, national scale. England and France were at war with each other for hundreds of years. The Serbians fought the Croatians, the Russians fought the Poles, the Italians fought the Yugoslavians and, of course, the Germans fought everyone. . . . The list of intra-European battles to death is the history of Europe.

The same is true for Asia — China versus Japan versus the Koreans versus the Vietnamese. . . .

And Africa! Oh, my Lord! Don’t get me started on Africa. The reason the African slave trade thrived was because Africans were busy selling their tribal enemies to Muslim traders who then sent those prisoners of war out to the rest of the world as slaves.

All of this was tribalism, which can be summed up in the Bedouin expression, “I, against my brothers. I and my brothers against my cousins. I and my brothers and my cousins against the world.”

There is something, though, that can stand against tribalism and that is the binding ties of ideas. And once again, this takes me back to Steven Pinker.

One of the things Pinker does not discuss in his book about violence is the rise of the Judeo-Christian ethic as an antidote to violence. To the contrary — in his first chapter, Pinker devotes a lot of pages to describing the terrible bloodshed in the Bible. He’s right that the early chapters of the Jewish Bible describe an a society riven by violence, but that’s because the stories are a history of pre-modern Stone Age societies. When it comes to the Biblical world, we don’t have to try to divine the past from bones and fragments of pottery. We can just read about it.

Take as just one example the story of Dinah: The son of a neighboring tribal leader rapes her, but then offers to marry her. Her brothers agree, provided that all the men in the other tribe get circumcised. Then, when the men are disabled by the procedure, Dinah’s brothers slaughter everyone. That’s Stone Age tribalism with a vengeance.

But the Bible is really two books. One of the books is a history of pre-modern man, a violent, bloody, vengeful, often extremely ugly history. The other book is the history of ideas, primarily those ideas expressed in the Ten Commandments. These are transcendent ideas that are not tied to tribes. Indeed, the Bible makes clear over and over and over again that the role of the Jews is to bring these transcendent ideas to the rest of the world. They are ideas about justice and the mandate for human goodness. When applied to society, any society, that society will be a better, more stable, safer society in which to live. It will be an imperfect society, because humans are imperfect, but it will be raised above a Stone Age, lawless society.

It may take centuries for people to incorporate the ideas into their day-to-day lives, but eventually they’ll back away from the norm of Roman violence and figure out Enlightenment civility. In this regard, let me point out that the worst violence in modern history — the 20th century violence of Nazi Germany and the endless, aching Cold War played out in one country after another — was triggered by nations that affirmatively rejected the Judeo-Christian doctrine in favor of what Americans once called “Godless communism.” (And need I point out that the Nazis were socialists and fiercely hostile, not just to Judaism, but to traditional Christianity, preferring instead their own version of Germanic paganism?)

In America, as an outgrowth of the Enlightenment, we had another blinding burst of binding ideas. Our Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights, is not written for Germans or English or Irish or or blacks or whites or Asians or Hispanics. It was written as a set of abstract principles that could apply in theory — and have applied in fact — to all people, regardless of race, color, creed, sex, or country of national origin.

I’m not arguing that imperfect men sought to deny these abstract principles to various peoples over America’s history and more shame to them. I’m just saying that the principles are color blind and sex blind and creed blind. Like the Ten Commandments before them, they are ideas that any people can embrace and, if they embrace them properly, all people will benefit from them.

That’s been the amazing compact of America: If you come to our country and embrace our creed, nothing else about you should matter. If you go to Switzerland and, slowly and laboriously, finally gain Swiss citizenship, you’ll still be an American, albeit one with legal rights unique to Swiss citizens. However, if you’re a Swiss citizen and you gain American citizenship — voila! you’re an American. By embracing our ideas, your DNA, your lineage, your natal land, all are irrelevant.

It’s that binding force of American ideas, though, that allows the Left to engage in the ridiculous fiction that there’s some homogeneous white mass of people in America that are all alike in their privileges and hatreds. Tell that risible fiction to every white Britisher, Frenchman, Dutchman, Pole, Russian, American, and Belgian who died at the hands of a white German. Tell that to every white Serb who died at the hands of a white Croatian. What unites white people in America isn’t skin color; it’s Americanism — it’s embracing the truths that we hold self-evident.

The same holds true for people of other races in America: Leftists try to tell us that blacks are just as homogeneous as whites, but we have only to look at Africa’s history to know how ridiculous that is. As I noted above, African slavery was made possible by the hatreds of African tribalism. It wasn’t black racism that caused the Tutsis to slaughter the Hutus. It was tribalism pure and simple. But here, if blacks will embrace the American credo, tribalism is irrelevant.

Given the violence inherent in tribalism, the Leftist desire to divide Americans once again by race, color, creed, sex, etc., is utterly appalling and, indeed, quite evil. Leftists are inviting onto American shores the horror that most Americans gratefully abandoned when they waved farewell to blood-soaked Europe, Asia, Latin America, Africa (at least those Africans who, in recent years, have come voluntarily), and headed for America.

Whenever tribalism has set foot in America, whether whites against blacks, blacks against whites, established whites against Irish whites, blacks against Hispanics in the inner cities, or any other tribal combination, bloodshed has followed. It’s only when we’ve embraced the notion that we, the American people, are one nation, indivisible, that we have thrived and achieved a level of peace and success that has made America the envy of the world.

We must reject the Left’s tribalism in favor of American homogeneity, or we are doomed to relapse into a history all of us should be grateful we’ve left behind.

Reclaiming our language from transgender activists

The speech demands that transgender activists and other Leftists make on us exceed the bounds of good manners and enter the realm of pure totalitarianism.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” — United States Constitution, First Amendment (which, through the 14th Amendment, applies to all governments in America, not just Congress).

“The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever.” — George Orwell, 1984.

“Monsieur l’abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.” — Voltaire, letter to M. le Riche, February 6, 1770 (summarized in 1906 by S.G. Tallentyre as “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”). [UPDATE: But see the Babylon Bee’s take on the modern version of Voltaire. It’s satire . . . or is it?]

At this blog, I have written at some length about the lack of science behind the whole transgender movement. My two main posts on the subject are here and here. You can find most of my other posts about the transgender movement here. My point, over and over, is that the claim that someone is “transgender” has no basis in science, but that we are nevertheless being forced to change our language and even our thinking to accommodate a minute percentage of Americans who have severe body dysmorphia.

Speaking in a PragerU video, Abigail Shrier spells out in clear terms the way in which Leftists, through transgender activism, are upending the First Amendment and trying to implement IngSoc in America (AmSoc?).

I would sum up the video by saying that, without losing compassion for transgender people, who I believe suffer either from mental illness or imbalanced hormones (which should by treated by balancing those hormones), we must resist this totalitarian movement. Sympathy should not equal surrender.

Even before I was aware of the video, I added my mite to the debate only this morning when I put up the following tweet (which still lives there because my following is too small for Twitter to care about my challenges to the Leftists’ AmSoc):

Transgender

It’s also worth pointing out that, until a few years ago, only Queen Victoria (the probably apocryphal “We are not amused”) and those whom people castigated as a-holes referred to themselves in the plural. Moreover, even Queen Victoria and the a-holes, while referring to themselves as “we,” did not insist that others refer to them as “they” or “them.”

In other words, that demand on us pluralizes the a-hole quality of those who insist on being referred to in the plural. The problem for them, of course, is that they can’t acknowledge that the English language has a very specific pronoun for a person or animal that is neither male nor female: “It.”