Is that hyperbole? Look at the way they go about proclaiming what they are adamantly opposed to, while actually doing what they claim to be opposed to, in order to promote themselves as being the anointed ones to defend us against what they claim to be opposed to - it has become the bizarre norm for the Pro-Regressive Left. Examples of this abound today, ranging from the trivial and sad, like Jussie Smollett (and his legion of imitators, from college students, to professors, politicians, and racecar drivers), to the Left decrying racism and blackface while promoting the likes of racist & blackface wearing Gov. Ralph Northum, to demanding that we 'believe all women!' while demonizing conservative women such as Amy Coney Barrett, to Antifa & BLM claiming to oppose racism, fascism and violence, while actively practicing racism, fascism and violence in order to defend us against that fearsomely racist, fascist and violent Right... which still has not complied by employing widespread acts of racism, fascism and violence against them (call me when 'The Proud Boys' have besieged multiple city centers for months and attempted to set multiple buildings on fire with people trapped within them. Oh, and killed people for political positions. Etc.).
That their behavior is not rationally explainable, is an important key to understanding them, and in a nicely coincidental bit of timing for demonstrating that point, some villainous virtue signalers have installed a statue outside of the halls of justice of a New York City courthouse, which glorifies an evil monster having slain a hero.
Of course they don't describe it that way. Instead, they've busily spun their own myths out of alternate backstories shorn of relevant context (such as that Perseus had nothing to do with the monster that Medusa became), they present the monstrous snake haired Medusa - whose gaze turned people to stone - in the form of a heroic 7' tall bronze sculpture of her as a victim striking back against oppressors everywhere, holding a sword in one hand and the severed head of the hero Perseus, in the other. This parasitical story mode has become all the rage amidst the ruins of the West's Arts & Letters, where by 'flipping the script' they seek to elevate monsters to a respectable status, while recasting heroes as monsters, and virtue as vice. But the 'fact' remains that Perseus was a hero who was sent to slay the snake headed monster Medusa, a task which many others had died attempting, in which he alone succeeded by cleverly using his polished shield to watch only the reflection of the Gorgon's actions, and preventing it's direct gaze from turning him to stone, Perseus slew the monster by cutting off its head.
Which, as with most true myths, conveys an effective lesson that's still useful for us today.
It's wise to avoid gazing directly into the baseless charges of the Pro-Regressive Left, as they make them not because there is a shred of truth, or respect for the truth in what they say, but only as a means to paralyze you in your response to them. They don't make them because they think they are sensible, they make them in hopes of stirring up confusion and controversy while garnering publicity for their fictional plights, while disorienting unwary onlookers about what is up & down, right & left, good & evil.
If you are baffled by how they think that such a strategy will work for them, your confusion probably comes from a habit of thinking objectively about what others say and do - don't do that with them! Remember Perseus's shield - observe their actions, but don't get drawn into looking directly into the writhing words which are meant only to confuse and freeze you in your tracks. When you cease trying to understand what they mean, and simply observe their purpose, it becomes less baffling. For instance, if you reflect upon what the Pro-Regressive's media mouthpieces proclaimed outright just four years ago, that they'd tested "... the Norms of Objectivity in Journalism", and chose to go with "Objectivity is dead, and I’m okay with it". And if that catches you by surprise, you probably failed to pay enough attention to when Bill Clinton expressed what had already long been the prevailing view of academia (you know, those people you send your kids to be educated by), that whether or not a lie must be identified as a lie "depends upon what the meaning of the word 'IS', is'. IOW, while you, a Westerner, are looking to have thoughts and actions make objective sense, the Pro-Regressive (Left & Right) have abandoned that approach, and the West altogether, and have devoted themselves to spinning false myths to grease the skids of the villain's journey.
Do not try to make sense of what is self evidently insensible - it will turn you to stone (such as attempting to argue with the phrase 'Black lives matter', it's not a statement that's meant to make sense, but only to paralyze you in the face of it) - observe their actions in the media, but keep your attention fixed upon reality. Do that (in part by thinking in principles, and turning away from ploys which reveal themselves to be unprincipled), and you have a chance of surviving your contact with the monstrous nature of the Pro-Regressive Left (and Right).
Which brings us around to the Senate Confirmation Hearings on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court, which the Pro-Regressive Left has been working overtime on getting 'canceled' for her noted lack of having any unconstitutional opinions. I kid you not. So desperate have the Pro-Regressive Leftists been for something to oppose her on, that they have taken to advocating for opposing her nomination to the Supreme Court, for reasons that are, shall we say... counter factual, and then even blatantly unconstitutional.
Which, as with most true myths, conveys an effective lesson that's still useful for us today.
It's wise to avoid gazing directly into the baseless charges of the Pro-Regressive Left, as they make them not because there is a shred of truth, or respect for the truth in what they say, but only as a means to paralyze you in your response to them. They don't make them because they think they are sensible, they make them in hopes of stirring up confusion and controversy while garnering publicity for their fictional plights, while disorienting unwary onlookers about what is up & down, right & left, good & evil.
If you are baffled by how they think that such a strategy will work for them, your confusion probably comes from a habit of thinking objectively about what others say and do - don't do that with them! Remember Perseus's shield - observe their actions, but don't get drawn into looking directly into the writhing words which are meant only to confuse and freeze you in your tracks. When you cease trying to understand what they mean, and simply observe their purpose, it becomes less baffling. For instance, if you reflect upon what the Pro-Regressive's media mouthpieces proclaimed outright just four years ago, that they'd tested "... the Norms of Objectivity in Journalism", and chose to go with "Objectivity is dead, and I’m okay with it". And if that catches you by surprise, you probably failed to pay enough attention to when Bill Clinton expressed what had already long been the prevailing view of academia (you know, those people you send your kids to be educated by), that whether or not a lie must be identified as a lie "depends upon what the meaning of the word 'IS', is'. IOW, while you, a Westerner, are looking to have thoughts and actions make objective sense, the Pro-Regressive (Left & Right) have abandoned that approach, and the West altogether, and have devoted themselves to spinning false myths to grease the skids of the villain's journey.
Do not try to make sense of what is self evidently insensible - it will turn you to stone (such as attempting to argue with the phrase 'Black lives matter', it's not a statement that's meant to make sense, but only to paralyze you in the face of it) - observe their actions in the media, but keep your attention fixed upon reality. Do that (in part by thinking in principles, and turning away from ploys which reveal themselves to be unprincipled), and you have a chance of surviving your contact with the monstrous nature of the Pro-Regressive Left (and Right).
Which brings us around to the Senate Confirmation Hearings on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court, which the Pro-Regressive Left has been working overtime on getting 'canceled' for her noted lack of having any unconstitutional opinions. I kid you not. So desperate have the Pro-Regressive Leftists been for something to oppose her on, that they have taken to advocating for opposing her nomination to the Supreme Court, for reasons that are, shall we say... counter factual, and then even blatantly unconstitutional.
Demonstrating that first point last week, one of my New York Times morning briefings stooped even lower than normal to grab at America's attention with this headline:
"Good morning. Barrett won’t endorse a peaceful transfer of power."Which, had it been true, it truly would've been newsworthy, but needless to say, that isn't what she was saying or refusing to say, it's just the myth they wanted to manufacture. What was said, came at the end of a string of Sen. Cory Booker's painfully poor attempts to get the nominee to embrace one political tarbaby after another, and after a long lead up of insinuations that President Trump is a fascist, and a racist, he finally concluded by asking her intently and oh so sincerely,
“Do you believe that every president should make a commitment unequivocally and resolutely to the peaceful transfer of power?”ACB wisely declined to become stuck to that ploy, she didn't bother engaging directly with whatever he might have meant by that, she simply identified his intentions and cut them off, replying:
"That seems to me to be pulling me into the question of whether the president has said he would not leave office," Barrett said. "To the extent that this is a political controversy right now, as a judge, I want to stay out of it."At that point Sen. Booker, perhaps embarrassed (as if) by the realization that people of his own political bent have declared that the President daring to nominate ACB justified their threatening to "Burn it all down!", he rephrased his question in a more general context of George Washington, and ACB responded to (the still mostly pointless and worthless, though now disarmed) question, that,
"One of the beauties of America from the beginning of the republic is that we have had peaceful transfers of power," she said. "I think it is part of the genius of our Constitution and the good faith and good will of our people."Amy Coney Barrett, by refusing to confront the pro-regressive rhetoric directly, was able to safely state that the peaceful transfer of power was a vital and defining aspect of America. Of course that sentiment was of no use to the gorgon headed journalists of the New York Times, who're desperately in search of oppressors to point to their being oppressed by, and so they replaced her actual and easily understood position, with the headline: "Barrett won’t endorse a peaceful transfer of power." Truly, I think the better question is "Will the Left permit the peaceful continuation of power?" That's a reality-based question which the New York Times will not face, let alone raise.
What's even more pathetic, is that in these confirmation hearings for a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States of America, our elected Senators are unable to lift themselves to the level of asking meaningful questions, and raising well founded doubts. Instead, they and our media are interested only in promoting disinformation to a (shrinking) public which is more than eager to consume it. Reflecting more of the same, we were also treated to the despicable spectacle of a sitting Senator and Vice Presidential candidate, Kamala Harris, speculating on the possibility that the judge might be a liar who's been lying all along in order to seem sensible, in order to get on the SCOTUS where she might then begin lying more out in the open. This was an especially inept prosecutorial effort, which Sen. Kennedy easily and accurately summed up as:
"‘Senator Harris Just Called You A Liar’"There are zero instances of such behavior in ACB's history on the bench, or as a Professor of Law at Notre Dame, or as a person, to warrant even raising such an artificial doubt. But they don't ask the accusatory question in order to discover anything true, but only to direct their monstrous gaze to impugn the character of the person that they have no basis in reality for doubting. If the Truth stands in your way, spin a lie around it.
And when lies alone fail, they move on to adding on the unconstitutional. Not only is this despicable behavior, but it is typical of essentially every leftist 'objection' to ACB that I've seen to date, which belies what mostly lies behind such accusations, which is plainly reflected in this meme that is popular with the Anti-ACB'rs:
Don't be distracted, the Pro-Regressive's problem isn't with ACB, or with Trump, or even with America, but with objectivity, reality, and Truth - those concepts not only don't work for them, they are threats to their myths, and they are desperate to wrap you up in their lies, so as to not notice that they are nothing but lies. Cut them off. The truth is that the Constitution permits no religious tests for office. Those opposing ACB serving the Constitution through a position on the Supreme Court, are the ones who are advocating for ignoring and violating the Constitution... which undermines the credibility of their position... just a tad... don'tcha think?
There you go being objective again.
If the Pro-Regressive Leftists have proven anything beyond a reasonable doubt in this matter, it is that by their explicitly citing ACB's religious beliefs as a basis for urging her nomination to be rejected, which is explicitly forbidden by the Constitution to be applied as a fitness test for any office under the Constitution. There's no need to discuss the 'merits' of their position, they've already demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that they themselves have no respect for the Constitution, the offices created under it, or for that sense of justice which the Supreme Court was designed to bring about under a proper application of the Constitution to our laws.
"If, rather than being Catholic, ACB was a devout Muslim woman who belonged to an extremist Muslim organization that demanded a lifelong covenant, professed a belief that women should be subservient to their husbands, taught at a madrassa, and once said she viewed her participation in the legal profession as a way to bring about the kingdom of allah.Once again, taken on the face of it, this is downright confusing - is this meme a confession of bigotry towards Muslims, or Catholics, or both? Of course it's both and more. Don't engage with their meaningless meaning, don't try to understand or defend what they are attacking, observe the direction of their words, and cut them off. Because unless those covenants the judge has purportedly made include the oath to apply foreign laws - Sharia or Marx - against and over those of our constitution, the only problem their charges point to, is their own unfitness to involve themselves in the conversation at all. I've seen a legion of commenters, desperate to cultivate their outrage, add that,
The conversation surrounding her appointment to the USSC would be very different."
"She has openly stated that her role as a judge is to bring the country to a "kingdom of god". That's clearly a preference of her religion beliefs over law, constitutional or otherwise."The materialistic dogma lives loudly in their breast. To take the least important part first, that charge has been a non-controversial one ever since it was first advanced 2,000 years ago and left Pontius Pilate feeling baffled as to how Jesus's claim to a spiritual 'kingdom of God', could possibly pose a threat to the oh-so powerful material kingdom of Caesar. Pilate tried to dismiss the issue and let Jesus go, but then as now, the accusers were desperately seeking to nail someone to the cross, and of course, then as now, those carrying out the charge attempted to wash their hands of the matter, which, objectively, doesn't work.
Don't be distracted, the Pro-Regressive's problem isn't with ACB, or with Trump, or even with America, but with objectivity, reality, and Truth - those concepts not only don't work for them, they are threats to their myths, and they are desperate to wrap you up in their lies, so as to not notice that they are nothing but lies. Cut them off. The truth is that the Constitution permits no religious tests for office. Those opposing ACB serving the Constitution through a position on the Supreme Court, are the ones who are advocating for ignoring and violating the Constitution... which undermines the credibility of their position... just a tad... don'tcha think?
There you go being objective again.
If the Pro-Regressive Leftists have proven anything beyond a reasonable doubt in this matter, it is that by their explicitly citing ACB's religious beliefs as a basis for urging her nomination to be rejected, which is explicitly forbidden by the Constitution to be applied as a fitness test for any office under the Constitution. There's no need to discuss the 'merits' of their position, they've already demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that they themselves have no respect for the Constitution, the offices created under it, or for that sense of justice which the Supreme Court was designed to bring about under a proper application of the Constitution to our laws.
Looking beyond the illusion of their concerns, it becomes apparent that their calling ACB a threat, should prompt you to question what it is that they are really fearful of, and what it is that they find to be so threatening to their beliefs? If you objectively follow that question down the path, you'll be led to the realization that what they fear IS the Constitution, and especially the possibility of its being objectively applied to our laws, and the horrifying (to them) possibility of limiting the power of that government which they seek to gain total power over, and through.
The people peddling this tripe, of course, have no evidence whatsoever of ACB ever choosing religious dogma, over constitutional judgement. None. And so, once again, lacking a problem, they seek to spin one of their own making, which exposes them as unconstitutional zealots frantically opposing a non-controversial nominee - don't distract from that fact by arguing with their point, that way lies madness. For instance, the mavens of Wokeness have offered up this preposterous article in UK's The Guardian, which one enthusiast promoted as having done
"... a great job explaining the concerns with the Republican pick of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. She goes beyond the already misogynistic view of Catholicism...",before we let him finish that sentence, take note that he's already given away the 'fairness' game with the wicked huge a slander that "...already misogynistic view of Catholicism...", and without missing a beat, he goes on to say that,
"...read this (and more information) and decide if you think she is the type of person that can set her personal biases aside as a judge."Do those statements lead you to think that the person who'd say such a thing, is interested in, or capable of, laying aside their own personal prejudices before beginning to 'think'? How likely is it that he has any interest in you doing so? Such mendacious phrases are the signal that it's time to raise the shield, and reflect upon the nature of the wording being used, rather than engaging with what they allege them to mean.
Keep the Pro-Regressive's opinion of Objectivity firmly in mind when considering what they are saying. Note that the article's tagline from the wokety-woke 'believe all women!' crowd, says:
What business do comments such as those, have on the topic of Justice? The line preceding the cis gender one, gives their game away:
What's quite clear is that any concern that the author might pretend to have about the Constitution being upheld by any judge, let alone by ACB, is an illusion they conjure up as a convenient pretext for attacking it. That such an emphasis that the 'current context' should hold sway over the written constitution, is the ideological ideal of 'living constitutionalists' which has always been about implicitly rewriting the Constitution through a mendacious 'interpretation' of key words and passages, which they will then claim as precedent for justifying the untethering of government power from those limitations that 'white, cisgender men' imposed upon it, by means of our Constitution.
Such minds as these, are unworthy to entrust with political power, let alone judicial power. The interests of this author and those of like mind with her, are not vested in seeing that the Constitution will be respected and upheld by this or any other nominee to the Supreme Court. What they are interested in, is doing away with our Constitution, and with America - and with you as well - even as they proclaim how concerned they are with defending the Constitution, America, and you, from... the Constitution, America, and you.
Doesn't that have a familiar Jussie Smollett-like ring to it?
To be sure, this author, and these people, have the constitutional right to feel as they do, but to expect other people to take their claims seriously, would require the rest of us to be as unconcerned with objectivity as they are, and that, hopefully, is just not the case.
There is a sound and startling difference between giving direct and thoughtful consideration to evidence in light of reasonable laws, so as to reach a just conclusion, and the mashing up of factoids and baseless accusation in order to 'support' a predetermined ideological assault upon the means of clarifying and applying Justice, and this author fails that test, outright.
Justice, and upholding and preserving the individual rights of all, is the furthest thing from their minds.
Despite their proclamations of caring about what We The People want, the 'living constitutionalist's do not give a fig for what 'the people' might want or even overwhelmingly support. If they did care about, or even suspected that their positions had overwhelming support from the people, then they'd use that aspect of the Constitution that was written into it for just that purpose: writing and passing Constitutional Amendments. But because those efforts of theirs have failed to garner that level of support (perhaps their last 'successes' in the 16th, 17th & 18th Amendments, wised We The People up about them? I wish that were true), they prefer the false path of installing ideological judges, while fanatically opposing those who'd treat the Constitution, and its purpose, with respect.
All they have to fear, is... all they fear
"Amy Coney Barrett went to my all-girls high school. I hope she's not confirmed | Lisa M O'Neill"Is the nature of that statement one that invites thought, or promises vitriol? That frame of mind is further illustrated in a phrase which the author uses to characterize our nation, its laws, and its people, that,
"...These laws were made by white, cisgender men who enslaved other human beings..."Does a 'thought' such as that, inspire you with the belief that the speaker is interested in fairness, or justice, or even reality? Does it seem likely that 'white, cisgender men ' are seen as being worthy in their minds, of receiving equal justice before the law? Does offering up blanket hostility and condemnation to a sizable portion of the populace for the sin of being born 'white cis-gendered males', convey anything more than bigotry? At best? The unprincipled, illogical, unreasonable form of the words, makes clear that the writer thinks that her own feelings should take precedence over those who (gasp) think differently from her. Whatever other ideals lurk in such a mind as that, that alone persuades me that their interest is in gaining and imposing power over those lesser 'white, cisgender men', and women like Amy Coney Barrett, any others who dare see things differently from them.
What business do comments such as those, have on the topic of Justice? The line preceding the cis gender one, gives their game away:
"Obedience to the exact original meaning of the constitution without current context is problematic.”Allow me to hold up the shield's mirror to translate: Objectivity is problematic.
What's quite clear is that any concern that the author might pretend to have about the Constitution being upheld by any judge, let alone by ACB, is an illusion they conjure up as a convenient pretext for attacking it. That such an emphasis that the 'current context' should hold sway over the written constitution, is the ideological ideal of 'living constitutionalists' which has always been about implicitly rewriting the Constitution through a mendacious 'interpretation' of key words and passages, which they will then claim as precedent for justifying the untethering of government power from those limitations that 'white, cisgender men' imposed upon it, by means of our Constitution.
Such minds as these, are unworthy to entrust with political power, let alone judicial power. The interests of this author and those of like mind with her, are not vested in seeing that the Constitution will be respected and upheld by this or any other nominee to the Supreme Court. What they are interested in, is doing away with our Constitution, and with America - and with you as well - even as they proclaim how concerned they are with defending the Constitution, America, and you, from... the Constitution, America, and you.
Doesn't that have a familiar Jussie Smollett-like ring to it?
To be sure, this author, and these people, have the constitutional right to feel as they do, but to expect other people to take their claims seriously, would require the rest of us to be as unconcerned with objectivity as they are, and that, hopefully, is just not the case.
There is a sound and startling difference between giving direct and thoughtful consideration to evidence in light of reasonable laws, so as to reach a just conclusion, and the mashing up of factoids and baseless accusation in order to 'support' a predetermined ideological assault upon the means of clarifying and applying Justice, and this author fails that test, outright.
Justice, and upholding and preserving the individual rights of all, is the furthest thing from their minds.
Despite their proclamations of caring about what We The People want, the 'living constitutionalist's do not give a fig for what 'the people' might want or even overwhelmingly support. If they did care about, or even suspected that their positions had overwhelming support from the people, then they'd use that aspect of the Constitution that was written into it for just that purpose: writing and passing Constitutional Amendments. But because those efforts of theirs have failed to garner that level of support (perhaps their last 'successes' in the 16th, 17th & 18th Amendments, wised We The People up about them? I wish that were true), they prefer the false path of installing ideological judges, while fanatically opposing those who'd treat the Constitution, and its purpose, with respect.
All they have to fear, is... all they fear
What I think that the Pro-Regressive Left is best expressing in their Jussie Smollett & Medusa-like manner, is their concern that their strategy of ideological activism from the bench, has been losing favor and ground with We The People for years, and that they are in peril of losing their foothold in our courts, and in our hearts & minds, and that what they've openly banked upon for the last 50 years for imposing their will, over the will of We The People, is and has been losing its objective value.
I hope that their fears are well placed, and I look forward to their worst fears being realized.
Instead of wasting your time on ideological opinion screeds such as that gobbledygook in the Guardian, I recommend reading ACB's legal thought and judgements and decide for yourself whether or not they comport with the Constitution - that is, after all, the actual task at hand. If you want something more to consider, consider what she herself has had to say about her own beliefs about being a judge.
It's somewhat worth noting that as I am not an Originalist, or a Textualist (which are not the same things), the nomination of an Originalist to the Supreme Court doesn't thrill me in the way that the nomination of someone with the natural law understanding that our Constitution was formed and derived from (think Justice Clarence Thomas), would. But leaving that aside, IMHO, any decent Originalist is far and away a better choice for our nation, and for Justice, than any 'living constitutionalist', whose personal philosophy exhorts them to insert their own personal opinions, beliefs and feelings, into constitutional judgments upon our laws - which is the very thing they baselessly and falsely accuses ACB of doing through her religion.
There is much to admire about Amy Coney Barrett, and there's nothing that I've seen so far that would make me objectively question whether or not she would abide by the Constitution in her duties as a justice on the SCOTUS, or would call into question her ability and judgement as a Judge, and that is the only test that matters. And even though her being an Originalist doesn't thrill me in and of itself, there is no credible, objective reason, for opposing her nomination to the Supreme Court, and a great many reasons for applauding her becoming a sitting justice upon the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
And seriously, to my friends on the Left, if you wish me to take your opposition to her seriously, you've first got to convince me that you give a damn about our Constitution, the ideals and concepts it was derived from, and for America itself.
I hope that their fears are well placed, and I look forward to their worst fears being realized.
Instead of wasting your time on ideological opinion screeds such as that gobbledygook in the Guardian, I recommend reading ACB's legal thought and judgements and decide for yourself whether or not they comport with the Constitution - that is, after all, the actual task at hand. If you want something more to consider, consider what she herself has had to say about her own beliefs about being a judge.
It's somewhat worth noting that as I am not an Originalist, or a Textualist (which are not the same things), the nomination of an Originalist to the Supreme Court doesn't thrill me in the way that the nomination of someone with the natural law understanding that our Constitution was formed and derived from (think Justice Clarence Thomas), would. But leaving that aside, IMHO, any decent Originalist is far and away a better choice for our nation, and for Justice, than any 'living constitutionalist', whose personal philosophy exhorts them to insert their own personal opinions, beliefs and feelings, into constitutional judgments upon our laws - which is the very thing they baselessly and falsely accuses ACB of doing through her religion.
There is much to admire about Amy Coney Barrett, and there's nothing that I've seen so far that would make me objectively question whether or not she would abide by the Constitution in her duties as a justice on the SCOTUS, or would call into question her ability and judgement as a Judge, and that is the only test that matters. And even though her being an Originalist doesn't thrill me in and of itself, there is no credible, objective reason, for opposing her nomination to the Supreme Court, and a great many reasons for applauding her becoming a sitting justice upon the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
And seriously, to my friends on the Left, if you wish me to take your opposition to her seriously, you've first got to convince me that you give a damn about our Constitution, the ideals and concepts it was derived from, and for America itself.
No comments:
Post a Comment