INCOMPETENCE HAS ITS UPSIDE

To the average left-wing, summer-of-love, we’re good, they’re bad leftist, the world is a conundrum; They blame right-wingers for the problems they themselves create. They accuse Donald Trump and his supporters of racism, yet bear within their party anti-Semitic racists freely supporting a second holocaust against Jews. Many other examples could be given, but that is not their real problem; it is that they are not able to set priorities in the instance where the priorities do not contradict themselves. Environmental dogma reaches a point of absurdity when bird-killing windmills are prioritized over the creatures themselves. Emotion driven people change their fad at their convenience because it would be boring otherwise. Every problem is bound up in their morality-determined world. Each issue has a moral imperative attached to the extent that they stumble as they fall over their own feet and fail their cause.

Sometimes the average right-winger just has to take his good news the way he can get it. According to the Washington Examiner,[1] “Biden has expressed ‘immense frustration’ that his administration has few completed infrastructure projects to boast about on the reelection trail while 70% of voters give him poor marks on his handling of the economy.” The reason is classic Democrat circular firing squad style. According to the Examiner:

“States are . . . largely allowed to spend the money as they see fit. But this usual system was not good enough for Biden, who didn’t trust Republican governors to spend the money in ways that promoted a carbon-free transportation system. Instead, his infrastructure bill channeled money through grant programs run by federal agencies, . . . This was a device to allow Democrats in Washington to send money directly to Democratic cities and counties while cutting off Republican governors.

But these were all new grant programs without any functioning rules guiding how local governments could apply and how the federal government would decide which local governments got what. The creation of those regulations took at least a year and even then, local governments still had to apply under new rules and the agencies had to reward the money. All that took time as well.”[2]

So, after three years of the Biden administration, electric car owners have few charging stations to use on their long-distance road trips. And if the trip is in winter, each trip is likely to take even longer as the batteries performance declines (possibly as much as 41%) in cold weather, which in turn requires more stops and additional time on the road.

California is helping the Biden administration with its holy war against fossil fuels. In a Bloomberg story article recently, Chevron announced it was taking a $3.5-$4-billion-dollar write-down of its assets as a result of policies in California and environmental liabilities incurred from operations in the Gulf of Mexico. The article goes on to say:

“The charges “primarily” stem from California regulations that “have resulted in lower anticipated future investment levels,” the company said in a filing Tuesday [January 2, 2024]. Chevron’s production in the state has dropped 15% since the Covid-19 pandemic and now accounts for just 3 percent of its worldwide output.[3]

Using environmental laws to penalize fossil fuel companies is the trick of choice for the leftists running America’s governments. Like the EV chargers that aren’t built, California deprived Californians of the jobs and money Chevron would produce, but staggering environmental costs (and rising interest rates) undermine entire projects.

Extreme environmental laws, along with high taxes, also inhibits home building and businesses from being started or expanded. Restrictive environmental laws prevent even the governments that want to produce allegedly green products from doing so.

Chevron responded to the California challenges, saying:

“The comments come as California lawmakers consider limiting the profits in-state refiners can reap. The most-populous US state already has the nation’s toughest fuel standards as well as a carbon cap-and-trade program that critics say forces consumers to pay more at the pump.”[4]

The goal here is to drive up the cost of fossil fuels, stigmatize the fossil fuel industry, and reduce the value of their corporate stock. Consequently, California experiences energy blackouts and requests its citizens to charge their cars at night when the load is lighter.

Equally pernicious, are the attempts to coat environmentally friendly statutes with woke “. . . secure environmental justice for historically marginalized communities”[5]

While elements of aid to impoverished communities of color may be justified, the vaguely stated goals of the environmental justice {EJ] plan under Executive Order 14008 gave voice to hateful rhetoric by leftists like Richard Moore, co-chairman of the White House Environment Justice Advisory Council (WHEJAC), who used the opportunity to attach allegations of “climate injustice, environmental racism, and environmental genocide”[6] aganst American minorities. This hateful rhetoric suggests an administration fulminating irrational personal issues instead of reasoned strategy to solve problems.

In fact, the implementation of the executive order gets in the way of itself by mandating raising union wages and satisfying community activists “that most effectively reduce emissions.”[7] Other requirements undermine noble goals. For example, replacing lead water pipes in old homes requires more time and resources to get the job done, and less time with stake-holder consultations. Other obstructions include requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act’s debilitating review process. Permitting requirements represent an additional hurdle and, “These policies would also raise new hurdles to private industry, restricting job opportunities particularly in poor communities.”[8]

Mixing social justice goals with environmental improvements will end up diverting funds to left-wing activist groups while risking failure to legitimate and needed infrastructure improvements. Once again, the Biden administration undermines its own causes with its emotional tantrums concerning social goals versus tangible improvements in the lives of people. For communities of color, they will receive just enough benefits to retain the appearance of progress, but not enough to move the needle into new territory. Minority communities deserve government that solves the problems of poverty, poor educational attainment, and personal insecurity within their communities. So far, over fifty years of affirmative action has not done the job. Government in the end will not succeed in its desire for an equal outcome for all of Americas citizens until government gets out of the way of those in minority communities who can lead their people out of their insulated world.

Note the following:

Orsted, a commercial windmill company has cancelled its contract with the State of Maryland to install wind-power windmills in the Atlantic Ocean on the grounds that it is no longer commercially viable as a result of market conditions, including inflation, high interest rates and supply chain constraints.

Note also:

Orsted announced that it had cancelled its Ocean Wind 1 and Ocean Wind 2 twin projects. This project was on behalf of New Jersey. Earlier an energy firm, Equinor and British Petroleum discontinued its contract with New York State for the Empire Wind 2 project.

The empire of contradictions, hypocrisy, and bureaucracy march on as the Biden Administration’s clumsy government can’t get out of its own way. If a Trump Administration is formed in 2025, it is unlikely that much of the Biden Administration will exist for long. Americans will be able to return to peace and prosperity.

[1] Washington Examiner, 1/2/2024, pg. 1

[2] Ibid

[3] Bloomberg, Energywire, https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews/2024/01/03/chevron-sees-up-to-4b-hit-from-calif-policies-former-gulf-assets-00133498

chevron-slashes-california-spending-on-adversarial-fossil-fuel-policies

[5] National Review, December 2023, Not Green, Not Just, James B. Meigs, pg. 19

[6] Ibid, pg. 20

[7] Ibid

[8] Ibid

December 19, 2019

THE THIRD CHARGE

Most Americans have noticed that the President of the United States has been impeach by the House of Representatives. For many, it has been a big yawn. It shouldn’t be.

The Democrats have been trying and trying to nullify the last election by any means possible for nearly three years. The Mueller investigation was the first big attempt at a purge. The Mueller report, authored by nineteen Hillary Clinton supporters could not come up with any indictable wrongdoing by President Trump. With that failure in mind, the Democrats made another attempt. This time the effort was led by Rep. Al Greene (D-TX) who managed to gain a whopping 58 Democrats to support his effort at impeachment. The rest of the House of Representatives, all 356 Republicans and Democrats opposed that effort. Representative Greene stated his reason for launching the effort was that the president would be reelected if they didn’t succeed. They didn’t. Democracy has not been the long-suit of the Democrats for a long time. Slavery was the peak of their historical performance.

Now the Democrats have put together a new effort. The latest attack has bee nearly totally along partisan grounds with all but two Democrats voting for impeachment and all Republicans opposing it.

	ABUSE OF POWER	OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS
DEMOCRATS	230	229
REPUBLICANS	197	198

One Democrat, Jeff Van Drew, switched parties to Republican, rather than remain with the Democrats. Rep Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) voted present, and a third Democrat split the vote between the two charges.

The largely partisan vote shows the desperation as well as the uncertainty felt by Democrats as a presidential election looms over them in less than a year. There nervousness arises out of the recognition that their current crop of candidates is flawed and points to a loss against President Trump November 3, 2020. They know that a host of candidates who believe in open borders, fantastic spending plans, and inflated ideas of the power of government, opens the door to failure next November.

In impeaching the President, the Democrats have now mangled the Constitution so badly it is hardly recognizable. There are two Articles of Impeachment released by the Democrats. The one pertaining to the Biden’s is abuse of power. Joe Biden famously told an audience that he had gotten a Ukrainian prosecutor fired by withholding aid authorized by Congress. The prosecutor was investigating a Ukrainian gas company, Burisma, one of whose directors was Hunter Biden, Vice President Biden’s son. The charges against President Trump are based on a phone call to the President of Ukraine in which President Trump asked for a favor by looking into the matter. The President pointed to the unethical, if not illegal, act by which Hunter traded on his father’s name in order to receive an impressive salary which may have been as $83,000 per month for three years. Joe Biden is currently running for President in Democrat primaries which may lead to his running against President Trump. The President should be given some slack in this case as being a rookie president he did not realize that you are not allowed to expose and investigate the unethical behavior of a Democrat running for president. Never mind the treaty of cooperation between the United States and Ukraine which provides for such an exchange of information for the purpose of rooting out corrupt and illegal acts. In the view of Democrats, Joe Biden enjoys immunity from prosecution or scrutiny because he is a Democrat. There is no evidence that Republicans enjoy such immunity. As a rare example of consistency, Democrats believe Hillary Clinton is exempt from such scrutiny also with regard to her illegal use of a private server. Five server technicians were given immunity from prosecution after they were interviewed by the friendly FBI. Nothing there to see! But don’t look, just the same, the Democrats have said, just close your eyes because we are the friendly FBI. As an untouchable elite Democrat, Hillary was briefly questioned and let go to continue running for President.

Hunter Biden has admitted that he got the job at Burisma because he was Joe’s son. Joe’s famous brag that he used one billion dollars in US aid to leverage the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor looking into Burisma doesn’t count because the Democrat own a special exemption. Rookie presidents like Donald Trump don’t know the rules about putting high-ranking Democrats behind bars. It’s not allowed.

The second charge against President Trump is obstruction of Congress. The alleged abuse of power arose out of the President’s opposition to the Democrats effort to take away his job without an election. Again, let’s give the first-time politician a break here. How was he to know that he was supposed to act powerless, give the Democrats documents belonging to the Executive Branch, and admit his guilt on the spot. We should not really believe in the Separation of Powers doctrine in the Constitution because it was written by old white guys. Again, a rookie presidential mistake.

One thing the Democrats deserve credit for is their futuristic view of America. Once Socialism rules the land, it will fail and degenerate into dictatorship as it attempts to keep power. Remember, Democrats are thinking ahead. Nullifying the Constitution is merely a phase necessary before we achieve equality in poverty. Separation of Powers, the right to face your accuser, the ability to call witnesses in your favor, the right to cross examine opposing testimony, and the right to remain silent, should not impede historically determined progress.

The Democrats have made only one mistake. Abuse of power and obstruction of Congress have been laid powerfully in front of America, but Democrats left out the third Article of Impeachment—anti-Soviet Activities. At least in similar past judicial examples, that charge was also used.

March 1, 2019March 1, 2019

THE LUXURY OF MORAL SUPERIORITY

A recent obituary by Philip Terzian in the Washington Examiner [February 12, 2019] looked at the life of Morton Sobell who died in 2018 after once serving a 30-year sentence for espionage. Sobell, an engineer and expert in military technology, betrayed his country by turning over American industrial and military information to the Soviet Union. His actions and those of Alger Hiss, as well as the executed Soviet spies Julius and Ethel Rosen Rosenberg set the cold war tone for the country. A sympathetic Left at the time denied the existence of a spy problem and dismissed it as conservative hysteria. The truth of the matter is that the secrets stolen by Sobell and passed to the Soviets, led to American combat deaths in Korea. Other stolen classified information by Klaus Fuchs during WWII led to the Soviet development of the atom bomb.

What allows a person of the Left to betray a democratic country? Before a 2008 admission to the New York Times Sobell had never confirmed that he was a spy. Terzian writes, “Neither he [Sobell] nor the Rosenbergs had ever been spies, he insisted, and their sympathy for the Soviet Union was based on admiration for its socialist ideals and the wartime alliance with Moscow in the fight against fascism.” The Soviet era during the long domination by Joseph Stalin was a time of starvation, war, and persecution that cost the lives of 50 million people. The mythology of the Marxist ideal was tied up with the phantasy view of the perfectibility of man. The Marxist utopia wasn’t even possible in a police state where as a Soviet citizen your life was always hanging on the thin thread attached to the party line.

Ideals are normal for most people—even desirable, but the argument falls apart after the person with the ideals seeks to enforce them on someone else. It starts as a simple verbal nudge and ends in a police state when the lack of humility predominates and transforms into moral certainty.

When individuals form groups with the same morally certain principles, it becomes a movement. Some movements die out as too narrow such as Williams Jennings Bryan advocacy for silver coinage and his anti-evolution stands. Others, such as the democracy of the early United States as embodied by the Constitution have lasted. What these different stands have in common is a religious fervor that moves masses of people at the politically correct moment in time.

Morality based causes are notably religious in nature. The religious quality of the cause grants the moralist permission for extreme actions. The extremist relies on martyrs, saints and symbols to support and represent in simplified form the cause they advocate. For Christianity it is the cross; for Bryan it was the cross of gold; for peace groups in the 60’s, it was the peace symbol; for Nazi’s it was the swastika; for the #metoo movement it is the #metoo hashtag representing an organization identifying female victims without justice, and on and on. The use of symbols is a source of self-identification and a unifying factor among members of a group. It is a shorthand method of identifying members with the same political, social, or religious identity.

If a cause is religious in nature the individual is thinking of a higher power than the self. A religious nature allows martyrs to die for a cause. Christ dies, the martyrs die, men and women die in battle, the flesh is gone, but the cause remains. The cause is related to the future. The cause lives on at the sacrifice of the individual. If a person is arrested, the cause goes on. If true believers suffer harm for the cause, the cause goes on. Until it evaporates in history. No one today advocates for a cross of gold.

Following martyrdom comes sainthood. Saints become the focal point of the moralist’s view as a paradigm for the younger generation. Focusing on a human being allows the follower to relate to the cause, especially if the saint and the follower perceive themselves as victims. Thinking in terms of a religion allows the fanatic to commit murders, fight just wars (the union side of the civil war), fight unjust wars (the Confederate side of the Civil War) cut off the heads of enemies, and say anything no matter how untrue because the cause is at stake That brings us to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

She is a young woman of self-proclaimed superior morality focused on tarring money hoarders among the 500 billionaires of America. As a 29-year-old Democrat Party barista turned Representative of the people of New York’s 14^th congressional district, Ocasio-Cortez has made national news upstaging with ease wily veteran politicians trying with great difficulty to distinguish themselves during the current presidential mad dash toward the nomination of their party. All this for the privilege of unseating President Trump in 2020. She is too young according to the Constitution to run for the officer herself, but find the right 9^th circuit court judge, and all things become possible.

Opinions are inflated currency these days, but she represents a paragon of the spoiled, entitled class of youthful true believers[1] who lack any sense of embarrassment when confronted with their own ignorance. The four Pinocchio’s she received from the otherwise friendly Washington Post did not stop her. The reason she does not feel pain the way most politicians do is simple: she tells us she has a higher morality. From whence comes this gift? Religious true believers find the source in a deity who is willing to share. Her gift seems to be self-generated as if sprung from a demi-god enjoying a promotion. We know this from an interview with Anderson Cooper on television’s 60 Minutes during which she announced her superior morality.

If that is all it takes, the Democrats should definitely hold her in position to assume the presidency at the next opportunity. If the 9^th Circuit Court idea doesn’t work, try a new amendment to the Constitution on her behalf for an earlier presidential run. Let’s not wait. Due to the current conflict in America, the woman of superior morality should be our leader. Unless . . . there is another person out there who can trump her bid for highest moral standing on the planet. If that is you, speak up. Please.

[1] See The True Believer, by Eric Hoffer

February 2, 2019February 2, 2019

DOG GONE IT

The internet reports that Matthew Oropeza killed Drew Justice while both men were walking their respective dogs, a pit bull and a “little Shih Tzu.” The dispute centered around Mr. Justice’s concern that the unleashed pit bull (in a leash required park in Philadelphia) would do harm to his little shih tzu. On the surface, one might think that the conservative view is that Mr. Oropeza was exercising his right to walk his unleashed dog against the excessive regulations of government. Remember, animals are people too, (It’s in the PETA by-laws somewhere). It only appears that Mr. Oropeza was exercising his right to dismiss the snowflake shih Tzu owner. Mr. Justice was killed as the result of one swift blow that resulted in head contact with the concrete sidewalk as he toppled over. There is a certain irony in that Philadelphia has yet to ban clenched fists as instruments of death the way California would ban guns. At the risk of using a cliché, it should be said that guns don’t kill people, people kill people. The same for fists.

Another point regarding the incident needs to be emphasized. Conservatives are usually apposed to abortion. Aborting the life of Mr. Justice was not justified either in terms of the scale of the perceived injustice or the act, or the act itself, of eliminating Mr. Justice’s right to life. Perhaps in the spirit of Roe v Wade, Mr. Oropeza has not been charged with murder, but will have to answer to charges of “involuntary manslaughter, simple assault and endangerment of another person.”

Conservatism Bittersweet does not intend to make light of the death of another person. But the parallel with abortion leads a thinking person to conclude that the Constitution is important and issues such as constitutional rights, life and death, and the rule of law are paramount.

Animals seem to bring out the worst in people, while bringing out at other times, the best in themselves. History teaches us on this point. The plague was worsened when Medieval superstitions led to the killing of cats which were controlling the rat population. The rats were transmitting the disease. Dogs similarly perform rescues, lead the blind, and many other services to their human masters. Animal lovers have developed a degree of arrogance that equates with left-wing bias elsewhere. California’s decision to require pet stores to sell only rescued animals is an attempt to solve the abandonment of animals and runaway’s problem. The State of California has a law for everything, and now they are requiring, as usual, the guilty along with the innocent to clean up the mess created by a minority.

Here is some sincere advice to pet owners. Some citizens choose not to be a manservant to a pet. Picking up the poop after a dog friend is done is gross and crude. If we don’t do it for people, why do we do it for dogs or other pets. Just ask the residents of San Francisco why they don’t pooper scoop people. Those petless people who have chosen not to bear the burdens of proper animal care likewise suffer the consequences of human arrogance when feral animals run wild. They can become dangerous to people, especially children, and can spread disease.

In many jurisdictions, pet owners are required to pick up solid waste left by their little creatures. They somehow feel that it is acceptable to soil private or public property under those terms. It comes as a shock to them when they find out that not everyone loves little Poopsey’s poop, picked up or not, or liquid waste deposited on their private property or public parks where they or their loved ones play. The pet owner’s property or designated poop areas should be the only place for dogs, cats, and other beasts of the field giving unconditional love to their masters while they relieve themselves. Speaking of unconditional love, please do not kiss your pet in public. It is jarring enough to see a man kissing a man or a woman kissing a woman, but kissing your Poopsey in public is a little disturbing and bad political gamesmanship if you are trying to persuade the public to support your animal fouling proclivities.

For those who wish to consider owning a pet or already have one, consider the following:

In 2017 $69.51 billion was spent on pet food.
The total first year cost of a dog is $1270, and for a cat, $1070. After the first year the cost of owning a dog or cat is at least $500.
The cost of feeding your dog is between $250-$700 per year.
Each year approximately 2.7 million animals are euthanized.

Endurance is the one thing one must have in a society of dog induced murders, poop pickups, and California based utopianism. The comfort pets imposed upon the traveling public impose an unfair burden on those who don’t desire to travel with someone’s comfort pet. The rise of animal, companions which can be bought at your local store, is disheartening for those who believe society is making progress on human perfectibility. If you want to buy a comfort animal, please be advised that you are making a life decision and you must act responsibly. Plane passengers do not want your pet on board, especially if it is a snake, iguana, or barking dog. Due to abuse issues, airlines are cracking down on abusers and PETAphiles. The reason for the crackdown is the welfare and safety of other passengers. Please act responsibly.

Who says you can’t buy love? Just because the Beatles said it’s so doesn’t mean you have to believe it. We know the arguments you will make. Your pet friend who won’t tell you to pick up your socks, mow the lawn, or be nice to the driver who just cut in front of you. Please retract your middle finger so your animal friend doesn’t see it. Again, how could anyone not love Poopsey? At least try being civil to your neighbor. You won’t need a comfort animal for that.

November 29, 2018

ELECTION 2018–WHO WON AND WHY

ELECTION 2018—WHO WON AND WHY

THE OUTCOME

The battle lines were drawn for the knife fight that was the election of 2018. President Trump campaigned as if he was running on the ballots of numerous states and Democrats thought that voters would follow Oprah Winfrey towards electoral victory. The day after the election left a blurred impression to observers trying to designate a clear winner. There wasn’t one.

The Republicans lost at least 37 House of Representative seats but gained two in the Senate. A last Senate seat in likely in Mississippi was won in a run-off by Cindy Hyde-Smith over Democrat Mike Espy. The House numbers might change also, due to ballot recounting.

President Trump claimed victory after comparing his gains and losses to the two previous Democrat Presidents.

The President has a rightful claim to a better outcome in both the Senate. Nevertheless, it is never good to lose, which is what happened to the Republicans in the House. The losses were meaningful because the House of Representatives is now controlled by the Democrats, so it wasn’t a mere loss of seats, but a loss of the entire Chamber.

Additionally, seven states, Nevada, New Mexico, Kansas, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Maine flipped their Governor to Democrat from Republican and one, Alaska, flipped from Democrat to Republican. This is significant considering the new governors will determine much of the legislative redistricting which will take place in 2020.

Republicans, who tend to be more conservative, have suffered a significant loss, although they lead overall in governors 27 to 23.

In direct contests, the President won. Where he campaigned, mostly for U.S. senate candidates, he was overwhelmingly successful. But he could not stem the tide of angry losers among the Democrats who converted the House of Representatives to their side. Democrats have vowed to harass the President from the committee chairmanships in the house. They will make all manner of accusations against the president and those who supported him, and they will have the platform from which the compliant press will broadcast to the American people as if the worst scandals were now being discovered.

The presidents loyal following came through for him in the Senate races. Democrats did well in the house races because of Gerrymandering, local political issues, and where the registration of the parties is close.

ADVOCATES FOR THE POOR

Democrats outspent Republicans by $300 million. A total of $5.2 billion was spent by all candidates.1[1] Republicans faced the usual press bias in most races, which amounts to free publicity to the challenging Democrats. In Florida, the national press played down the corruption of the leading Gubernatorial candidate, Andrew Gillum, the mayor of Tallahassee, who took valuable tickets (approximate value $1000) to the play, Hamilton, among other corrupt acts for which he is being investigated by the FBI. In Minnesota, Keith Ellison won the attorney general position despite credible evidence that he had physically abused his ex-girlfriend. #metoo, anyone? He won by over 100,000 votes. The Left has given up the pretense of honesty on the subject of female abuse that drove their narrative in the Brett Kavanaugh hearings. As an aside, Cory Booker (Sen.-NJ) has admitted his own damaging lack of virtue and he was on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He, too, is a female abuser. The Democrats interest is surely that of the poor and needy.

So, in this sense, left-wing Democrats did quite well. Corruption and dishonesty did not stop voters from voting for them. Republicans hold the state of Florida, but Andrew Gillum, the corrupt Socialist was defeated by only .4% or 32,463 votes out of 8,119,909 cast in the 2018 election.[2] There is a powerful incentive for people to vote for Democrats promising them other people’s money and a $15 minimum wage.

Here is the bottom line: both Republicans and Democrats won in a divided America. The big loser was America the Beautiful, America the world’s leader in democracy, America with the greatest economy of the day.

Not since the Revolutionary War, itself, has the threat to American values been greater than it is today. The Civil War threatened to retain the disenfranchisement of Africans and Women, but today all Americans have lost. America has lost her way in a life of ease, self-indulgence and unsuspecting self-satisfaction.

*See next post for additional commentary on the threat to America.

[1]https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/10/cost-of-2018-election/

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_gubernatorial_election,_2018

September 28, 2018

IF AN HONEST SENATOR SPOKE–THE KAVANAUGH NOMINATION

Senator Unknown takes his turn to question Christine Blasey Ford:

“Ms. Ford, while under oath, do you affirm that you were attacked by the nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, 35 years ago when you were at a party, and sexually assault?”

“Yes, one hundred percent.”

“I have no further questions and yield the balance of my time.”

Senator Unknown takes his turn to question Judge Brett Kavanaugh:

Judge Kavanaugh, while under oath, do you affirm your denial of the incidents as described by Ms. Ford?

“Yes, categorically.”

“Mr. Chairman, it has become clear by the method and actions of the minority party that this hearing and critique of Judge Kavanaugh by Ms. Ford is not about an incident that may or may not have happened 36 years ago. The inquisition is about the hatred and anger expressed by the Senate minority toward Donald Trump and their inability to manipulate the circumstances by which this country is being governed.

The Senate minority has revealed who they really are, for they have assumed Judge Kavanaugh’s guilt and the accuracy of Ms. Ford’s 15-year-old memory from 35 years ago. But let us say the inquisitors have been consistent. In a more gentile time, you attacked Robert Bork in a smear and destroy campaign that taught them the lesson that such behavior worked. In their further desperation, you attacked Clarence Thomas in a similar manner as they are today, expecting a better result. But Americans have learned this tactic and the courage that it took to oppose the big smear from a willing actor who is able to sacrifice herself and her fragile integrity to an evil purpose by an evil method.

Now the minority has reinvented another version of their smear methodology. Ms. Ford sent a letter to her congresswoman, who in turn sent the letter to Senator Diane Feinstein. The letter described a sexually motivated attack on Ms. Ford by Judge Kavanaugh when they were children. The letter was so precious it was not revealed until the eleventh hour of the Senate advice and consent process. Senator Feinstein said that she did not have permission from the accuser, Ms. Ford, prior to that time to release the letter. So, what changed. Did Ms. Ford receive an epiphany or did Senator Feinstein exhort her to reveal her story to a newspaper in order to stop the Kavanaugh nomination. What is your guess? Integrity has taken a vacation.

Then we learned that Ms. Ford hired an attorney who just happens to be a Democrat political operative who defended well known politicians who have become known abusers of women. Suddenly, Ms. Ford and her attorney are making demands of the Senate committee, most of which deny the accused Judge Kavanaugh his rights to a fair hearing where he can have the legally expected right to face his accuser after the charges have been made. The accuser has no evidence or confirmation from witnesses that the incident happened. The next thing we see is Democrat fund raising letters going out the door denouncing the Judge who has not yet been allowed to hear the charges from his accuser while she is under oath. Now there are other claims of sexual harassment echoing throughout the country by other aggrieved women against the accused. Judge Kavanaugh is outraged at these accusations and denies all of them. He has passed six previous FBI background checks. There is no corroboration for the accusations. Ms. Ford, now, parrots, the narrative promulgated by Senator Schumer, that a full investigation needs to be done on these accusations. Senator Gillibrand doesn’t even believe that the truthfulness of Ms. Ford’s words should be questioned on the grounds that an accusing woman would never tell a lie and at the same time Senator Feinstein limits access to the original Ford letter.

Delay after delay is insinuated into the nomination process. Unsupported, gross accusations are made against a man who has advocated for women lawyers, and has a supporting letter signed by 65 of them, verifying his good character, as well as additional letters from those he knew from high school.

You ignore Constitutional principles in making your accusations, and it becomes apparent that the entire process has been orchestrated by you to take away the conservative nominee’s confirmation. Death threats have been made against both Ms. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh’s families. They are just collateral damage to you. You don’t care what you say because you have created for yourselves a no-lose scenario. Even if the Kavanaugh nomination is confirmed, you have stated that you will seek his impeachment. You continue to promote your we against them, men against women scenario. It is consistent with your identity politics view. When you return to your base voters, you will, again, accuse Republicans of being sexist and bearers of every phobia under the sun. If Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed, you will have an enduring bogey man for the impending election in November.

Your process is a sham. Since when in America is the mere accusation of wrong doing sufficient to condemn any person. Senator Gillibrand said of Ms. Ford: “I believe her because she is telling the truth.” Well, I believe him because he is telling the truth. I believe him because Democrats are desperate to keep Judge Kavanaugh off the Supreme Court. I believe him because of the exemplary life he has led. I believe him because the accuser has given herself over to the political prostitutes who have sold their integrity for the power they derive from demagogic allegations that can not be proven or disproven. In other words, j’accuse.

I accuse the Democrats, of loathsome behavior after their verbal assault rooted in Judge Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook, which was used against a genuinely virtuous man, of, integrity, honesty, and decency.

I accuse the Democrats of using unsupported testimony to destroy American democratic ideals of law and justice.

I accuse the Democrats of debasing the Senate of the United States of America by abusing the Constitutional basis of our jurisprudence.

I accuse the Democrats of sacrificing the accuser as collateral damage, for her original intent was to remain anonymous.

I accuse the Democrats of lying to the American people about their concern for the alleged victim, when their real aim is to advance their prospects in the upcoming election and destroy Brett Kavanaugh.

[1] For those who may be unaware, this essay concerns the Supreme Court nomination by President Trump of Brett Kavanaugh and the accusation by Christine Blasey Ford that he made a drunken, sexual attack against her 35 years ago when she was 15 and he was 17 years old.

May 29, 2017

MEMORIAL DAY

Bravery is not a skill so much as it is a temperament. On this Memorial Day, the most honored Americans are recognized for the ultimate sacrifice to their country – their own life. Ironically, a key value of bravery is fear, for if there is no fear, how can there be bravery. The issue became prominent when President Trump said of John McCain:

“He’s a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured. Perhaps he’s a war hero, but right now he’s said some very bad things about a lot of people.”

The president, who has been given to fits of pique now and then, was raising an issue obliquely that has philosophical angles and questions that exposes the anatomy of the human heart and mind to examination.

During the course of a rough campaign Human bravery can make different appearances in different circumstances. Certainly, facing a hostile audience is an act of bravery, and in a remote way, it can be viewed as a sacrifice. But sacrifice and bravery are two different, unrelated things.

Here is a thought experiment: Two soldiers are in two different foxholes during a battle. The battle has heated up. Bullets are flying inches over the top of the foxhole, bombs are exploding and lighting the night sky, the soldiers are held back until the order to charge is given. Then the order comes. The two hypothetical soldiers, both fearful and praying, leap out of their bunkers at exactly the same moment, bayonets fixed, rifles loaded. Soldier one steps on the battle terrain and is immediately annihilated by a shell fired by the other side. Nothing is left to inter into a gravesite. Soldier two charges the opposition and miraculously is untouched by shell or shrapnel, and takes the enemy position after dispatching five enemy soldiers and saving the life of three of his comrades. One could argue that the soldier who took the enemy position was braver than the fellow soldier who died. He leapt from the foxhole as did his now deceased fellow soldier, and, also, faced the enemy five times and won. But one sacrificed his life and the other did not.

Equal bravery was required to jump out of a place of shelter and face the possibility of personal doom. But suppose the shell that killed soldier one had been aimed differently and had killed soldier two. War is unfair. Perhaps, soldier one would have been the survivor and the one alive to wear the medals. The results do not necessarily reflect bravery, but more the randomness of life. Nothing is certain and nothing is inevitable outside of divine intervention.

The movie Hacksaw Ridge depicts the heroism of Desmond T. Daws a conscientious objector who refused to take up weapons against the enemy and performed as a medic in WW II. He was the first to win the Medal of Honor without firing a shot. During the Battle of Okinawa, he saved seventy-five lives on the Maeda escarpment and was wounded four times. He, too, survived the war. It is anti-climactic to say that he had already won a Bronze star medal in a previous campaign in the Philippines and numerous other commendations.

Where does such bravery come from?

American history is replete with acts of heroism. George Washington did not hang from a tree because he was not caught. He spent frigid days in winter holding together a part-time army together while his well-to-do lifestyle was on hold.

Hundreds of thousands died to keep the union together and free the slaves. Abraham Lincoln, the commander in chief was shot dead after he had ended the terrible conflict.

John Kennedy survived the destruction of his PT boat and saved his crew. A future president survived. His brother, Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr., who John and the Kennedy family believed was the best hope to be a future president of the United States, was lost on a mission. His body was never recovered.

Human sacrifice for the greater good is a part of human DNA and arrives sometimes at unexpected places and conditions. On Memorial Day, we honor bravery and sacrifice in defense of our country. They aren’t the same, but they go together, and we honor those whose lives were stopped short of all their hopes and remember that freedom for the three hundred ten million Americans living today was bought by the bravery and sacrifice of those we don’t know, yet honor.

God bless America.

May 7, 2017

ERATA

Your foot is your enemy in politics. Remember this: your foot should not be deployed. Politicians, do not “shoot yourself in the foot,” or put your “foot in your mouth.” Lefties go beyond mere talk and deploy their collective feet in deed as well as word. Indeed, it can be hard to keep up with their foot deployment. Here is an actual secret dialogue obtained by Conservatism Bittersweet from previously unpublished accounts* of an interview by Secretary Clinton’s and the sycophantic press to which she has been accustomed:

SP: If you were a color, what color would you be?

HC: I think It would be the color purple, after the manner of that wonderful African American movie of the same name. You know how I value African Americans. They still suffer at the hands of the American Enterprise Institute inspired racism and by deplorable people who want to work at jobs with choking carbon dioxide emissions. That’s why we needed . . .

SP: Thank you for that amazing answer. Let me ask you another question. You have been criticized for your use of equipment which every Secretary of State has had for years. Do you think the opposition misunderstands your professional needs?

HC: We all need equipment in our jobs. The Secretary of State’s job is thankless enough without having to use outdated government equipment. I was generous enough to save the taxpayer the cost of the equipment I used. And I might add, until the snoops perverted my intentions, I was not going to mention my generous donation to our beloved United States Treasury.

SP: That was a wonderful exposition on the value of having your own server. But weren’t you worried that the idea of your own server might be used against you?

HC: [Hillary chortles] Oh, no, no, no. Who would suspect that the Russians would violate American law so blatantly.

SP: You were Secretary of . . .

HC: Oh, look, it’s my friend Donna Brazile. Come on in Donna and sit down next to me.

SP: Welcome, Donna.

HC: Did you get the shot of us holding hands. A white woman and a black woman.

SP: Definitely, yes. And what is that piece of paper you are handing Secretary Clinton?

DB: Oh, merely an affirmation. Secretary Clinton, just as anyone would after a stolen election, needs support with positive trigger words.

SP: Well, let’s get to our next question. What are your feelings . . .

HC: What are my feelings about Russian intervention in the elections?

SP: How did you know that was my question?

HC: Modesty forbids an answer to that question. But let me answer the one about the Russians. It was clearly a defining point in the election. We had Donald Trump right where we wanted him. And remember, we won the popular vote. But the Russians spied on us and hacked our emails. That was unfair. On top of that, the Republicans had to be behind the whole thing. That was proven by the result, if nothing else.

SP: You must have other reasons for the loss. Surely, you . . .

HC: Thank you, Donna. You are going to ask me about the woman factor. Let’s not mince words. The word is misogyny! Donald Trump hates women as well as everyone else, except white males. They played the bigot card and won. I won’t condescend to that level, myself. That’s not what America stands for and that’s not what I am about.

SP: Truly, you are a brave woman. But what happened? More than fifty percent of the population is women. Perhaps a recount is in order.

HC: Ah, you have hit on one of the paradoxes of this election. And the answer is that right-wing mancave, Fox News. Yes, Fox News! They intimidate women as extensive research has shown. If the FCC had done its job and stopped their hate speech in its tracks as they should have, the election would not have been stolen. I don’t understand why the capitals of our national conscience . . .

SP: Colleges and universities?

HC: Yes, very good. If the values of our universities where enforced against the all-important Fourth Estate, our constitution would have remained intact. Unfortunately, higher learning has got to do a better job of controlling the hurtful speech of some of these rogue elements that materialize as capitalist tools.

SP: But you have done . . .

HC: Thank you, Donna. I have done all I can to remove the intimidating influence of men. Having run for president twice makes me an expert on the techniques of male dominance used in campaigns.

SP: But that includes . . .

HC: It includes Barack Obama, but I found him particularly enlightened – an exception to the rule – otherwise I wouldn’t have served in his cabinet. As Secretary of State, I was in an ideal position to view the way men intimidate women, which is why we must be unified in the future. I didn’t let that old desert rat, Gaddafi, intimidate me. So why did I let Vlad the Impaler Putin push my reset button? It was my way of signaling to American women the very fact that he was pushing all our buttons. He doesn’t like strong women.

SP: That was very clever symbolism.

HC: Thank you. I knew you would see it my way.

SP: That’s why I am here. Since you brought up men, let’s talk about John Podesta.

HC: That would be a violation of his privacy. He still has that right, even if I’m not employing him anymore.

SP: Very well, but he did say some things that were – shall we say – controversial.

HC: Are you quoting from that stolen material, which has not been proven to be true.

SP: You mean the Wiki . . .

HC: I don’t comment on alleged transcripts of Russian hacked materials.

SP: I understand completely. I only wanted to give you the chance to express your rage.

HC: I am outraged!

SP: Speaking of that, let’s move on to James Comey. He seemed to be playing some sort of a game with you. Yet, the presidency was at stake.

HC: Well, there you go again. The man problem. I think you can see the misogyny connection pop up once more. It seems so obvious to have all these charges Trumped up, so to speak, and then nothing comes from it.

SP: Aren’t you in a protected class?

HC: Uh, what. Oh, yes well, that is true, but let’s stay in the real world, because we aren’t always protected in the real world. You’ve mentioned one more reason for me to have been president. We are constantly challenged by injustice and the lack of equity for women and minorities, not to mention presidential glass ceilings. If we could only break through the presidential glass ceiling, we could make a new start and provide women with all that they need in life to be like me, not that they have to be exactly like me, but so that women can have successful careers with publicly supplied birth control in all forms.

SP: It was only logical that you should do for American woman what Barack Obama did for people of color.

HC: You have a good point. Alas, it is a cruel irony to be beaten by the Russians.

SP: Anyway, we were talking about James Comey. He came up with those fake stories about you. Do you regret not taking other actions – legal actions, of course – to equalize the playing field with the Russians and Trump?

HC: Absolutely! I knew Bill should have had a more stern talk with Loretta on that tarmac. Mmmmm, Donna, what’s got into you – putting your hand on my mouth like that.

SP: Ms. Brazile, that is a big piece of paper.

HC: Say, would you mind redacting that last comment I just made from the record. Sometimes we just say something that isn’t quite what we mean.

SP: Sure, no problem.

⃰ Contentious rumors initiated by left-wing character assassins accusing the author of a Russian connection are hereby denied.