Category Archive 'Democrats'
16 Jan 2021
John Hinderaker notes that all the gaslighting and censorship we see is not the typical behavior of people enjoying the conviction of innocence.
Democrats are making extraordinary efforts to suppress all discussion of whether Joe Biden actually won the 2020 presidential election. In fact, they go even farther: they want to suppress all discussion of the extent to which voter fraud occurred. That naturally makes me want to write about voter fraud, and who really won the election.
First, this question: why are the Democrats so hysterical in their insistence that fraud not be mentioned? One reason is obvious. Joe Biden will take office under a cloud, since close to half of all Americans doubt that he really won the election. The Democrats want to stamp out such doubts to preserve Biden’s authority as president.
But there is a second reason that may be more important. The Democrats want the lax voting procedures that prevailed in 2020 to continue in the future. They know that efforts will be made in many states to improve ballot integrity, and they want those efforts to fail. By rendering all discussion of voter fraud out of bounds, they hope to forestall reforms that would make it harder for them to cheat, or enable cheating, in the future.
So, did the Democrats steal the presidential election, or not? I don’t know the answer to that question. No one does. A number of statistical analyses have been done, which on their face suggest large irregularities. I wrote about one such analysis, by John Lott, here.
Beyond that, major questions remain unanswered. In several key swing states, there were midnight dumps of 100,000 or more votes, virtually all of which were for Joe Biden, something that can’t normally happen. Those dumps may have made the difference in the election. I have seen no attempt by any Democrat to explain or justify them. Maybe I’ve missed it, and maybe they somehow reflected actual ballots cast, but the burden of proof is on those who seek to justify such anomalies.
Even greater doubts about the election arise from the deliberately loose procedures that governed voting. Something like 69 million mail-in votes were cast, and until two months ago, everyone agreed that mail-in voting is highly susceptible to fraud. But the laxity in 2020 went far beyond the risks inherent in mail-in votes. I put it this way: I don’t know whether the Democrats stole the 2020 election, but I do know that they tried hard to steal it.
07 Jan 2021
Thomas Cole, The Course of Empire: Destruction, 1833-1836, New York Historical Society.
Even before Congress responded to the people’s protests by sitting up late to award the election to His Fraudulence, the democrats were already gnawing away at the foundations.
On Tuesday, as the Las Vegas Review-Journal notes:
Democrats eliminated a long-standing rule that allows the minority party to alter legislation on the floor before a vote. Speaker Pelosi and her caucus feared that continuing a practice known as a “motion to recommit” would allow the GOP to force Democrats to cast votes on controversial issues that may hurt them politically in the next election. This fear is even more acute for many moderate members given the rise of the party’s radical progressive wing.
Notably, Republicans never made a similar move when they held the majority. “This is a right that has been guaranteed to the minority for well over a century,” said Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla. “With today’s changes, the majority is seeking to silence views they are afraid of.”
Next up, Democrats essentially scuttled a requirement that legislation which increases the deficit be offset with cuts elsewhere. With deficits soaring regardless of which party controls what, the mandate was clearly ineffective. Yet the symbolism here is obvious and will allow Democrats to offer budget-busting legislation on a wide array of dangerous progressive priorities without concern for the long-term fiscal ramifications.
05 Jan 2021
The paper of record reports:
WASHINGTON, D.C.—A congressional prayer at Capitol Building took over 24 hours to complete as Rep. Emanuel Cleaver concluded his prayer with amen, awomen, and amen variations of all 5,787 other genders.
“Amen, Awomen, Anonbinary, Agenderqueer, Atwo-spirit, Apolygender… this could take a while,” Rep. Cleaver said. “If anyone needs to go out and get some refreshments, feel free.”
“Adragonspirited, Abuildings, Atater-tots,” he continued, “Aagender, Agenderfluid, Adubstepkin, Agenderneutral, Atransmasculine, Atransfeminine, Awolfkind, Ademiboy, Astonebutch, Asquirrel, Amotoroil, Aqueenbae, Ababyyoda, Amermaidqueenking, Acaptainmarvel, Ahufflepuff.”
“Excuse me,” he said, taking a drink of water.
“Abenedryl, Aabacus, Atranspolyqueergreyacepokemon…”
After the prayer seemed to be finished, congresspeople tried to get up and leave, but Rep. Cleaver then said he was going to list all the gods he was praying to for clarification. “Yahweh, Allah, Joseph Smith, Brahma, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Thor, Odin, Isaac Asimov, Ra, Zeus, Loki, Isis, Xenu, the Force, the Lords of Kobol, Din, Nayru, Farore…” This went on for a while.
A new congressional rule will only allow Republicans to lead prayer for the sake of time, since they’ll pray to one God and conclude with “Amanlyman.”
12 Dec 2020
Glenn Reynolds quotes a correspondent:
Thought experiment. There are five Democrat justices on the Supreme Court. There was a Democrat president who just ran for reelection. He supposedly lost, but virtually all Democrat voters believe that massive fraud in several Republican controlled states caused him to lose. Many Democrat attorneys general file a lawsuit in the US Supreme Court, essentially identical to the one that is pending now.
Does anyone believe for a second that those five Democrat justices wouldn’t do absolutely anything necessary to make sure the Democrat control of the presidency was maintained? Democrats care about power. Democrats do not care about process, or rules. Now we are being asked to be so meticulous about adhering to the rules, that we are to allow a laughably egregious fraud to succeed, and to permit our own throats to be cut by turning over the executive branch to the people who just committed the biggest political crime in history. I hope five US supreme court justices will show just a tiny bit of the creativity, to put it politely, which Democrat justices had when they, for example, found an imaginary abortion right in the US Constitution. We’ll see what happens.
and adds himself:
People always take for granted that the liberal justices will stick together, and rule for the Democrats. Even Democrats take that for granted.
06 Dec 2020
Ayad Rahim thinks the democrats took no chances this time. They had it rigged.
In the last weeks of the presidential campaign, Donald Trump was drawing tens of thousands of enthusiastic supporters several times a day, and people across the land, and at sea, formed massive rallies and caravans of their own. Meanwhile, the Biden camp was barely limping along, with one or two funereal gatherings a week, before, at best, a few dozen people (sometimes, overwhelmingly outnumbered by Trump supporters); the campaign’s apparent strategy was to minimize the candidate’s exposure (and let the media do the work for them) — not only because the candidate was feeble and the campaign advocated lockdowns, but also because evidence began emerging of the Biden family’s dealings with foreign oligarchs and corrupt countries — most importantly, Communist China.
So, as election day approached, things were looking good for the president. Indeed, as the results came in on election night, the president was headed for re-election. He was ahead in the electoral college, and had big leads in the handful of remaining states he needed to win.
Then, suddenly, the counting stopped. Late at night, five decisive states announced at the same time that they stopped counting. Has the counting of votes ever stopped on election night in any election, let alone a presidential election? It’s as if, with a couple of minutes left to play in a basketball game, one team is way ahead and “running away with it,” and the other team is down and dejected, staring defeat in the face; and all of a sudden, the referees stop the game for the first time ever, and for no stated reason. Then they send the team that’s winning, home, blindfold them, and tie their hands; leave the trailing team on the court by itself, with control of the scoreboard and the keys; and ask them to send in the final score, whenever they want. If there were fans in the stands, they’d yell, “How much they payin’ you, ref?”
19 Nov 2020
James B. Meigs, in City Journal, describes the way Progressive generosity tends to penalize good conduct and playing by the rules. Relaxation of standards and selective release from conventional obligations of democrat constituencies that complain, he predicts, inevitably infuriates salt of the earth ordinary Americans who earned everything they have and who accept the world as it is without claiming victim status.
Last January, a small but telling exchange took place at an Elizabeth Warren campaign event in Grimes, Iowa. At the time, Warren was attracting support from the Democratic Partyâ€™s left flank, with her bulging portfolio of progressive proposals. â€œWarren Has a Plan for Thatâ€ read her campaign T-shirts. The biggest buzz surrounded her $1.25 trillion plan to pay off student-loan debt for most Americans.
A man approached Warren with a question. â€œMy daughter is getting out of school. Iâ€™ve saved all my money [so that] she doesnâ€™t have any student loans. Am I going to get my money back?â€
â€œOf course not,â€ Warren replied.
â€œSo youâ€™re going to pay for people who didnâ€™t save any money, and those of us who did the right thing get screwed?â€
A video of the exchange went viral. It summed up the frustration many feel over the way progressive policies so often benefit select groups, while subtly undermining others. Saving money to send your children to college used to be considered a hallmark of middle-class responsibility. By subsidizing people who run up large debts, Warrenâ€™s policy would penalize those who took that responsibility seriously. â€œYouâ€™re laughing at me,â€ the man said, when Warren seemed to wave off his concerns. â€œThatâ€™s exactly what youâ€™re doing. We did the right thing and we get screwed.â€
That father was expressing an emotion growing more common these days: he felt like a chump. Feeling like a chump doesnâ€™t just mean being upset that your taxes are rising or annoyed that youâ€™re missing out on some windfall. Itâ€™s more visceral than that. People feel like chumps when they believe that theyâ€™ve played a game by the rules, only to discover that the game is rigged. Not only are they losing, they realize, but their good sportsmanship is being exploited. The players flouting the rules are the ones who get the trophy. Like that Iowa dad, the chumps of modern America feel that the life choices theyâ€™re most proud ofâ€”working hard, taking care of their families, being good citizensâ€”arenâ€™t just undervalued, but scorned.
06 Nov 2020
Thomas Cole, The Course of Empire: The Consummation, 1836, The New York Historical Society.
Pedro Gonzalez pessimistically describes the inexorable advance of the credentialed class of sophisters, calculators, and economists whose interests inevitably coincide with the cause of collectivist statism.
Before the storm of steel that was World War I, Robert Nisbet wrote that the federal government, for most Americans, was a strangerâ€”something they mainly encountered only on visits to the post office. This may be hard for us to fathom now, we who have been born and raised long after the chains of industrial and technological conglomeration crushed the social, cultural, and political independence middle America knew just a few generations ago.
Different thinkers gave different names to this revolution of mass and scale in virtually all areas of organized human activity. James Burnham heralded its rise, as a system that would replace capitalism not with socialism but â€œmanagerialism.â€
Burnham defined managerialism as the centralization of society in which the distinction between the state and the economy is eliminated, the separation of ownership and control is effected, and, most importantly, powerâ€”real powerâ€”rests in the hands of â€œmanagers.â€
If it seems there is little room for republicanism or constitutionalism in this scheme, thatâ€™s because there isnâ€™t. â€œAmerica still has a written constitution, but it is nearly impossible, theoretically or politically, to comprehend the distinction between the government and the Constitution,â€ John Marini writes. â€œThe theoretical foundations of social compact theory have been so undermined as to make constitutionalism obsolete as a political theory.â€
Demystified, the â€œmanagersâ€ of our post-constitutional cruise through the truculent waters at the end of history are business executives, technicians, bureaucrats, journalists, administrators; the whole host of technically trained experts who constitute the credentialed class which produces nothing and owns little but without whom mass society would not function.
â€œAgricultural and industrial societies always had their unhappy intellectualsâ€”lawyers, clerks, teachers, radical journalistsâ€”men whose profits lay in ideas rather than things, and who were thus in the vanguard of upheavals and demands for reform,â€ Kevin P. Phillips wrote in Mediacracy. â€œBut the intelligentsia was always a small subclass, influential at times when it could channel public unrest, otherwise subordinate.â€ Now the managers throttle their enemies with the levers of power and, to a large extent, manage unrest while overseeing the managed deconstruction of the civilization they did not build but inherited.
They are winning because they have accomplished the Gramscian Long March and control the institutions that define the Culture.
20 Oct 2020
Joel Kotkin argues that, even if the democrats manage to win the presidency this year, the tripartite Democrat Party coalition is inherently unstable and its factions are bound to fall apart.
The [Democratic] Party now enjoys predominant influence over mainstream media, rising influence among wealthy elites, a stranglehold over education and entertainment industries, and the domination of the burgeoning non-profit world. Remarkably the self-styled â€œparty of the peopleâ€ now accommodates the big Wall Street firms and tech oligarchies alongside the progressive, neo-socialist, activist base and an ever-diminishing remnant of traditional working-class voters.
This powerful coalition is also a fundamentally unstable oneâ€”a three-headed hydra whose heads, particularly after Trump leaves, will soon be biting each other furiously. One faction, the corporatist elite, genuflects and even profits from the progressive mantra on climate, gender, and race. Some, like former Twitter CEO Dick Costolo, are so committed to gentry progressivism that he recently suggested those who donâ€™t get with the program could â€œface a firing squad.â€ Others, like the Marxists and rioters of BLM, seek a total social revolution and increasingly speak of ending â€œracial capitalism.â€
Many on the Right, having learned nothing since Reagan, simple-mindedly identify each of these two dominant groups as â€œliberal.â€ A more accurate assessment would be â€œcorporatistâ€ and â€œsocialist.â€ …
[I]ncreasingly, the policies of the partyâ€™s two dominant factionsâ€”the corporatists and the socialist Leftâ€”are out of sync with working- and middle-class interest. On issues like climate change, patriotism, and housing, notes Berkeley law professor Alli Joseph, both the progressives and corporatists evidence â€œclass cluelessness or class condescensionâ€ that undermines the partyâ€™s populist appeal. The Leftâ€™s agenda, as epitomized by the New York Timesâ€™s 1619 project, and widely adopted by the corporate elite, is no winner on Main Street. Even the World Socialists see it as â€œa gift to Donald Trumpâ€ and â€œa falsification of historyâ€ which denies â€œthe great Democratic legacy of Americaâ€™s revolutionsâ€ and alienates most working class Americans.