The only surprise? Green and Castro didn’t blame Russia

Barack Obama was elected President despite a significant black racism controversy.

Hillary Clinton came within a hair’s breadth of becoming President, and is still adored by a significant portion of the Democrat electorate. This adoration lingers in the interminable attempt to impeach President Trump.

One might expect Democrats to point to these facts as evidence that, 1) the Democratic party has abandoned its legacy of Klansmen and Jim Crow and, 2) if Hillary’s near miss is not enough to dispel charges of misogyny, there’s the party’s unequivocal devotion to the pieties of Planned Parenthood.

One would be disappointed.

Now come Rep. Al Green (D., Tex.) and Julian Castro, Democratic Presidential candidate, Obama’s former Secretary of HUD, and rumored VP pick for Hillary Clinton in 2016. Green and Castro find racism and misogyny in their fellow congresscritters and in the Democrat base, respectively.

Dem Rep Laments Absence of Black Impeachment Witnesses

Green said that if he was wrong about the racial composition of the witnesses, he would apologize. “But if the committee is wrong, if the Congress is wrong, what will it do?”

Well, given the Dems impeachment theater performance to date you might first ask, “Wrong about what?” But, the seriousness of an impeachment is not Rep. Green’s issue. His question is about witness DNA, of which he can’t quite be sure.

He hedges his bet on “racial composition” because he can’t be certain if the ‘one drop‘ rule includes any of the three Progressive law professors tasked by Jerry Nadler (D., NY), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, to express their naked partisan opinions that Trump should be impeached, because reasons… and that he shouldn’t have named his son Barron, because Barons made King John sign the Magna Carta… or something. Or, who knows, maybe one of these Profs secretly identifies as black and Green doesn’t want to get on the wrong side of that Twitter storm.

Mr. Castro, on the other hand, does not directly accuse his own party, but he does go after the Democrat propaganda machine.

Mr. Castro’s party, you may remember, is that whose DNC suppressed a male socialist anti-semite (how times have changed) in favor of a female habitual liar, who in 1992 mounted a campaign to label women her husband seduced or raped as a ‘Bimbo Eruption.’ That same ‘likeable enough’ cattle futures profiteer the Dems superdelegate conspiracy somehow failed to nominate over a black man in 2008.

No, Mr. Castro blames the press for forcing probable Democrat primary voters to disfavor Kamala Harris. If I were cynical, I’d say he’s just pandering to her meager constituency in a desperate attempt to get on the Dec. 19th debate stage, for which she had qualified and he has not. Julian Castro and MSNBC Agree: Media Held Kamala Harris to a Different Standard

Mr. Castro has not been held to any standard, because he’s irrelevant.

It’s true, though, that there is a different standard. It’s just temporarily out of favor. It’s the the one the press applied to Barack Obama. That same press that depicted Obama as a leg tingling, “lightworker,” “perfectly creased pant,” haloed on the cover of Time, Newsweek and The Rolling Stone. That press did more than treat Barack Obama with kid gloves.

While the press did circle the wagons to defend Obama’s association with the Rev. Wright, they were forced to report it – and some thought it might derail Obama’s candidacy. Of course, their insurance plan then was Hillary – not Comey, McCabe, Clapper, Brennan, Strzok, and Page.

Now they have only Bloomberg as backup to Warren or Biden. I’d be nervous, too.

That Obama’s candidacy wasn’t ended by the Wright racism story is due in part to his facile tongue; in part to an utter lack of MSM curiosity about his sealed academic record and why, during his tenure as Harvard Law Review President, he never published an article; and in part to the noted fawning adulation.

How the press treated Obama was indeed better than they treated Harris, whom they treated nowhere near as badly as any Republican. And, in the beginning, Harris didn’t get off too badly:
Joy Reid, MSNBC host: The name I’m hearing now — there was a sheet of people, sort of survey, of prominent women in politics. Number one name of the person that’s on people’s minds, Kamala Harris.

Lawrence O’Donnell, MSNBC host: The politician she reminded me of most then was Barack Obama. Kamala Harris is now running for president. And she is one of the top tier candidates.

Chris Matthews, MSNBC host: There’s a new challenger to Trump and she is drawing huge crowds, Senator Kamala Harris of California kicked off her campaign this week and surrounded by — look at that crowd. Trump must be envious as hell.

Squandered that. Harris was flawed, unprepared and had a dysfunctional campaign organization. That those facts formed part of the reportage on Harris’ performance is not a different standard unless compared to the tongue bath the press gave Obama. Democrat Primary voters were not polling/donating well enough to keep her in the race, and it’s Democrat Committee members who selected the witnesses of the wrong ‘racial composition.’

If the Dems are sniffing about for diversity, you might think that would include Taiwanese Christians or Samoan-American Hindus who also come equipped with fresh ideas. You’d be wrong. MSNBC Contributor: ‘Yang and Gabbard Don’t Represent the Democratic Party’s Minority Base’ The implication? Only blacks count as diverse. Until the Hispanic Castro drops out of the race, anyway.

Neither Yang nor Gabbard carry the baggage of having slept* their way into elective office, nor Harris’ corrupt prosecutorial history. It’s Gabbard’s Dem debate zinger on that latter, for which Harris was, as usual, unprepared, that marked the beginning of the Harris campaign’s demise.

This article from the San Luis Obispo Tribune, indicates her campaign was in trouble from the beginning, and because of her actions, not her race or sex.
Can Kamala Harris withstand the scrutiny of a presidential campaign?

And, finally, a quote from that last link one might apply to the Democrat’s impeachment show trial. I found it quite amusing. Someone should read it to Schiff and Nadler.

“My entire career has been focused on our system of justice. It is one of the hallmarks of our system of democracy,” said Harris. “And it becomes weak when people interfere with that system for a political purpose. And no one — in particular right now when there are so Americans that are so distrustful of their government and its leaders and institutions — no one should give the American public any reason to question their integrity or the integrity of our system of justice.”

*At the very beginning of her political career, with a very powerful Democrat 30 years her senior, who bore little resemblance to say, Denzel Washington.

And contra Castro, See the Wapo defense of Harris here.

Canonical

God Fearers
An Open Letter to Christian Readers of Jordan Peterson & Roger Scruton by James Bryson

This should be widely read. It is an astute connection of Peterson and Scruton with current religious, cultural and political issues. The only objectionable error is referring to them as ‘conservative,’ when they are both liberal in the classical sense. Other bits with which one might take issue are matters of opinion. The author’s take is as an orthodox Christian writing to Christians.

The analysis is also interesting because while Scruton and Peterson are both “defenders of the faith,” their defense is often unsatisfying to the orthodox, triggering to the Unitarian wing, and anathema to Liberation Theologists such as Pope Francis.

The orthodox generally focus on Peterson’s refusal to publicly avow Christ as Savior. The latter two groups object to his defense of Western civilization generally.

The orthodox critics make two mistakes here. One, if you want to interest the great unwashed in the possibility of salvation through Christ, how can you object to raising people’s curiosity about the meta-narrative of the idea? Two, if you wanted to preserve the West’s intellectual canon – which is heavily predicated on your faith and inextricable from it – why attack your obvious, and effective, allies? What’s to fear: Doctrinal impurity among those who would otherwise disdain to glance at your religion? Let them come to understand what you helped build before imposing a litmus test.

Feeding a hunger for meaning, demonstrating that people will spend dozens of hours deeply exploring the West’s foundational texts is a threat to those ‘Christians’ who take Christ as optional; to those who believe they can perfect mankind – given secular power. Not to you.

The author largely dismisses such criticism. He does, however, offer his own challenge to Scruton and Peterson:

I promised to say a word about where Scruton and Peterson might be pushed from an orthodox Christian point of view. They do not need advice from me, especially since it’s the authenticity of these men—that they are what they seem and mean what they say—that holds our attention. So I preface these criticisms by saying that I do not think for a minute that they should change who they are or radically alter the course of their arguments. Instead, I suggest that Scruton and Peterson should simply continue to become more deeply who they already are.

This brings me to something Peterson and Scruton have in common: the Kantian “as if.” Peterson says he acts “as if” God exists—that “he’s afraid” he might. This simply won’t do when it comes to God. The way to convince men of integrity and seriousness, like Peterson and Scruton, is to meet them where they are strongest and most convinced—that is, as moralists.

Neither would ever countenance the idea that you should treat your wife “as if” she were your wife—”as if” you had made a promise to love and cherish her until death do you part. Nor should you treat a friend merely “as if” he were your friend. Friendship and matrimony must be grounded in an indubitable reality, or else they are nothing at all. When put to the test, “as if” arrangements will show themselves to be mere fantasies projected onto the screen of unreality. One need only appeal to the pragmatist in Peterson to make the case: How well are marriages doing in our “as if” culture? How abundant is friendship, good will, and respect for the rule of law?

The whole thing falls apart if it’s not real; that is, if it’s not true. No amount of willing or acting “as if it’s true” will do. God must be the ground of all reality through Christ his Mediator—the eternal and incarnate Logos. There is no other way to see and accept the goodness of being that Scruton and Peterson defend. This is something we believe, but it is also possible to know it, just as it is possible to know ourselves even as we are known. This does not demand a leap of faith in an existentially absurd sense—it’s a deeply rational vision, both logically and intuitively, and it is one that we, Scruton, and Peterson already share. But we need to make ourselves continually aware of it. This is what we call the sacramental life.

This is interesting but, for me, unconvincing. “As if” doesn’t seem to me to indubitably apply equally to a wife and to God. One still calls for that willing suspension of disbelief. I also find “How well are marriages doing in our “as if” culture? How abundant is friendship, good will, and respect for the rule of law?,” circular, in context. Peterson and Scruton would certainly answer, “Not as well as they should be,” but that doesn’t prove anything. Nonetheless, it’s the best offering I’ve seen.

Own goals

Straightforward and clarifying, unlike most of the impeachment crap buzzing about. I learned a few things outside of the Democrat obnubilation.
Impeachment surprise: How Adam Schiff validated my reporting on Ukraine | John Solomon Reports

Why Trump so distrusted Ukraine. Why Yovanovitch was removed as US Ambassador to Ukraine. Why Hunter Biden’s Burisma gig was an issue long before Trump’s election, and that the Obama administration was concerned about it, but not about Ukrainian meddling in our 2016 election.

Confirmed by Schiff’s witnesses.

Also, we now know who leaked to the “whistleblower:”
Alexander Vindman condemned himself in his impeachment testimony

Whose anonymity is not legally protected:
Andrew McCarthy: Trump impeachment inquiry obstructed by Democrats’ ‘whistleblower’ secrecy charade

A simile is like a metaphor

Massachusetts Ban on Most Self-Defense Firearms Violates Second Amendment | Cato @ Liberty

The trial judge followed the lead of the Maryland case of Kolbe v. Hogan (in which Cato filed a brief supporting a petition to the Supreme Court), misconstruing from a shred of the landmark 2008 Supreme Court opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller that the test for whether a class of weapons could be banned was whether it was “like an M-16.” Meanwhile, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (in which Cato also filed a brief), conjured up a complex interest-balancing test that boiled down to a much simpler question: is it like a handgun? If not, the weapon is not sufficiently “well-suited” to self-defense in the home and can be banned. Both tests contravene the core holding of Heller that all weapons in common civilian use are constitutionally protected…

Although the courts have uniformly looked to statistical data of some form in establishing common use, they have been unable to agree on what the relevant statistic is. The total number of the banned weapons owned, the percentage the banned weapons constitute of the total national arms stock, and the number of jurisdictions in which the banned weapons are lawful have all been used to determine the breadth of constitutional protection. By any metric, however, the weapons banned by the Massachusetts law are clearly in “common use.”

We all need to do our part for “common use” by buying a variety of firearms, making it easier for the leftwing legal clerisy to recognize “common use.”* Creating gun bans by simile is overtaxing their imaginations and stamina.

SCOTUS’ District of Columbia v. Heller decision opened the simile door a bit more in this infelicitous bit:

[T]he sorts of weapons protected are the sorts of small arms that were lawfully possessed at home at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, not those most useful in military service today, so “M-16 rifles and the like” may be banned.

Ratification of the Second Amendment was in 1791. The small arms possessed at home in 1791 were identical to those “most useful in military service.” In fact, a large proportion of those small arms possessed at home were in military service. The term ‘militia’ comes to mind.

The “lawfully possessed at home” in 1791 interpretation doesn’t plausibly cover the mechanism of the vast majority of firearms in use today. Percussion caps were just being prototyped by 1807. And, if that’s how a judge chooses to interpret District of Columbia v. Heller, you can grab your flintlock.

The left has argued exactly this: “The Second Amendment only applies to flintlocks.” That they are disingenuous in this is shown by the fact they won’t accept the corollary argument that “The Press” means hand operated printing presses based on moving bits of lead around, and that the internet should be shut down despite the First Amendment. Well, OK, they are arguing speech on the internet can be banned. But not because it’s technology invented since 1791.

Still, potential for banning modern firearm technology is not the most egregious part of that snippet. That distinction belongs to the phrase “and the like.” We’ll look at why that is momentarily. First we need to note some characteristics of an M-16.

An M-16 is a magazine fed automatic weapon (of which civilian possession has been severely restricted since 1934). It is rifled, breech loading, and uses brass cased ammunition with a primer ignited by a firing pin. Those are characteristics you could use for saying it’s ‘like’ something else. Just about any semi-automatic firearm, if we’re honest about it.

If the Progressives knew anything about how guns work they could have a field day banning technologies invented after 1800. Rifling (1498) and breech loading (16th century) are safe. Not much else is.

Under “common use”-1791, firearms capable of holding more than one cartridge (Magazine – 1860) could be banned. Firing pins (1840) could be banned. Primer fired brass cased ammo (18xx) could be banned. Oh, revolvers (1836) could be eliminated entirely. Forget your 1911.

There’s more, but we don’t need it to make the point: “And the like” bans based on 1791 technology would eliminate 95% of guns commonly in civilian use today. That’s actually how they approach it. I know it’s said that gun bans are often based on cosmetics, like adjustable stocks, pistol grips, and flash hiders. Mostly true, but the cosmetics would be much different without, for example, that scary normal capacity detachable magazine. This is a way to attack the technology using appearance.

Yet even that’s less nonsensical than California’s attempt to specify nonexistent technology as a means of banning firearms – microstamping casings.

The state argued that a law should not be struck down simply because it is impossible to implement.

“Like, impossible Dude.”

Consider the word ‘like.’ It doesn’t mean ‘identical,’ and it depends on what you select to compare. An apple is like an orange; if you focus on shape, size, nutritional profile, and even which end of the spectrum skin color tends toward. A whale is biologically more like a dog than it is a frog. ‘Like,’ lets you cherry pick the comparators fitting your desired outcome.

A frog is like a Granny Smith if you consider internal temperature, skin color, and dependence on insects.

The differences between a handgun and a rifle have nothing to do with the irrelevant criteria the Massachusetts court must necessarily have applied. Which outside of those various cosmetic features and size (having excluded automatic weapons – 1883), boils down to the capability of using a detachable magazine and/or with a capacity higher than 10 rounds. Modern firearms are all like each other.

And tell that bit about “is it like a handgun” to the pregnant woman who used an AR-15 to defend her family last week – that it wasn’t “well suited” to self defense. An AR is more accurate, easier to use than a handgun, and can hold more rounds – rounds you might need in a one on many firefight. The only question is, “Can it be used for self defense?” Not relevant is, “The court would like you not to have a gun for home defense, but if you do, use a handgun we won’t let you carry outside the home.”

Looks ‘like’ an M-16 does not compute. ‘Like’ a handgun includes machine pistols.

The Progressives have been struggling to define “assault weapon” for decades. The fact they focus on cosmetics is reason enough for the jurisprudent to discard this ‘like’ business.

*”Common use” is ‘like’ everyone else has, so it’s a collectivist standard for an individual civil liberty. And I think it might prohibit rail guns, as one example. Not that we have any man-portable rail guns yet, but we will.

Rainbows everywhen

87983-poppyIf Ye Break Faith With Us…
-Mark Steyn on 11/11/2001

[T]hough we can scarce grasp what they symbolize, this year the poppies are hard to find. Three Canadian provinces had sold out by last Monday, and by the time you read this the rest of the Royal Canadian Legion’s entire stock of 14.8 million will likely be gone.

Canada today…
Former Conservative party candidate apologizes for viral rainbow poppy tweet

The apology was mistaken:

Rather than having been suspended for rejecting the poppy during choir practice as Bird’s initial tweet read, Natalie outlined that she had been suspended for “rejecting the idea” of the rainbow poppy…

It’s worse that Natalie was suspended for “rejecting the idea.” The idea is the problem.

I do know why Cyara Bird apologized: Unless you enthusiastically support the appropriation of Remembrance Day at SJW whim, and embrace compelled speech, YOU are a bigot.

The LGBT+ folks already have a plethora of their own days, weeks, and months – with parades and celebrations.

Every other occasion for reflection or pride does not require fealty to a group of aggrieved, narcissistic activists who occupy the space at the very edges of the Bell curve of human sexuality.