Found here. I love this guy's writing.
-----------------------
I have heard Democrat talking heads solemnly repeating the talking point that Donald Trump, by trying to get NATO to strengthen its military spending, and trying to get Germany to stop giving money to Russia, is acting as a Russian agent, because maneuvering to impoverish Russia and cordon it about with a strong military is obviously in Russia’s best interest.
The phrase used was that Donald Trump is destroying the international architecture of the postwar world, or something to that effect. Meanwhile, when I listen to what world leaders actually say, the exact opposite is happening. Teresa May, speaking on behalf of Her Majesty’s government of the United Kingdom, just announced her support for Trump’s meetings with Russia, with North Korea, and said the UK and the US were pursuing a wide-ranging free trade agreement.
Meanwhile, with their typical calm and even-toned understatement, the Dems have announced that the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh means the end of the Republic, if not the end of all life on earth, as well as the destruction of ten thousand advanced civilizations throughout the Orion Arm of the galaxy.
Some of my conservative friends have expressed mild disappointment with this pick, since they would have preferred Ted Cruz or Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI instead, someone who might have more clearly been ready and willing to overturn Roe v Wade. Both good choices, but I am willing to speculate on the logic behind Trump’s pick.
Now, my belief is not that Donald Trump is a genius who plays four-dimensional chess, nor a blundering fool whom kindly fate has merely by accident delivered to him one victory after another. I believe he is a businessman who thinks in the straightforward way of a businessman, and therefore the point of his moves is and will always remain invisible and incomprehensible to pundits and politicians who think in the elliptical way their professions require.
Brett Kavanaugh has a strong written record of opinions opposing the unconstitutional usurpation of judicial and legislative powers by federal bureaucracies. In the landmark case of Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), the High Court held that, unless Congress has unambiguously provided otherwise, bureaucrats may interpret their own foundational charters, define terms, and make rulings through administrative hearings having the force of law, all as they see fit. Chevron is probably the most frequently cited case in administrative law. It is used to justify nearly every bit of environ-wacko law-war used by the Greens to strangle and punish success in America, and drive our industries overseas.
Kavanaugh has written opinions calling for this doctrine to be limited, perhaps abolished. I do not believe any of my readers need to be told why this is bad law: the Constitution does not allow Congress to grant Judicial authority to the Executive branch. The concept is absurd. Equally absurd — absurd that a free people would tolerate such an imposition — is the reach and arrogance of the bureaucratic “administrative state” which silently overthrew our system of rule by elected representatives during the Roosevelt years and replaced it with a system of rule by faceless and nameless bureaucrats, who face no repercussions at ballot box or anywhere else for incompetence, peculation, or corruption.
Kavanaugh would seem to any businessman to be a likely ally in any move by the High Court to begin cutting back the overgrowth of the bureaucratic state. Placing justices into a High Court likely to prefer Constitutional principles over bureaucratic powergrabs (of the type permitted after the Chevron case) is a slow, careful, long-term solution to the problem of federal overreach and regulatory overburden hindering our economy. This is a policy topic Mr Trump frequently raises in his speeches. It forms the core policy promise, along with border security, of the alliance that voted him into office.
Mr Trump builds towers for a living. You always lay the foundations needed to support the structure first. You build things one step at a time. You keep your eye on the blueprint.
Because of this, a businessman does not need to speak about his longterm goals very often in public: the goal is in the blueprint. He only discusses trivial surface features; or he speaks to drum up publicity; or he speaks as part of the art of the deal to open up dialog on some other topic, to begin negotiation there.
Before the deal is struck, the conversation can be wide ranging or even wild. Drumming up publicity involves a certain amount of boasting and puffery, a little bit of Barnumesque showmanship. After the deal is struck, you don’t need to talk about the big picture any more.
A politician’s speech patterns are the opposite since his incentives are opposite. Voters rarely or never care about the picayune and quotidian details of where and how the project is being run, they just want results. So the big picture is all politicos talk about, and the surface features they studiously avoid.
The politician is usually careful not to speak in windy boasts and overstatement, lest he be required to compromise later as part of the natural horse-trading of politics. Cunning opponents are always ready to quote him out of context, and he might be embarrassed by the appearance of contradiction. Safer to speak in bland generalities, and not be caught in a gotcha moment. For this reason, politicos avoid showmanship and wild talk, and prefer to strike deals behind closed doors. They would prefer the public never see the blueprint.
Voters, by and large, vote based on promises, not based on results. Politicians therefore routinely make promises as absurd as claiming to be able to slow the rise of the oceans, which they have neither means nor intent to carry out. Businessmen routinely carry out their contractual promises just as agreed, nor do they cease work before the thing is done.
Some conservatives voice the speculation that Trump was making a cunning political calculation that maneuvering the Dems to savage Amy Coney Barrett during his second term, once Ruth Bader Ginsberg is carried away to the Happy Hunting Ground, would play better in Peoria if the Dems now savage Kavanaugh, and all and sundry can see the inane insanity of their hypocritical hysteria.
Myself, I rather doubt this was a factor in the decision.
All and sundry have been seen the inane insanity for months now. No one notices nor cares any longer how hypocritical and hysterical the Dems scream: it has become white noise. Dems have reached peak levels of Orwellian non-rationality years ago and are deep into the reaches of Lovecraftian non-rationality. And so I speculate Trump made his decision using rather straightforward businesslike reasoning outlined above.
The Dems have told their voting base that now is the time to scream helplessly at the heavens, light their hair on fire, run in frenzied circles like dervishes, and slash themselves with dirks and flints, all the while calling upon their three-eyed horn-crowned death god, Moloch.
Now, while this may seem an odd behavior for a political party, please keep in mind that the Dems have not been a political party for over a decade now. They are merely a death cult.
Abortion is their sacrament, or, rather, de-sacrament. It is what they use to desecrate the human soul in themselves and others, in preparation for other dehumanizing sins.
Small wonder they scream in fear and ignite the hairs of their head: Roe v Wade was forced unconstitutionally into the position of sacred law by an egregious enormity of judicial overreach unparalleled in history. At one blow, in the name of an invisible right to infanticide allegedly discovered emanating from a penumbra of equally imaginary privacy rights, the whole issue was yanked away from the voters and their representatives. We are no longer allowed to have a say in the laws ruling over us, at least when it comes to killing the young.
This deep moral poison envenoms and corrupts every associated institution it touches. Look at the routine, Orwellian dishonesty practiced by Planned Parenthood, then (inevitably) by their supporters in the news, in the media, in popular entertainment; look at how few normal, happy families are portrayed in any capacity in any popular show or film.
Look at the guilt, the nervous, frantic, angry guilt, that trembles in the shrill voices and haunts the eyes of the modern Feminists, who long ago lost any interest in securing equality between the sexes. Equality between the sexes will not sooth the whisper of the smothered conscience deep in each feminist heart: only shifting all blame to men, and parading the alleged moral superiority somehow allegedly granted by their status as victims of oppression, can do that.
Look at the way romance and love has become boring in the modern world, the grimy fatigue and despair brought on by what should be the naughty and wild erotic adventures of fornication, adultery, and kinky indulgence in perverse vices. Women, it seems, no longer wish to be women at all. Feminine things appall the feminists.
And, again, the poison spreads to what might seem to be unrelated institutions and unrelated topics: ask yourself why it is so important to make Jane Foster into Thor in the comics when Chris Hemsworth plays him in the films; ask yourself why Korra, the female reincarnation of the Avatar, has to be shown in a children’s cartoon as falling in love with a girl rather than a guy. What is the common thread?
Motherhood is what female thunder-gods and lesbians both lack.
Abortion culture springs out of contraception culture. The two are linked both in history and logic. Contraception erects a barrier between being a wife and being a mother, and erodes the barrier between being a wife and being a mere unwed paramour, a sex-mare to ride.
In the hook-up culture, one need not even be so dignified as a paramour to be a sex-mare: the sex act in the modern day has been successfully reduced to utter meaninglessness, a mere pastime. Modern women were promised that they could demean themselves to below the status of harlots without feeling demeaned. That promise was a lie.
What makes them feel demeaned is the knowledge that they sold themselves for cheap.
Instead of getting a lifelong public commitment from a man willing to vow eternal love and share his name and household, to make her a mother and a wife, she trades her virginity and dignity for a night’s entertainment, or, more pathetically, for the mere hope of commitment at some unspecified future time. Perhaps he will call back if she puts out.
Abortion not only kills the baby, it kills the dignity and the spirit of motherhood. Motherhood is the enemy of feminism, and, ergo, Motherhood becomes the foe of all the Left. Enshrining prenatal infanticide as a Constitutional right cannot have any other longterm and deleterious social effects than these.
Logically, neither a man nor a society can hold motherhood to be sacred and inviolate, in which case human life, human rights, dignity, family life, love and romance are also inviolate, and at the same time hold abortion to be sacred and inviolate, in which case fornication, sexual perversion, social justice, collective authority, and the reason-obliterating moral relativism of the Nietzschean will-to-power is also inviolate.
Slowly or quickly, coherently or bit by bit, the man and the society moves toward the one position or toward the other. These ideas are interconnected, and one cannot be adopted without adopting, or at least granting dignity to, the related and consequential ideas.
In America, abortion has been framed as a question of civil rights. Forbidding a woman from killing her children is equated in the rhetoric of the enemy to be the same as the affront of Jim Crow laws, or the inhumanity of keeping slaves in chains. The mere absurdity of the equation shocks the conscience and protects it from criticism.
However, no question can be answered, nor even addressed, if the wrong question is asked. Instead of debating whether or no mothers have a civil right right to kill their babies, the legal question, which is the sole question a Supreme Court is constituted to address, is who has the authority to define the law. The Constitution? Or the Dems? The Feds? Or the People?
This answer differs depending on the issue. Certain rights, such as Freedom of Religion and Speech, are expressly outlined in the Bill of Rights to restrict the Federal government, and, by what is called the Doctrine of Incorporation, to restrict state and local governments as well.
Other rights are federal issues, some of which exclude state action in that area, others of which do not.
Common Law, that great body of judge-made caselaw we inherited intact from England, is clearly and unambiguously within the purview of the states, and not a federal matter. This involves such things as common law crimes, torts, contract law, family law, trusts and estates, real property law, and so on.
The Constitution holds that any rights not specifically granted to the federal government are expressly reserved to the several state governments, or to the people. The Constitution nowhere says nor implies, no, not even by the more elastic and elliptical contortions of specious reasoning, that the federal government has the right to remove from the voters their power to vote upon and decide upon the exact nature and definition of laws against murder.
Some Democrats might say that only Caucasians, the master race, are protected by laws against murder; and that to lynch a Negro is not technically murder because they are an undeveloped form of humanity; or, likewise, some Democrats might say that only children above the age of two are protected, and that to kill children below this age is not technically murder because they are an undeveloped form of humanity; some Dems would move the murder age lower, to the moment of partial birth, when the baby is half-in, half-out of his mommy’s womb. No Dem has yet explained to me why, if these creatures are not human, it would be unsightly or even illegal to grind the remnants up into hamburger for Hannibal Lector to cook and eat on television.
But the Supreme Court simply does not have the authority to decide the precise definition of murder. That is clearly within the common law, and clearly within the general police power, which explicitly and unambiguously rests with the several states, not with the feds.
The federal government does not now and has never had the lawful authority to alter or replace the common law statutes of the several states, nor to rob the voters in each state of their sovereign power to decide on which laws will govern them.
The Dems are panicking precisely because it was always and only by the narrowest of margins, and the most unrelenting of propaganda campaigns, that the clear legal principle involved could be smothered and popular sovereignty be usurped. It will only take one justice to vote with the Constitution as written to overturn Roe v Wade, in which case the matter returns to the states and the people to decide.
But, when that happens, the entire worldview of the Moloch-worshipers, and everything they hold sacred, from sexual perversion to totalitarianism, comes into question. It is not a coherent worldview, nor a human one. It is not something able to withstand the light of public inquiry.
Their guilt will also come to light. So pity them and pray for them.
How corrupted by sin and wretchedness must a man become in order to be reduced to an emotional breakdown by the nomination of a well-qualified and uncontroversial legal scholar such as Kavanaugh to the bench?
No comments:
Post a Comment