If you were an elderly person in a state of rapid cognitive decline, but still early in the process, you would not choose a man for your Public Health Advisory Committee who is essentially an assassin of elderly people, especially those suffering cognitive decline. No, you would be afraid of such a person and you would certainly not promote such a person.
Joe Biden hastily assembled a Public Health Advisory Committee to provide him advice on how he would handle the Covid 19 epidemic. One of his picks for an adviser was Ezekiel Emanuel who played a major role in developing ObamaCare with its Death Panels, which he advised should not waste limited healthcare resources on older people. Dr. Emanuel has been especially assertive that older people who are no longer very productive should not be provided health care. Specifically, he says people with dementia or other mental decline are simply not valuable enough to the collective to be maintained. Not only are healthcare resources for the elderly expensive, but the world is over-populated, which is destructive of the planet, according to such leftists as Ezekiel Emanuel.
Joe Biden's mental decline has been very evident and has been frequently pointed out by many Democratic Party promoters in the media, as well as party leaders. At least many pointed it out prior to their recently falling into lockstep behind Biden in their desperate effort to defeat Trump in November.
How far gone do you have to be to promote a man to your Public Health Advisory Committee who is advocating that elderly people such as Joe Biden, especially if they are in rapid cognitive decline, as Joe Biden is, should not receive valuable healthcare resources to deal with their decline and their subsequent health problems? The Democrat coup to remove Trump from the presidency did not get this early a start in 2016 relative to Trump's taking office. In effect, Joe Biden himself has started the process to remove him from office in March 2020 should he be elected! Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is the spokesman for the Democratic Party offering us the criterion for establishing the value of elderly people with declining cognitive function, such as Joe Biden.
If Joe Biden wins the election, it may be a very easy task to remove him from office. The Constitution has a provision for that: Amendment 25 Section 4. No one will have to create the kind of fraudulent attacks that have been made on President Trump. We will all just get the message as he stumbles through stories about kids stroking his hairy legs, his dangerous encounters with Corn Pop, his thoughts about the Living Constitution that make American's rights look like roadkill, or his declaring that anyone who disagrees with him is a lying horse-faced pony soldier. Who knows, perhaps the day will come soon when he tells us what the nuclear launch codes are because he is so proud of himself for remembering them, or maybe he doesn't remember them. I am fully expecting to hear him offer to take Putin outside the school to the playground and beat him up. Hopefully, Jill will step in and take on Putin for him.
16 March 2020
07 March 2020
Identity Politics Social Justice Hypocrisy
Senator Schumer, Senate Minority Leader, in front of the Supreme Court spoke to pro-abortion protesters on Wednesday saying
However, this kerfuffle led to some claims that President Trump was also guilty of threats to judges. One such claim was based on his saying that Supreme Court Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg should recluse themselves from cases involving the Trump administration because of highly biased remarks they have made about Trump. Stating judges should recluse themselves hardly sounds like releasing a whirlwind and a threat to make them pay the price of their decisions.
There were also references comparing Trump's statements to Schumer's to presidential candidate Trump's claim that a Mexican heritage judge should recluse himself from judging a case against Trump that involved Trump University. Trump had implied that the judge, U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, an Obama appointee, may have been biased.
Trump should not have said this at the time, at least not unless he had specific solid reason for claiming such bias. However, Trump was adopting the identity politics of the Democratic Party. The howls of outrage after the criticism of Schumer from those who hold with identity politics against Trump's assumption that an Obama appointee with a Mexican heritage might be biased against him are based on sheer hypocrisy.
Just think of all the times Democrats have claimed that those who do not think like other members of some identity group the Democrats have assigned them to are traitors to their identity group. Justice Clarence Thomas is an outrage they claim because he does not think like and make decisions like a proper black man is supposed to. Over and over they have claimed he is a traitor to his racial group. The Democrats try very hard to put pressure on those shoved into some identity group of their formulation to all act and think alike. To a surprising degree, they are often successful in getting this result. Many blacks comply with this uniformity. Many, though not quite so many, Latinos comply. Many women also comply.
In fact, the Democratic Party is primarily based on the women's vote, with the Black, Latino, Jewish, Muslim, and LGBTQ identity group votes added in. The Democratic Party as a whole also has a bias against that identity group they created for white males. In fact, that bias against white males has been very evident in Sen. Elizabeth Warren's claim that she has been denied the Democratic Party nomination for the presidency because she is a woman. Oops, but how can it be that the Democratic Party with its endorsement of group identity politics and a heavy majority of women supporters is biased against a woman presidential candidate? Nonetheless, many of the media joined Warren in her claims that there was bias against her and in effect rebuking the women of the Democratic Party for not uniting behind her. Those who did not are traitors.
So let us return to Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who was appointed by Obama. Now Obama certainly believed in identity politics. Obama absolutely would not appoint a federal judge who would betray his ethnic heritage, at least not one the Democratic Party counts on to hold firm in its belief in the Democratic Party, thereby being true to its identity. Presidential candidate Trump was to be judged by an Obama identity group appointee in a case even as the Obama administration is spying on his presidential campaign using FBI and CIA assets to do so in collaboration with the Democratic National Committee. Is it so unreasonable that Trump might think this federal judge might be biased?
As I said earlier, Trump should not have raised the question without more supporting evidence of bias at the time. But looking back with all we know about the many dirty tricks of the Obama administration in biasing the 2016 election results, in subverting the Department of Justice in doing so, given their strong assertion and dependence upon group identity politics, and in the way Obama appointed judges who have thwarted so many of the actions of the duly elected Trump administration ever since he took office, Trump would have been very justified in saying Judge Curiel might be biased had he then known all we know now.
This goes to show that if you support group identity politics, then there is no way that anyone assigned to a group identity that is supposed to oppose those assigned to other group identities can expect justice in our justice system. If the judge is in an allied identity group to a defendant, the judge will be biased in favor of him. If the judge is in an opposing identity group, he will be biased against the defendant. Female judges will be biased against males, as male judges will be biased against females. Latino judges will be biased against white males and white male judges will be biased against Latinos. Black judges will be biased against white males. Women, Black, and Latino judges will be biased in favor of more government and a living Constitution. White males will want less government and the Rule of Law. This is expected as a necessary outcome of a belief in identity politics.
Impartial, objective justice is impossible if you believe in group identities as determiners of the group members viewpoints and beliefs. Any claim of justice is outrageous hypocrisy. Perhaps worst of all, there is no possible way to even aim for justice in a system that acknowledges identity groups and their powerful effect upon how reality is seen.
This issue is far more important than Sen. Chuck Schumer's rantings and ravings. His defense should have drawn our attention to the hell created by group identity politics and culture. Far from the claim that the Democrats are using group identity politics to achieve more social justice, they are actually making the very concept of a justice system impossible. The result is a choice between anarchy and totalitarianism.
"I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won't know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."This is over the top in political discourse and his later claims that he only meant that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would pay the price that the Democratic Party would take over the Senate is a bucket blasted with two 12-gauge shotgun loads of 00 buckshot. This event and Sen. Schumer's ridiculous later claims have been much discussed and I will not discuss it further here.
However, this kerfuffle led to some claims that President Trump was also guilty of threats to judges. One such claim was based on his saying that Supreme Court Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg should recluse themselves from cases involving the Trump administration because of highly biased remarks they have made about Trump. Stating judges should recluse themselves hardly sounds like releasing a whirlwind and a threat to make them pay the price of their decisions.
There were also references comparing Trump's statements to Schumer's to presidential candidate Trump's claim that a Mexican heritage judge should recluse himself from judging a case against Trump that involved Trump University. Trump had implied that the judge, U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, an Obama appointee, may have been biased.
Trump should not have said this at the time, at least not unless he had specific solid reason for claiming such bias. However, Trump was adopting the identity politics of the Democratic Party. The howls of outrage after the criticism of Schumer from those who hold with identity politics against Trump's assumption that an Obama appointee with a Mexican heritage might be biased against him are based on sheer hypocrisy.
Just think of all the times Democrats have claimed that those who do not think like other members of some identity group the Democrats have assigned them to are traitors to their identity group. Justice Clarence Thomas is an outrage they claim because he does not think like and make decisions like a proper black man is supposed to. Over and over they have claimed he is a traitor to his racial group. The Democrats try very hard to put pressure on those shoved into some identity group of their formulation to all act and think alike. To a surprising degree, they are often successful in getting this result. Many blacks comply with this uniformity. Many, though not quite so many, Latinos comply. Many women also comply.
In fact, the Democratic Party is primarily based on the women's vote, with the Black, Latino, Jewish, Muslim, and LGBTQ identity group votes added in. The Democratic Party as a whole also has a bias against that identity group they created for white males. In fact, that bias against white males has been very evident in Sen. Elizabeth Warren's claim that she has been denied the Democratic Party nomination for the presidency because she is a woman. Oops, but how can it be that the Democratic Party with its endorsement of group identity politics and a heavy majority of women supporters is biased against a woman presidential candidate? Nonetheless, many of the media joined Warren in her claims that there was bias against her and in effect rebuking the women of the Democratic Party for not uniting behind her. Those who did not are traitors.
So let us return to Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who was appointed by Obama. Now Obama certainly believed in identity politics. Obama absolutely would not appoint a federal judge who would betray his ethnic heritage, at least not one the Democratic Party counts on to hold firm in its belief in the Democratic Party, thereby being true to its identity. Presidential candidate Trump was to be judged by an Obama identity group appointee in a case even as the Obama administration is spying on his presidential campaign using FBI and CIA assets to do so in collaboration with the Democratic National Committee. Is it so unreasonable that Trump might think this federal judge might be biased?
As I said earlier, Trump should not have raised the question without more supporting evidence of bias at the time. But looking back with all we know about the many dirty tricks of the Obama administration in biasing the 2016 election results, in subverting the Department of Justice in doing so, given their strong assertion and dependence upon group identity politics, and in the way Obama appointed judges who have thwarted so many of the actions of the duly elected Trump administration ever since he took office, Trump would have been very justified in saying Judge Curiel might be biased had he then known all we know now.
This goes to show that if you support group identity politics, then there is no way that anyone assigned to a group identity that is supposed to oppose those assigned to other group identities can expect justice in our justice system. If the judge is in an allied identity group to a defendant, the judge will be biased in favor of him. If the judge is in an opposing identity group, he will be biased against the defendant. Female judges will be biased against males, as male judges will be biased against females. Latino judges will be biased against white males and white male judges will be biased against Latinos. Black judges will be biased against white males. Women, Black, and Latino judges will be biased in favor of more government and a living Constitution. White males will want less government and the Rule of Law. This is expected as a necessary outcome of a belief in identity politics.
Impartial, objective justice is impossible if you believe in group identities as determiners of the group members viewpoints and beliefs. Any claim of justice is outrageous hypocrisy. Perhaps worst of all, there is no possible way to even aim for justice in a system that acknowledges identity groups and their powerful effect upon how reality is seen.
This issue is far more important than Sen. Chuck Schumer's rantings and ravings. His defense should have drawn our attention to the hell created by group identity politics and culture. Far from the claim that the Democrats are using group identity politics to achieve more social justice, they are actually making the very concept of a justice system impossible. The result is a choice between anarchy and totalitarianism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
