We knew that whenever it was that Ruth Bader Ginsburg had to be replaced (and those of us who have not completely forgotten the immutable rules of mortaliy were not shocked when this occurred sooner rather than later) we knew that the Left would freak OUT. That they—by “they” I mean Democrats, “the resistance,” the Trump Deranged, pro-abortion fanatics, feminist ideologues and the substantial segment of social media that can be counted upon to react like the cattle in “City Slickers” when Billy Crystal turns in his battery-powered coffee grinder—would freak out quite this embarrassingly, however, I did not foresee.
This is only because I am an idiot, of course. The way the left has reacted and is reacting to Donald Trump’s election should have prepared me. Surely the despicable way they treated Brett Kavanaugh should have prepared me. It’s just that I find it hard—maybe I should say “painful”— to believe that one whole side of the political spectrum is capable of it all.
Need I mention that metaphorically running around screaming nonsense with one’s hair on fire is unethical? It is irresponsible citizenship, it is neither competent nor prudent, and it upsets the less-intelligent members of the herd, and it is wildly unfair to Judge Barrett.
Let’s just stick with that proposition, and concentrate primarily on examples that are res ipsa loquitur, meaning in this case that if you have to be told why some things are nuts, then you’re nuts too.
- Senator Gillibrand’s tweet:
The fact that this outrageous statement is not out of character for the Junior Senator from New York doesn’t make it any more tolerable. The statement itself is another iteration of The Big Lie. Of course Barrett is qualified for the Court. Her former colleagues say so, the ABA says so, and and the current membership of the Court itself says so, since there are more than one Justice whose qualifications upon being confirmed were considerably less impressive.
Gillibrand represents the dangerous brand of anti-democratic thought her party is now peddling, albeit more openly and flagrantly than most of her compatriots, who are smarter than she is. That false principle is that only those who bow to Leftist cant are “qualified” to have any influence, legitimacy or power at all.
- USA Today’s Chelsey Cox. You know those scenes in some action movies movies where someone is so stuck in berserker mode that they begin attacking and killing everyone within reach, friend, foe or bystander? This is the level of hysteria some journalists have reached now in their panic, and Ms Cox is the saddest example I have seen thus far. The Babylon Bee, the satirical website that makes it clear that its stories are jokes because they know what they are doing, mocked progressive hysterics over Ginsburg’s death and the frantic search for some way to stop the President from naming a conservative successor with this story:
You know how the current toxic mutation of the news media deals with something they disagree with, right? They “factcheck” it. And that’s what Cox did with this gag. Moreover. the editors at the paper thought it was worth printing, thus mandating this clip:
- Ibram X. Kendi, the director of the Center for Antiracist Research at Boston University, thinks this is responsible criticism of Barrett: prompted by the Rose Garden ceremony announcing her nomination, during which the public learned that among her seven children are two Haitian children her family adopted to save them from the ordeal of trying to survive in that persistent third-world hellhole, Kendi wrote
“Some White colonizers ‘adopted’ Black children. They ‘civilized’ these ‘savage’ children in the ‘superior’ ways of White people, while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial, while cutting the biological parents of these children out of the picture of humanity.” The obvious implication is that the Barrett’s may have used their adopted children as mere props as part of a possible effort to hide their racism.
I suppose its possible to be a more flagrant race-baiter than that, but right now I lack the imagination to conceive of it. As an adoptive parent myself, I find the implication beyond despicable. The BU professor even puts “adopted” in quotation marks to suggest that this wasn’t a true adoption mad out of love and compassion, but merely virtue signaling by racists to confound critics. Kendi then added “And whether this is Barrett or not is not the point. It is a belief too many White people have: if they have or adopt a child of color, then they can’t be racist.”
What does he mean whether Barrett is doing this is “not the point”? Of course it’s the point—this is like suggesting that a prominent American displays the characteristics of a serial killer and then claiming that the point wasn’t to create suspicion that the individual is dangerous. Moreover, as Professor Turley pointed out last week, “the only thing more disturbing than this outrageous attack is the relative silence of the media or Kendi’s colleagues.”
I disagree with the professor, upon further consideration. The most disturbing aspect of this is that Kendri, and irresponsible hate-mongers like him, is employed in a prominent position at an esteemed educational institution.
More to come…