Dear Democrats: You Literally Have Nothing To Lose

Image for post
Image for post

Earlier this week I published an article entitled “How To Be An Anti-Christian Bigot” on the topic of the idea that Democrats are being bigoted for asking someone from a political organization if that provides a conflict of interest.

Since then, with Barrett being officially nominated by Trump yesterday, we have seen the false cries of bigotry go into overload. A lot of people make fun of the left for claiming that black people, homosexuals, or transgenders are oppressed — while those arguments have their place, none of them compare to lengths the right has gone to so they can call Democrats “anti-Catholic bigots.”

Of course, the only openly Catholic President in United States history was Democrat John F. Kennedy. During the 1960 Presidential Election, Republican icon Billy Graham (such a big fan of the RNC that he removed Mormonism off of his church’s list of cults so his followers could vote for Romney) tried to get as many preachers as possible to denounce Kennedy on claims that he was an agent of the Pope. The DNC also nominated Al Smith in 1928 (while Catholicism was being blamed for the actions of Andrew Kehoe the previous year), John Kerry in 2004, and yes, Joe Biden in 2020. Joe Biden was only denied communion by the Catholic Church after he had been a member for seventy-seven years, and had been in politics for almost fifty of them. The Catholic Church is not merely allowed to change its mind on Biden after five decades of him advocating for the same things.

And that’s ignoring the various Democratic politicians who are also Catholic, such as the late Ted Kennedy (who attended Mass several times a week), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and all three members of the Cuomo family. Democrats had no issue confirming Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court back in 2009, and she’s also a self-identified Catholic. It seems like the Democratic Party is made up of many different people with diverse life experiences and ways of thinking, but who knows. Oh, and the first Catholic Supreme Court Justice in United States history was Roger Taney, appointed by President Andrew Jackson. Other Catholic Justices include Frank Murphy, appointed by President Roosevelt, and Sherman Minton, appointed by President Truman. Truman also lost the endorsement of the Ku Klux Klan (and had some attempts on his life put out) because of his refusal to endorse anti-Catholic views when he first ran for office in Missouri.

Here’s one example of a true scandal. On 9/25/2020, a woman named Dana Houle (who has “adoptive parent” in her Twitter bio) tweeted the following thread:

I would love to know which adoption agency Amy Coney Barrett & her husband used to adopt the two children they brought here from Haiti.

So here’s a Q: does the press even investigate details of Barrett’s adoptions from Haiti? Some adoptions from Haiti were legit. Many were sketchy as hell. And if press learned they were unethical and maybe illegal adoptions, would they report it? Or not because it involves her children.

Would it matter if her kids were scooped up by ultra-religious Americans, or Americans weren’t scrupulous intermediaries & the kids were taken when there was family in Haiti? I dunno. I think it does, but maybe it doesn’t, or shouldn’t.

I hope the adoptions were fully legit & ethical. I hope if press investigates that’s what they find. But if the adoptions were sketchy, reporting it would really screw w the lives of her 2 adopted kids (& maybe the 5 bio kids too)

Now, and this used to go without saying, we should be ruthlessly vetting Supreme Court Justices to make sure they don’t engage in human trafficking. If there is anything that looks like it even has a chance of being human trafficking, we should be investigating it and making sure it isn’t. Again, I thought this was obvious, now, just like so much else regarding our new lord and savior, it’s bigotry.

And yes, Haiti has massive human trafficking problems. Here’s how the 2020 Trafficking In Person report on Haiti begins:

The Government of Haiti does not fully meet the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking but is making significant efforts to do so. The government demonstrated overall increasing efforts compared to the previous reporting period; therefore Haiti remained on Tier 2. These efforts included investigating more traffickers, establishing an executive secretariat to improve monitoring and analysis of trafficking within the National Anti-Trafficking Committee, addressing the weak judicial system and lack of awareness about trafficking among law enforcement officials with targeted training, prosecuting labor trafficking offenses, and building capacity for alternative shelters for vulnerable minors. However, the government did not meet the minimum standards in several key areas. The government did not convict traffickers during the reporting year. The government did not allocate sufficient funding for its anti-trafficking efforts or victim services and did not implement its standard operating procedures for victim identification. The government did little to combat the system of child domestic servitude (restavek).

Still, this didn’t stop Senator Josh Hawley, who likes to consider himself a crusader against human trafficking, from saying the following:

Read this from Democrat activist & Hill staffer. Questioning whether #AmyConeyBarrett *illegally* adopted her children from Haiti, maybe snatching them from birth parents! This is the Dem game plan. Nothing but raw bigotry and hate. I promise you, this will not stand.

Wait, where’s the bigotry? All this person wants is a basic investigation to ensure that a possible Supreme Court justice is not engaging in human tracking. It’s no more bigoted then when Hawley, as Attorney General of Missouri, looked into various Salons ran by Asian immigrants to determine if they were examples of human tracking. (He got the answer to that question wrong most of the time, but that’s a different story.)

Arthur Bloom replied to Hawley’s tweet with the following:

Remember when it was uncouth to talk about what the Clinton Foundation was doing in Haiti?

Wow, Arthur Bloom is so bigoted against Methodists.

Jack Posobiec said the following on this subject:

They are now attacking Amy Coney Barrett for adopting children. Disgraceful!

Again, nobody is attacking her. What we’re doing is worrying about if an adoption from a nation known for human trafficking was in some way involved with human trafficking.

All of this talk about attacks that are actually quite minor in the grand scheme of things reminds me of Robert Bork. In 1987, President Reagan appointed Nixon’s former Attorney General and man heavily involved with the Saturday Night Massacre to the Supreme Court. While since then, the hearing (and even the name “Bork”) has become one in the same with meanness and lack of civility in politics, all the Democrats did was vote against someone they didn’t want on the Supreme Court.

Here’s the speech (Catholic) Senator Ted Kennedy gave that’s become so infamous:

Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, and schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens.

Robert Bork was unable to explain how a single line of that speech was not accurate.

At the same time (Catholic) Senator Joe Biden prepared a brief for the Senate Judiciary Committee that criticized many of Bork’s views. Ads by People For The American Way and narrated by (catholic) Gregory Peck also helped fuel widespread dislike of Robert Bork and his views. The failure of Bork later caused President Reagan to nominate the much more moderate (Catholic) Anthony Kennedy, who was confirmed without an issue.

Another lost cause among Republicans (even though they won this battle) is the nomination of Clarence Thomas. When the (also Black) Anita Hill accused him of sexual harassments, Democrats lynched Clarence Thomas by trying to figure out if that was true or not.

No, I didn’t compare that to a lynching, Clarence Thomas did:

This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.

That sounds like nonsensical hyperbole, but in his defense the man who nominated him did say:

If the American people knew what we have done, they would string us up from the lamp post.

Of course, if what Democrats did was a lynching, I wonder what it would count as when the also black Anita Hill was told that she was lying by Republicans.

The idea of it being some kind of crime to preform basic vetting followed our culture to the Kavanaugh hearing. Regardless of what you think about Ford’s claims, the facts are Republicans only let two people testify, attacked Democrats for asking Kavanagh questions about the claim he was a rapist, and refused to allow a proper FBI investigation regarding the claims.

Still, that was too much for Republicans. As asking about claims related to committing rape is nothing more than a witch hunt (wonder why they don’t apply that standard to Bill Clinton).

Here is the point you should be getting from this, no matter what the Democrats do they’re going to be accused of a “witch-hunt,” or “being uncivil” or worst of all, engaging in “cancel culture.” So, if they are truly interested in defeating the Barrett nomination, maybe they should just give up and do what Republicans imagine they’ve always been doing.

Remember, roughly 60% of Americans believe a Supreme Court justice should not be appointed until after the next election. Meaning as long as Democrats fight, regardless of the outcome, it’s very likely we’ll see a Blue landslide in November. Afterwards, Democrats should push for the retirement of both Steven Breyer and Clarence Thomas, who are both well into retirement age. Hardcore conservative Samuel Alito could also be pushed for near the end of 2023.

Tell me, what’s going to happen if the Democrats become “un-civil” that wouldn’t happen anyway? Republicans will accuses them of obstruction or unfair attacks over the most basic standards anyway, so demand they be applied. I do not think that’s an unfair or hard thing to do.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store