Friday, December 6, 2019

Pelosi's Call To The Ramparts

Earlier this evening I wrote referring to Nancy Pelosi's bizarre impeachment address:

Joel Pollak at Breitbart has an excellent article debunking the central Dem claim that their impeachment theater is a revolt against a president who claims the powers of an absolute monarch--a sort of We The People against George III Redux. That was the tenor of Pelosi's bizarre address, and it came up repeatedly in the Nadler committee testimony by law professors. 

Frank Miele has written a wonderful article that deconstructs that meme in more detail. What Miele writes is more profound than the title might suggest, so don't be tempted to pass it by as just one more "coup" article: Speaker Pelosi Declares a Coup Against President Trump.

Just as the Dems have ripped Trump's words out of context, so too they now rip the words of the Declaration of Independence out of context. Pelosi speaks of "dissolv[ing] ... political bonds," as if the declaration was merely referring to resistance to a distant monarch. But the the Declaration actually speaks of something fundamentally different:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Viewed in this context, Pelosi's words are ominous. Miele begins with that in mind. Excerpt:

There was never any doubt that the House of Representatives will vote on a strictly partisan basis to impeach the president, but it could not have been foreseen that Pelosi would frame that approaching act as a naked power grab.
Yet that is exactly what she did. 
In opening her announcement to draft impeachment charges by quoting the Declaration of Independence, she acknowledged more plainly than ever before that she is taking a revolutionary act, that she is overthrowing the established order and that, in modern terms, she has launched a coup.
Consider the words she quoted:
"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another ..."
... These are not the words of an orderly transfer of power via legal means. They are a confession of the underlying intent of what has long been called "The Resistance" — and that is revolution, rebellion, the overthrow of an executive power that does not conform to the expectations of an aggrieved ruling class. 
What we must ask now is just who are "the people" on both sides of this conflict? Pelosi implied that "one people" are dissolving their political bonds with "another," so who exactly are Pelosi and her like-minded revolutionaries declaring independence from? President Trump, the 63 million people who voted for him, the Republican Party or the authors of the Constitution itself? 
[The Dem failure to enunciate any serious reason for their three years of insurrection] tells you all you need to know about how far we are from 1776. This impeachment is not a unifying act like the joining together of 13 Colonies against a common enemy, but rather the tearing asunder of a union into separate camps much like the rebellion that Abraham Lincoln encountered in 1861.
If Democrats alone perceive a tyrannical disregard for the law by the president, and Republicans instead uniformly accuse the Democrats of acting from base political motivation, there is no happy outcome possible. There is no distant enemy on a foreign throne who can unite us in common battle. We are instead engaged in a great civil war testing whether the nation conceived in liberty by the signers of that immortal Declaration can endure much longer.

There's a further irony in the Dems' invocation of the Declaration of Independence. Conservative legal scholars have often maintained that the Declaration should be regarded as, in substance, a part of our Constitution, as stating the principles on which this nation was founded--including the view that the existence of a Creator is "self-evident". That view has been vigorously rejected by the Left--for reasons that are "self-evident":

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The Left's rejection of the Declaration--except when they bend, fold, and mutilate for their own propagandistic purposes--is part and parcel of their rejection of Western civilization. We noted that recently with regard to Havard Law's Noah Feldman's championing of Sharia Law as "more humane" than the Western tradition.

Tucker Carlson, in his excellent essay Pelosi trapped by lunatics to her left. She puts a brave face on a doomed mission, fights on, has a great time ridiculing the transparent insincerity of Dems appealing to the supposed views of "[a] group of 18th-century slaveholder" and adds:

So, James Madison has given Nancy Pelosi his personal seal of approval. Remember that the next time Pelosi's acolytes try to pull Madison's statue off its pedestal for crimes against progressive orthodoxy.
For a brief moment, the Founders of our country are useful to the left, so they're being presented as heroes. Enjoy it while it lasts.

But then he reflects that, after Trump did the unthinkable thing and won an election against all odds:

The left turned against the country that disappointed them and the system that made it possible. "Open the border, eliminate the electoral college, throw off the restraints, and erase the past. Whatever it takes to regain power, we are for. That can never happen again. It was too painful." That's what they resolved.

And that's where they stand now, with nary a thought for the future. It's about power.


  1. With this dare from Pelosi, what if her testimony is demanded at a Senate trial?
    What if she is probed about her aid to Schiff's conspiring with the "whistleblower", and with ATT on phone calls by Nunes, Solomon etc.?

    1. I have to believe that this Schiff subpoena episode will stiffen the resolve--if that were needed--of the Senate GOP to play hardball on impeachment.

  2. I have additional fears. Call me a conspiracy nut, but in her "I have no hate" speech, at one point she pointed to her bracelet in dramatic fashion. Her bracelet has a bullet on it. I've seen a speech where she said that she was given the bracelet by a person whose child was a victim of gun crime. In this week's speech, it is true that she was talking about how Trump doesn't care for those children when she pointed to the bracelet. Nevertheless, it gives me the creeps to see her pointing at that bullet. If you get what I mean.