A Woman Who Wants Women To Be Stupid

Lawyer Craig Silverman of Denver IS NOT any alt-right hardline conservative; he is a political moderate. He has a talk show on KNUS-AM, a conservative radio station which allows diversity of opinion within its ranks. But he doesn't have to be a hardline conservative to understand bedrock legal principles like burden of proof.

Too bad not everyone he encounters is willing to admit that those legal principles EVEN EXIST.

On Saturday, Mr. Silverman interviewed a leftist named Lisa Calderon on the subject of Bret Kavanaugh. It didn't take long for Ms. Calderon to demonstrate that, in her mind, Judge Kavanaugh IS guilty solely because SHE WANTS HIM TO BE GUILTY.

Every time Silverman tried to clarify the need for evidence, Calderon instantly took refuge in purely emotional generalizations about "victims needing to be heard." The way she invoked "victims" made it obvious that she was choosing to believe that Christine Ford was ALREADY proven to be telling the truth. Without even acknowledging the CONCEPT of needing evidence, Calderon pontificated about women being treated as property, and about how horrid it was for "a male viewpoint" to be adopted in legal cases.

In short, because women COLLECTIVELY have suffered injustice, this fact by itself is fully suffiicient to "prove" that ONE PARTICULAR MAN, Bret Kavanaugh, IS guilty of three particular acts of sexual assault. Calderon went on to insist that women almost never make false accusations-- on which basis she justified her assertion that automatically believing any woman who accuses any man of anything is THE PROPER STARTING POINT, and to Hell with presumption of innocence for any MALE defendant. But Silverman replied that, in his law career, he has witnessed plenty of instances of women lying under oath.

Calderon is doing no service to her fellow females by dogmatically declaring (1) that operating entirely on blind emotion IS "the female viewpoint," and (2) that this intentional illogic SHOULD BE held as overruling the rule of law. But of course, she DOESN'T really care about the long-term well-being of her fellow females. What she cares about is encouraging women to be irrational, as a tactic to destroy that precious rule of law, so that the hard left can gain more POWER, which is all that the hard left really cares about.

To this end, Calderon was employing classic circular reasoning, as follows:

>> We know that Bret Kavanaugh is guilty, because we have the testimony of a victim, which must ALWAYS be believed.

>> We know that Christine Ford and the other accusers are victims, because THEY SAY they are.

>> We can accept the word of the accusers in this, because we know that Kavanaugh is guilty.

>> And we know that Kavanaugh is guilty, because......

Et circular cetera.

One of the Larger Lies That I've Seen Lately

   "CAPITALISM: The Extraordinary Idea That The Nastiest Of People, For The Nastiest Of Motives, Will Actually Work For The Common Good."

What a wealth (no pun intended) of INTENTIONAL DISHONESTY there is to be refuted in this Marxist bumper sticker! Where to begin??

I'll begin with a word whose use may produce confusion, EVEN IF no one is lying on purpose. The word "capitalism" is used sometimes to mean ALL privately-owned business on any scale, and sometimes to mean only really large corporations. But the very fact that HONEST uncertainty can arise with use of this word, can be to the advantage of leftwing liars. If confronted strongly over their desire to take ALL commerce out of the hands of individual citizens, totalitarian collectivists can look all innocent and croon: "Oh, no, you misunderstand! We don't want to take away neighborhood flower shops and marijuana dispensaries from their mom-and-pop owners; we ONLY wish to bring down those evil giant corporations that want to destroy the world!"

But in reality, Marxists wish to exert such total control that EVEN little street-corner shops can be confiscated from their owners (under the cover of the "You Didn't Build That" lie). They are against all free enterprise, because they are against freedom itself (except for the party elites, of course). This being understood, let us dissect the propaganda message piece by piece.

1) The loaded phrase "extraordinary idea" is used here as a salesmanship device, trying to get the reader or hearer on the side of the propagandist from the outset. "You and I understand how stupid it is to believe in free enterprise, don't we? Of course we do, because we're smart!" This tactic is borrowed FROM FREE ENTERPRISE; door-to-door salesmen refer to it as "assuming the sale." In today's dumbed-down society, a Marxist is often correct in assuming that he can "make the sale" with gullible Americans.

2) "Nastiest of people" is another presupposition which the propagandist expects the audience to swallow unquestioningly. Anyone who ISN'T enthusiastically in favor of collective farms and workers' self-criticism sessions is "obviously" a flunky of those evil corporations that create evil robots and zombies to kill us all. Hasn't the all-wise oracle of Hollywood been telling us as much for decades?

3) "Nastiest of motives" is a crucial part of the sales pitch. Using their mass-media advantages to define the terms of discussion, leftists try to convince us that "earning a profit" AUTOMATICALLY MEANS "gathering obscene amounts of wealth by means of robbery, fraud, slave labor, mass murder, and destroying the whole environment." (Of course, the propagandist can't afford to let us take notice of the colossal environmental damage done by COMMUNIST nations.)

4) Saying "work for the common good" is intended here to convince us that unless our every action is entirely oriented toward somehow benefitting EVERYONE IN THE WORLD simultaneously and equally, we are INJURING the world by running an independent business or project. We are expected to forget that separate families or separate associations can work for their own interests, yet reconcile separate interests through TRANSACTIONS between one independent group and another independent group.

The last of those components of the lying message is a good place to point out the perpetual self-contradiction practiced by leftists. When they concentrate on race-card playing, leftists POSITIVELY DESIRE to have racial and cultural groups competing with each other and excluding each other. But when faced with the terrible danger of a free-market economy proving its practical and moral superiority over totalitarianism, the same leftists will exclaim: "No! There can't be any competition! Everyone and everything must be united under the global system of oneness, oneness, oneness!"

When One Sam Portrayed Another Sam

I just saw, for the first time, a fairly old TV movie about the historical deeds of Sam Houston. Starring Sam Elliott, the movie was titled "Gone To Texas." I have the strong impression that the writers tried hard to be accurate and even-handed in their portrayal of events.

On one side, they rebutted my own belief that all the Anglos who settled in Texas initially intended to be obedient citizens of Mexico. Houston and James Bowie were depicted discussing their _advance_ intention to take Texas away from Santa Ana's government.

But having shown they were not Gringo chauvinists, the writers _also_ made it clear that Santa Ana still _deserved_ to lose Texas. His courts denied presumption of innocence; he imprisoned dissenters, Fidel Castro style; and he had no qualms about _pretending_ to offer mercy to opponents and then killing them when they surrendered. Texans _weren't_ the only ones who wished to be rid of Santa Ana; the movie makes it plain that _many_ Mexicans hated his tyranny, which was why there _were_ Mexicans fighting on the Texan side in that revolution.

In a sidebar, the movie revealed that Sam Houston also got on well with Native Americans-- much better than Andrew Jackson did!