THE HUBRIS OF DEMOCRATS

THE HUBRIS OF DEMOCRATS
by Samuel Orrin Sewell

Which Democrat said this when it became obvious they were losing the presidential election? “I can’t believe I’m losing to this idiot!”

1.   Hillary Clinton?

2.   John Kerry?

The hubris of most democrats could be what contributed to this comment from both candidates (and many more of the democratic leadership), but the person who said it was John Kerry. This chapter is intended to illustrate that almost any Democrat is so full of their own ego that they just can’t believe that anyone would disagree with them, so they assume that anyone who does not agree is intellectually deficient, perhaps deranged. Now let’s take a look at what hubris means.

When asked if I understood the meaning of the Greek word “hubris.” I knew that one of the legends of the ancient gods was that they punished people for expressing hubris, but I really didn’t understand what that meant, so I did an internet inquiry.

Here is what I discovered: Hubris (/ˈhjuːbrɪs/, from ancient Greek ὕβρις) describes a personality quality of extreme or foolish pride or dangerous overconfidence. In its ancient Greek context, it typically describes behavior that defies the norms, or challenges the gods, and which, in turn, brings about the downfall of the perpetrator of hubris.

Talk about challenging the gods, take a look at this information:

Gallup reports that about 80% of Americans are Christian. That means, of course, that 20 percent of Americans are not Christian.

Gallup also reports that about 20% of Americans are liberals. Do you see any connection there?

To help you make up your mind as to whether or not there is a connection, please observe this video from the Democratic National Convention where the mention of God garnered a roomful of “BOOs”.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aG6qgSfaARE

While I am personally convinced that hubris is widespread among Democrats, let me illustrate that point in a widely published article I wrote before the 2004 Bush v. Kerry election.

John Kerry isn't the kind of guy you would run into at a MENSA meeting in spite of what he might think about his own intelligence.

My 2005 article on candidate IQ

Little Acorns and Mighty Oaks

I contributed a little acorn to the 2004 election. I use the acorn metaphor because the outcome of what I did seemed to take on a life of its own and grew into a mighty oak beyond any of my expectations.

A brief history of my experience begins in August of 2004. A friend sent me an email about John Kerry’s Navy experiences. I am a Navy veteran so I took a look at the issue. It soon became obvious to me that John Kerry was hiding something about his military experience, so I decided to look at the records Kerry allowed to be published on his campaign web site.

I discovered something I wasn’t seeking. I found John Kerry’s IQ score. I am a Mensa member. I joined Mensa based on my Navy GCT scores so I knew how to interpret Kerry’s record. My very next thought was to speculate that Bush might be brighter than Kerry and that I could prove it with military IQ scores.

After lengthy research and lots of help from IQ experts I proved my point. Kerry’s scores revealed an IQ between 115 and 120. Bush’s scores translated as an IQ between 125 and 130.

The story was then published on the web. That is the essence of my acorn contribution to the 2004 election.

My acorn must have fallen on fertile ground because the New York Times picked up the story and now the whole world knows that Bush is smarter than Kerry.

“Wow!” I said to myself. Talk about maximum effect for minimum effort! But, the acorn just kept growing.

Meanwhile, William Middendorf, former secretary of the Navy, urged Kerry to open up his personnel files to resolve the question of whether the Democratic presidential nominee received a less-than-honorable discharge from the Navy.

In August, the Kerry campaign insisted that all of the senator's Navy records had been released, with the exception of medical papers.

"Senator Kerry's entire military service record is posted on JohnKerry.com. His entire record," said communications adviser Michael Meehan in an attempt to defend Kerry against charges he didn't deserve his three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star.

But the Washington Post and others reported that at least 100 pages were still under wraps and that Kerry would need to file a Form 180 to grant permission for full release of his records.

Kerry, however, seemed to contradict his campaign's position in late October, just a week before the election, when he told NBC's Tom Brokaw his military record "is not public." NBC, in fact, edited out that particular comment after including it in a previous version of an interview.

BROKAW: Someone has analyzed the president's military aptitude tests and yours, and concluded that he has a higher IQ than you do.

KERRY: That's great. More power. I don't know how they've done it, because my record is not public. So I don't know where you're getting that from.

So now my little acorn had gotten Kerry to admit on NBC news that he had not made his military records public after his campaign claimed to have posted his “entire record” on his web site. Soon after Chris Matthews, and Don Imus tried to get Kerry to address the SF 180 issue.

Finally, in January, after the election, Kerry told 'Meet the Press’ host Tim Russert that he would sign the form.

RUSSERT: Many people who've been criticizing you have said: Senator, if you would just do one thing and that is sign Form 180, which would allow historians and journalists complete access to all your military records. Thus far, you have gotten the records, released them through your campaign. They say you should not be the filter. Sign Form 180 and let the historians…

KERRY: I’d be happy to put the records out. We put all the records out that I had been sent by the military. Then at the last moment, they sent some more stuff, which had some things that weren't even relevant to the record. So when we get — I'm going to sit down with them and make sure that they are clear and I am clear as to what is in the record and what isn't in the record and we'll put it out. I have no problem with that.

RUSSERT: Would you sign Form 180?

KERRY: But everything, Tim…

RUSSERT: Would you sign Form 180?

KERRY: Yes, I will.

Hey! This acorn was becoming a full grown tree. Of course, Kerry is still dodging and weaving. His latest dodge was with the Boston Globe. Before Memorial Day weekend, Sen. John Kerry sat down with editors of his hometown newspaper, the Boston Globe, and announced that he had signed the form SF 180, authorizing the Department of Defense to grant access to all his military records. This, more than a year after he had claimed that the press and public had seen all there was to see from his military record.

On June 7th Kerry released more innocuous records.

This only raises more questions than it answers. Since there is nothing new or substantive, why the long drawn out refusal? All I can see is another "sanitized" copy of his records.

The most glaring omission is any reference to the question of Kerry's discharge status. The best commentary I have read about Kerry’s latest attempt to duck the issue of his discharge is at the American Prowler.

To my own amusement Kerry’s grades while at Yale were released at the same time as the latest military records as part of the Deception Officer’s smokescreen duties. Kerry’s Yale grades revealed that Bush was a slightly better student. No surprise to me since I already knew that Bush had 10 IQ points on Kerry.

Why has it been so much trouble getting Kerry’s military records? That is the elephant in the newsroom that nobody is talking about. If there wasn't something to hide, the obvious solution to Kerry’s problem is to expedite full disclosure.

Several big name media journalists have cornered Kerry regarding his SF 180 over the last year and still no full disclosure.

I ask a serious question; is there a rational alternative to the conclusion that Kerry is hiding something? Hiding something so important he has allowed this issue to dog him for more than a year, when full release of the records would have stopped the issue in its tracks.

I think that what is in those records will stop Kerry in his tracks. Of course he is stonewalling.
This could be one of the biggest stories of 2005. “The Acorn Who Ate a Presidential Candidate.”

It is now fifteen years later and John Kerry has never fully released his discharge records and had become the Secretary of State.

So those persons with a hubris pathology not only think they’re smarter than everybody else, they assume that they’re always going to win, and never admit they’re wrong. And, they seem to get away with it! Does that sound like any other Democrats you know?

Hillary Rodham Clinton, perhaps?

Another characteristic of Democrats with hubris is the ingrained habit of finding fault with others. Have you noticed in current tactics by the Democratic leadership that they will nitpick the faults of others that are obviously insignificant.  Is whether or not someone (President Trump) has one scoop or two scoops of ice cream have any relevance other than a nitpicking attempt at fault-finding? 

Dem leadership almost always finds fault with individuals rather than addressing the issues that have been raised. Their strategy is “kill the messenger rather than listen to the message”. The next chapter in this book clearly defines the pathology of “the accuser”.

THIS IS AN EXCERPT FROM THE SOON-TO-BE-PUBLISHED BOOK "STATE OF THE NATION" by Samuel Orrin Sewell.