A Deeply Divided Nation

Last night, decent Americans looked on with satisfaction, via their televisions, as former Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy sworn in Brett Kavanaugh as the 114th Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.  All of the eight other Supreme Court Justices were in attendance.

 

President Trump stood by as Kavanaugh was sworn in, also appearing satisfied.  Kavanaugh’s children looked pleased, the little one smiling proudly.  Kavanaugh’s wife, Ashely, appeared tense and nervous, and with good reason.  Trump apologize for the shameful way in which he was unfairly smeared during the nomination process.

 

Kavanaugh’s appointment to the court is yet another victory for the United States Constitution, the foundation of our laws and our nation.  Without it, we would be a Third World rabble of elitists living high above the grinding poverty in the streets.  Political opponents of the ruling party could be thrown into gulag-like prisons.  Ordinary citizens would be spied on by their neighbors and turned over to a party apparatchik who would receive a handsome sum of money for betraying the “traitors.”

 

Corruption would run rampant.  Churches would be burned.  Our economy would be out of control, rife with runaway inflation.  Crime would be unchecked in the worst neighborhoods.  More affluent residents would have to build walls to protect their property, as the middle builds in Mexico City.

 

A small class of elites would enjoy a very comfortable lifestyle.  The rest of the country would be forced into long hours of hard labor or forced to beg on the streets.  Beggars would soon find there is hardly enough money to feed everyone who needs and what money there is goes into the pockets of corrupt politicians, who make the same empty promises and are re-elected by the same ignorant masses.

 

Every corrupt regime has been preceded and followed by rioting Marxists seeking anarchy to further their lust for power.  The next regime enters power only to be ousted in another military coup precipitated by Marxist-organized riots.

 

During the Kavanaugh hearings, we had an unpleasant taste of that type of unhinged behavior.  The reason such disruptions happen every twenty years or so is that a new generation comes of age, not releasing what had come before in their parents’ generation – and they’re taught not to care.

 

We saw these same obstructionist tactics – a woman (Anita Hill) charging the Supreme Court nominee (Clarence Thomas) with sexual assault.  Thomas, a black man, followed on the retirement of another justice, just as Kavanaugh did:  Justice Thurgood Marshall.  He was appointed to the Washington, D.C. Second Court of Appeals (again, like Kavanaugh) by Pres. George H.W. Bush.

 

Thomas’s formal confirmation hearings began on September 10, 1991. Thomas was reticent answering Senators’ questions during the appointment process, recalling what had happened to Robert Bork when Bork expounded on his judicial philosophy during his confirmation hearings four years earlier.  Thomas’s earlier writings had frequently referenced the legal theory of natural law; during his confirmation hearings Thomas limited himself to the statement that he regards natural law as a “philosophical background” to the Constitution.

After the conclusion of the confirmation hearings, an FBI interview with Anita Hill was leaked and the confirmation hearings were reopened. Hill, a black attorney, had worked for Thomas at the Department of Education and had subsequently followed Thomas to the EEOC. After the leak, Hill was called to testify at Thomas’s confirmation hearings. She testified that Thomas had subjected her to comments of a sexual nature, which she felt constituted sexual harassment or at least “behavior that is unbefitting an individual who will be a member of the Court.” Hill’s testimony included lurid details, and some Senators aggressively questioned her.

Thomas denied the allegations, saying:

 

“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, as far as I’m concerned 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.

 

Hill was the only person to testify at the Senate hearings that there had been unsolicited sexual advances. Angela Wright, who worked under Thomas at the EEOC before he fired her, decided not to testify, but submitted a written statement alleging that Thomas had pressured her for a date and had made comments about the anatomy of women. However, she said she did not feel his behavior was intimidating nor did she feel sexually harassed, though she allowed that “[s]ome other women might have.”  Also, Sukari Hardnett, a former Thomas assistant, wrote to the Senate committee, although Thomas had not harassed her, “If you were young, black, female and reasonably attractive, you knew full well you were being inspected and auditioned as a female.”

 

Other former colleagues testified on Thomas’s behalf. Nancy Altman, who shared an office with Thomas at the Department of Education, testified that she heard virtually everything Thomas said over the course of two years, and never heard any sexist or offensive comment. Altman did not find it credible that Thomas could have engaged in the conduct alleged by Hill without any of the dozens of women he worked with noticing it. Senator Alan K. Simpson questioned why Hill met, dined, and spoke by phone with Thomas on various occasions after they no longer worked together.

 

According to an independent review, there was a lack of convincing proof produced at the Senate hearings. After extensive debate, the Judiciary Committee split 7–7 on September 27, sending the nomination to the full Senate without a recommendation. Thomas was confirmed by a 52–48 vote on October 15, 1991, the narrowest margin for approval in more than a century. The final floor vote was: 41 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted to confirm while 46 Democrats and two Republicans voted to reject the nomination.

 

Pundits have shaken their heads for decades about the division in American politics.  Thanks to brainwashing by the education establishment from the earliest grades (yesterday was Columbus Day.  The Mayor of Columbus decided the city would not be celebrating the city’s namesake.  Revisionists declare Columbus was a racist slaveholder who “murdered” indigenous peoples, while never informing their students that the native peoples were even more savage, practicing slavery and child sacrifices to appease pagan gods.)

 

Columbus showed great courage in setting out across an uncharted ocean in search a shorter route to Asia.  The largest of the ships, the Santa Maria (owned by Juan de la Cosa), was about 58 feet in length, about 100 tons, with a single deck and three small masts.

 

A trailer on a semi-tractor trailer truck is about 48 feet.  With the addition of the truck (the semi-tractor), the length of the average truck is 65 feet.  So the Santa Maria was shorter in length than your average tractor-trailer truck.  Then put that in the heaving North Atlantic Ocean.

 

Columbus went to sea at the age of 10 and was widely travelled.  The thought is that he sailed as far north as England and Scandinavian, where he probably heard tales of Viking voyages to a land farther west. He became an expert seaman and navigator.  On the evening of August 3,1492, Columbus departed from Palos de la Frontera in Spain with three ships. The largest was a carrack, the Santa Maria.  The other two were smaller caravels. The name of one is lost: it is known today only by the Pinta, which in Castilian of the time meant “painted one.”  The Santa Clara was nicknamed affectionately the Nina  (“the little one” or “the girl” – all ships are given female names), a pun on the name of her owner, Juan Niño of Moguer.  The Pinta and the Niña were piloted by the Pinzoan brothers (Martin Alonso and Vicente Yanez).

 

Columbus called the island which he and his crew sited (in what is now the Bahamas) San Salvador (meaning “Holy Savior”); the natives called it Guanahani. Exactly which island in the Bahamas this corresponds to is unresolved. Based on primary accounts and on what one would expect from the geographic positions of the islands given Columbus’ course, the prime candidates are San Salvador Island (so named in 1925 on the theory that it was Columbus’s San Salvador), Samana Cay, and Plana Cays.

 

The indigenous people he encountered, the Lucayan, Taino and Arawak, were peaceful and friendly. He called the inhabitants of the lands that he visited indios (Spanish for “Indians”). Noting their gold ear ornaments, Columbus took some of the Arawaks prisoner and insisted that they guide him to the source of the gold.

 

From the entry in his journal of Oct. 12, 1492 (the official Columbus Day) in which he wrote of them: “Many of the men I have seen have scars on their bodies, and when I made signs to them to find out how this happened, they indicated that people from other nearby islands come to San Salvador to capture them; they defend themselves the best they can. I believe that people from the mainland come here to take them as slaves. They ought to make good and skilled servants, for they repeat very quickly whatever we say to them. I think they can very easily be made Christians, for they seem to have no religion. If it pleases our Lord, I will take six of them to Your Highnesses when I depart, in order that they may learn our language.”

 

Columbus noted that their primitive weapons and military tactics made them susceptible to easy conquest, writing, “these people are very simple in war-like matters … I could conquer the whole of them with 50 men, and govern them as I pleased.”  Columbus was a seaman and explorer, not Julius Caesar.  His comment probably was more in the nature of gentle mockery of the indigenous people’s inability to defend themselves than any great desire to “conquer” them.

 

Reteaching Columbus’ discovery of the New World would go a long way in recovering our united sense of culture in America.  If we can ever find the “unity” to “recapture” senates and assemblies in “blue” states, we could abolish the regulations requiring colleges to teach “sensitivity” courses.  These brainwashing seminars are designed to create division between the sexes, the races, and the classes.

 

Another cultural change, probably farther down the road, would be to bring back the neighborhood church.  Blockbusting strategies, going all the way back to Roger Williams (Rhode Island was the first colony to renounce its allegiance to Great Britain).  Williams objected to the stringent laws of the Puritan churches of Massachusetts.

 

A Puritan minister, theologian, and author who founded the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, he was a staunch advocate for religious freedom, separation of church and state, and fair dealings with American Indians, being a student of Indian languages, and he was one of the first abolitionists.

 

Williams was expelled by the Puritan leaders from the Massachusetts Bay Colony for spreading “new and dangerous ideas,” and he established the Providence Plantations in 1636 as a refuge offering what he called “liberty of conscience.” In 1638, he founded the First Baptists Church in America, also known as the First Baptist Church of Providence.

 

Williams took holy orders in the Church of England in connection with his studies, but he became a Puritan at Cambridge and thus ruined his chance for preferment in the Anglican church. After graduating from Cambridge, he became the chaplain to Sir William Masham.

 

Williams knew that Puritan leaders planned to migrate to the New World. He did not join the first wave, but he decided before the year ended that he could not remain in England under Archbishop William Laud’s rigorous administration. He regarded the Church of England as corrupt and false, and he had arrived at the Separatist position by the time that he and his wife boarded the Lyon in early December, 1630.

 

The Boston church offered Williams a post in 1631 filling in for Rev. John Wilson while Wilson returned to England to fetch his wife. However, Williams declined the position on grounds that it was “an unseparated church.”  In addition, he asserted that civil magistrates must not punish any sort of “breach of the first table” of the Ten Commandments such as idolatry, Sabbath-breaking, false worship, and blasphemy, and that individuals should be free to follow their own convictions in religious matters. These three principles became central to his teachings and writings: separatism, liberty of conscience, and separation of church and state.

 

As a Separatist, Williams considered the Church of England irredeemably corrupt and believed that one must completely separate from it to establish a new church for the true and pure worship of God. The Salem church was also inclined to Separatism, and they invited him to become their teacher. The leaders in Boston vigorously protested, and Salem withdrew its offer. As the summer of 1631 ended, Williams moved to Plymouth Colony where he was welcomed, and he informally assisted the minister there. He regularly preached and, according to Governor William Bradford, “his teachings were well approved”.

 

After a time, Williams decided that the Plymouth church was not sufficiently separated from the Church of England. Furthermore, his contact with the Narragansett Indians had caused him to question the validity of the colonial charters that did not include legitimate purchase of Indian land. Governor Bradford later wrote that Williams fell “into some strange opinions which caused some controversy between the church and him.”

 

In December 1632, Williams wrote a lengthy tract that openly condemned the King’s charters and questioned the right of Plymouth to the land without first buying it from the Indians. He even charged that King James had uttered a “solemn lie” in claiming that he was the first Christian monarch to have discovered the land. Williams moved back to Salem by the fall of 1633 and was welcomed by Rev. Samuel Skelton as an unofficial assistant.

 

The Massachusetts Bay authorities were not pleased at Williams’ return. In December 1633, they summoned him to appear before the General Court in Boston to defend his tract attacking the King and the charter. The issue was smoothed out, and the tract disappeared forever, probably burned. In August 1634, Williams became acting pastor of the Salem church, the Rev. Skelton having died. In March 1635, he was again ordered to appear before the General Court, and he was summoned yet again for the Court’s July term to answer for “erroneous” and “dangerous opinions”. The Court finally ordered that he be removed from his church position.

 

This latest controversy welled up as the town of Salem petitioned the General Court to annex some land on Marblehead Neck. The Court refused to consider the request unless the church in Salem removed Williams. The church felt that this order violated their independence, and sent a letter of protest to the other churches. However, the letter was not read publicly in those churches, and the General Court refused to seat the delegates from Salem at the next session. Support for Williams began to wane under this pressure, and he withdrew from the church and began meeting with a few of his most devoted followers in his home.

 

Finally, in October 1635, the General Court tried Williams and convicted him of sedition and heresy. They declared that he was spreading “diverse, new, and dangerous opinions” and ordered that he be banished. The execution of the order was delayed because Williams was ill and winter was approaching, so he was allowed to stay temporarily, provided that he ceased publicly teaching his opinions. He failed to do so, and the sheriff came in January 1636, only to discover that he had slipped away three days earlier during a blizzard. He traveled 55 miles through the deep snow, from Salem to Raynham, Mass., where the local Wampanoags offered him shelter at their winter camp. Their Sachem Massasoit hosted Williams for the three months until spring.

 

In the spring of 1636, Williams and a number of others from Salem began a new settlement on land which he had bought from Massasoit in Rumford, R.I. However, Plymouth authorities asserted that he was within their land grant and were concerned that his presence there might anger the leaders of Massachusetts Bay Colony. Williams and his friends had already planted their crops, but they decided to move across the Seekonk River just the same, as that territory lay beyond any charter.

 

They rowed across and encountered Narragansett Indians who greeted them with the phrase, “What cheer, Neetop” (hello, friend). Williams acquired land from Canonicus and Miantonomi, chief sachems of the Narragansetts. He and 12 “loving friends” then established a new settlement which Williams called “Providence” because he felt that God’s Providence had brought them there.  Williams named his third child Providence, the first to be born in the new settlement.

 

Williams wanted his settlement to be a haven for those “distressed of conscience”, and it soon attracted a collection of dissenters and otherwise-minded individuals. From the beginning, a majority vote of the heads of households governed the new settlement, but only in civil things. Newcomers could also be admitted to full citizenship by a majority vote. In August 1637, a new town agreement again restricted the government to civil things. In 1640, 39 freemen (men who had full citizenship and voting rights) signed another agreement which declared their determination “still to hold forth liberty of conscience”. Thus, Williams founded the first place in modern history where citizenship and religion were separate, providing religious liberty and separation of church and state. This was combined with the principle of majoritarian democracy.

 

This refers to democracy based upon majority rule of a society’s citizens. Majoritarian democracy is the conventional form of democracy used as a political system in many countries.

 

Though common, majoritarian democracy is not universally accepted – majoritarian democracy was famously criticized as having the inherent danger of becoming a “tyranny of the majority” whereby the majority in society could oppress or exclude minority groups, which can lead to violence and civil war.

 

In contrast to majoritarian democracy and the perceived danger of a tyranny of the majority, consensus democracy was developed in response that emphasizes rule by as many people as possible to make government inclusive, with a majority of support from society merely being a minimal threshold.

 

The authors of this opposition to “majoritarian democracy” are Marta Reynal-Querol, who wrote, “Defence and Peace Politics” in 2002.  (“According to our model the proportional system has a lower probability of rebellion than the majoritarian system. .. Empirically, we find that countries with proportional system has the lowest probability that groups rebel and that the more inclusive is the system, the smaller the probability of suffering a civil war. ”) and Peter Roman, who wrote “From Majority Rule to Inclusive Politics” in 2016 (“Unfortunately, one of the worst democratic structures is the most ubiquitous: majority rule based on majority voting. It must be emphasized, furthermore, that these two practices are often the catalysts of division and bitterness, if not indeed violence and war. ”).

 

Roman’s book was published by ChiZine publications, a Canadian-based publisher that specializes in dark, dystopian horror fiction.  Following is the description from their website:

ChiZine Publications is willing to take risks. We’re looking for the unusual, the interesting, the thought-provoking. We look for writers who are also willing to take risks, who want to take dark genre fiction to a new place, who want to show readers something they haven’t seen before. CZP wants to startle, to astound, to share the bliss of good writing with our readership.

 

We say “dark genre fiction” because too much time is spent fighting over SF vs. horror vs. fantasy. If there’re dragons, it’s fantasy . . .

 

Unless they’re bio-engineered dragons, then it’s SF . . .

 

But a dragon apocalypse might be horror . . .

 

We want stories using speculative elements—magic, technology, insanity, gods, or insane-magic-technology-gods all in one—to show the dark side of human nature. The good guy can feel—and act on—anger, hatred, vengeance just like the villain.  Heroes don’t always win, conclusions don’t always wrap things up nicely, and sometimes

 

Larger presses are sometimes forced to play it safe: plots and stories we’ve seen before, because that’s what the public seems to crave. Teenage vampire angst; multi-book sword and sorcery series; and spaceships, fleet admirals, and invading aliens. Sometimes it can feel like we’re all just reading the same stories, over and over, just in slightly different settings.

 

Right now, we’re seeing strong and original genre ideas, but too often they rely on standard plots, the same settings, and two-dimensional characters that serve the plot instead of having inner motivation. These are “safe” stories—not particularly challenging, and effortless to consume and digest.

 

Because we’re a smaller outfit, we can take some risks—find authors and manuscripts that are trying to move the genre forward.

 

CZP wants fiction that takes that next step forward. Horror that isn’t just gross or going for a cheap scare, but fundamentally disturbing, instilling a sense of true dread. Fantasy that doesn’t necessarily need spells or wizards to create a world far removed from ours, but that imbues the story with an otherworldly sense by knocking tropes on their heads. Science fiction that isn’t just about space travel and gadgets, but about what it means to be human—or what it means not to be.

 

We want to give our readers characters we genuinely care about. Stories that, if you removed the genre element, could still stand on their own.

 

“New weird” and “slipstream” are labels that come to mind, but despite any kind of moniker, above all, we’re out to publish well-written character-driven stories. The single most important quality we look for at CZP is resonance.

 

Only “From Majority Rule to Inclusive Politics” isn’t fiction; it’s a non-fiction political tome and one very much in sync with today’s Millennials and our Radical Media.  It’s a how-to-book apparently on how to undo our majority democracy.

 

This is what we need to combat.  We need informed students who understand that this kind of dystopian, divide-and-conquer mentality is unconscionable and dangerous in a truly free society.  Banning and burning books was Nazi Germany’s answer to Communist incursions, conveniently ignoring their own incursions into Austria and Czechoslovakia.

 

Majority rule might seem “unfair” if you’re in the minority.  But that depends on what the minority is insisting upon.  Redistribution of wealth?  Abolition of private property?  Collectivist regulation of every aspect of private life, thus destroying individual rights?  Censorship and destruction of freedom of speech?  Censure and punishment of views contrary to the “minority”?   Special “protections” for the minority in regard to the law?  The elimination of the presumption of innocence?  Of evidence?  Of due process?  Of a fair and speedy trial?

 

Conservatives have sat silent for far too long, taking their freedoms for granted, while Marxists activists in government went about the business of undermining our Constitution, stealing elections, and eliminating our physical borders.  If you thought our Constitution alone would protect us from them, you were wrong.  They’ve spent decades flouting the Constitution and our electoral process.  A corrupt Media has served as their vassals propagating their anti-American messages.

 

These last few weeks have illustrated just had deep the divide is between Moderate Republicans, Conservative Republicans, and Democrats.  The Democrats are sailing along on one huge iceberg, pretty much united.  They’re towing the Moderates along on a less solid iceberg, which wobbles with every Democrat fear tactic.  The Conservatives are sailing upon a smaller but more stable iceberg.  However, some of our voters appear to be swimming idly in the water waiting to see whether we’ll sink or not.

 

Those voters look at the Moderate iceberg wobbling in the water and they’re disgusted.  They look at what seems to be a smaller iceberg.  They’re unsure whether we’ll actually float if they climb onboard.  The Democrat Media gives a distorted picture of our iceberg, like the misleading photo of a Climate Change iceberg with the lone polar bear floating upon it, not showing all the other icebergs nearby.

 

It’s sink or swim, Americans.  Do not underestimate the importance of this, or any, midterm election.  Your vote counts; don’t give us that lazy excuse that it doesn’t.  We can’t do all the work here. You’ve seen for yourself what the Democrats are all about these past two weeks.

 

Is that the America you want?  Because that’s certainly what you’ll get if you don’t vote.

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements
Published in: on October 9, 2018 at 2:00 pm  Leave a Comment  

Blasey Ford: Have We Gotten the Picture Yet?

In politics, optics are everything.  To use the older saw:  a picture is worth a thousand words.

Dr. Fraud

Have people gotten the picture yet?  It took this shot to end any and all doubts about Blasey-Ford for this writer.  This cringe-worthy picture is what probably caused Brett Kavanaugh to state earnestly, “I believe something happened to her.”

Something that wasn’t necessarily sexual in nature.  The Republicans are using Ford’s “vulnerability” to attack the Democrats who used her, and more power to them if it helps unseat Dianne Feinstein, Maxine Waters whose calls for violent uprising just did irreparable damage to her party, and Chuck “The Weasel” Schumer.

Her lawyers are hoping that the Republican-Pundit backlash against Pres. Trump’s criticism of her will help the Democrats recover some of their credibility – and hers.   They claim Ford was “very hurt” by his “mockery” of her.  We women are very insulted by the undue credibility she was given by the Man World.

Our obsession with images helped distract us from the fact that there were several holes in Blasey-Ford’s account:

  • She couldn’t “remember” a single detail of the alleged incident that would help place her, much less Kavanaugh, at any crime scene.
  • That she had grown afraid of flying because of Kav’s alleged misconduct when she was 15 when, in fact, her ex-boyfriend told the FBI that she’s flown all over the world.
  • She works part-time at Stanford University as a psychology professor training future CIA agents how to trick a polygraph test.
  • Kavanaugh’s unfortunate high school yearbook entry was used as evidence against him, even though Blasey-Ford’s own high school yearbook had to be scrubbed from the Internet because it bragged of the same beer parties as Kavanaugh’s yearbook.
  • Ford’s account of who attended the party has changed several times. According to the Washington Post report, Ford’s therapist’s “notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room.” Ford’s polygraph contradicts this statement.  In her polygraph she said here were “four boys and a couple of girls at the party.” During her testimony on Thursday, Ford revised her Whats App conversation with the Washington Post reporter “to clarify that more than four people may have been present at the party in question and that an individual named ‘PJ’ was not a ‘bystander’ to her alleged attack and that she does not allege that he knew about it.”
  • Ford says she did not name Kavanaugh in her therapy sessions. Her husband, however, told the Washington Post that Kavanaugh did come up during the sessions. As the Washington Post report said, “In an interview, her husband, Russell Ford, said that in the 2012 sessions … he recalled that his wife used Kavanaugh’s last name and voiced concern that Kavanaugh — then a federal judge — might one day be nominated to the Supreme Court.”
  • Ford referred several times to the hippocampus, the center of the brain that holds emotion and memory, and that it aids in searing trauma into that part of the brain. However, the only things that seem seared into her brain are things that mar Kavanaugh — not anything that could prove her allegations such as the exact year, day, time of day, how she arrived at the party, how she got home from several miles away, or the name of the fourth person she remembers attending the gathering.
  • Blasey-Ford claimed the reason for entering couples counseling in 2012 was a disagreement over installing a second front door on their home. She claimed the reason was the “latent” claustrophobia she was experiencing from Kavanaugh’s attack on her.   But, the Fords bought the house in June 2007.  She admitted that the house did not look “aesthetically pleasing from the curb.”  The house underwent four years of remodeling, including the additions of rooms (two rooms and a bathroom ) for another resident (a couples therapist) with its own entrance that violated the local building code at the time, according to RealClearPolitics.  This addition constituted a “rental property” which violated the building codes.  So was the second door an escape for Christine Blasey Ford’s terrors or was documenting her terrors a ruse for sneaking a rental unit through tough local zoning ordinances? And if the second door allowed access and egress for the tenant of a second housing unit, rather than for the primary resident, how did the door’s existence ameliorate Ford’s professed claustrophobia?   RealClearPolitcs asks whether the second door was “an escape for Christine Blasey-Ford’s terrors or was documenting her ‘terrors” a ruse for sneaking a rental unit through touch local zoning ordinances.  And if this [third] door allowed access and egress for the tenant of a second housing unit, rather than for the primary resident, how did [that] door’s existent ameliorate Ford’s professed claustrophobia?”  In fact, wouldn’t a third door have heightened that terror?
  • Why an “anonymous” letter? How could a woman with a PhD possibly think that such a claim could be made against Kavanaugh without naming the accuser?  Was she a puppet of her Soros-sponsored lawyers and the Democrat Party?  Or did she see herself as a “martyr” to the cause of bring down a Supreme Court nominee whom she opposed as a research psychologist who worked as a consultant to a pharmaceutical firm that produced the chemicals present in abortion drugs?

 

Additionally, why were none of her students, former students, former classmates, former teachers, co-workers and neighbors questioned as to her character?  How could anyone simply accept her testimony without questioning her character and credibility?  The Democrats point to the behavior of prosecution lawyers who “grill victims” on the stand about whether they “enjoyed” the experience.

 

The woman in the trial in which I sat was asked that appalling question.  It was years ago.  I couldn’t believe my ears.  None of the rest of the jury could believe it either, as I recall.  I can’t imagine what lawyer today thinks that kind of questioning is going to fly with a jury, whether we believe the rest of the accuser’s testimony or not.   Women’s rights groups are right to object to that line of questioning.

 

But to not question the rest of the accuser’s character is unfair to the defendant.  Well, were you drinking at the party, honey?  Did you come with a friend or friends?  Or did you come alone?  Did you agree to go off alone with this guy?  Did anyone else see you go off with him?  Can anyone else even place the defendant at the party or bar, particularly the bartender?  That’s in the case of party or date rape.  Street assault is another matter altogether.  But even there, in the case I saw, the woman did in fact break down and admit to making the whole story up against the defendant.

 

Yeah, sometimes a guy can be a jerk.  Those guys send plenty of signals long before they take the first drink, though.  There are plenty of other guys, on the other hand, decent men who are willing to overturn a car or put their fists through the window in order to save a true damsel in distress (you guys at William Paterson College, 1982 – you were true heroes!  Even if the girl in the green car can’t thank you, I do!)

 

We owe it to all the decent men of America not to let the Democrats, the Marxists, their Blasey-Ford puppets, and the Screamers to get away with overturning American precepts of justice – the presumption of innocence on the party of the defendant, the right to face your accusers, the presentation of strong evidence and witnesses, and the finding of guilty only beyond a reasonable doubt – beyond the appearance of a seemingly sympathetic witness.

 

President Trump was right not only to get behind his nominee, Brett Kavanaugh (who is only one step short now of officially becoming “Justice Kavanaugh,”) but to challenge Kavanaugh’s accuser, Professor Christine Blasey-Ford (she doesn’t deserve to be addressed by the prenomen “Doctor” – that term is reserved for medical doctors).

 

There is every reason in the world to doubt her testimony as well as her sanity, given how she behaved before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  To someone who has seen it happen, there’s every reason in the world not to believe her story at all and in fact, to believe she’s an outright liar, perjuring herself for the sake of becoming a martyr in the cause of allowing all women in the future of being “heard” without having to be believed, without having to provide evidence, witnesses, or credibility.

 

Don’t believe it?  Take another look at that picture at the top of the blog (suckers).

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

Published in: on October 8, 2018 at 3:32 pm  Leave a Comment  

Senate Passes Procedural Vote on Kavanaugh

The U.S. Senate morning passed on the procedural vote to consider Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court for a full vote sometime tomorrow evening.

 

The vote was close.  One Republican – Lisa Murkowski (Alaska-R) – voted “No;” one Democrat, Joe Manchin (West Va.-D), voted “Yes.”  Ninety-eight of the senators are split right down the middle, 49-49.  Only Murkowski and Susan Collins (Maine-R) have not revealed their vote; Murkowski has declared already that she’s a “No” vote.

 

Today’s ‘cloture’ vote passed by a simple majority.  Until a few years ago, when Democrat Majority Leader Harry Reid changed the rules, judicial nominees needed 60 votes.  Reid took his precedent-setting action, dubbed “The Nuclear Option” to help then-president Barack Obama; Republicans then expanded it to include Supreme Court nominees.

 

Susan Collins is known to be a RINO (Republican-In-Name-Only) as is Murkowski.  GOP advisers advised Pres. Trump to hush his mouth about criticizing “Doctor” Ford lest Collins or Murkowski be offended and their votes for Kavanaugh lost.  At his rally last night, he made no mention of Ford, content to express his support for Kavanaugh.

 

Meanwhile, the Harpies are on the march, threatening any Senator who votes for Kavanaugh, or opposes their point of view.  Some no-name “celebrity” – Amy Schumer – was recorded giving the Communist clenched-fist salute to the camera.  She’s a stand-up comedian who got her own show – “Inside Amy Schumer” – on Comedy Central, one of the premier outlets for Leftist news.

 

Well, she was arrested by the Capitol Police, along with some 300-plus other protesters.  Maybe Comedy Central will rename her show “Amy Schumer Inside.”

 

Every Republican candidate should get hold of these Harpy Channel and start running them in their campaign ads.   They should ask their constituents – or potential constituents – if this is the kind of America they want.  Today, Senators were harassed, ambushed, and threatened.  Tomorrow, it could be average Americans.

 

This is what happens in Third World, Communist countries.  That’s not how things are supposed to happen here in the United States of America.  And no, you can’t move to New Zealand.  Or Australia.  They have better immigration laws there.  You have to already have a job lined up before they’ll let you in.

 

Real Americans don’t take over Senate buildings.  They don’t scream at legislators whom they’ve trapped in elevators.  They don’t have time to take a bus to Washington, D.C. the way George Soros’ paid activists do.  I’d go to Washington and take them on – if someone paid me to.

 

No, we express our opinion at the voting booth.  Not on the streets.  Not in elevators.  Not in our bras and panties.  We write letters to the editor (good luck with that, since most newspapers are Democrat-managed).  We write blogs.  We post on Facebook and Twitter.  We join the Tea Party, often female-run and organized.  Note to Sen. Warren:  you sure don’t speak for us.  Just try us.

 

Sane women don’t falsely accuse men of sexual crimes.  If a man does attack us, we call the police.  If it’s a domestic situation, we get out – and disappear, if we can.  If it’s some jerk in the office, we ignore his stupid jokes, but head on down to HR if really lays hands on us or demands sex-for-work.  In which case, once we get to HR, we call his wife, our lawyer, and the nearest employment agency.  Well, you do if he’s a manager.

 

Sane women don’t need the federal government to help them get a pay raise, let a man know where the line is and what’ll happen if he crosses it, or fight any of their fights for them.  We can pretty much take care of ourselves.  Maybe not at night down a dark road or alley, alone.  But then a woman who does something like that isn’t sane, anyway.

 

Walk softly but carry a can of mace or pepper spray, a monopod and a cellphone.

 

We Americans allowed this to go on for far longer than we should have.  But back in the 1970s, we didn’t have a voice or a platform to use it.  There were three major, Marxist-oriented networks and city newspapers which had been taken over by the Marxists and their unions back in the Thirties.  They ran any opposition newspaper into bankruptcy.

 

In the 1980s, we had Ronald Reagan.  He got our economy up and running (today we have the lowest unemployment rate since 1969 – thank you, former Presidents Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy).  We went to work.  President Reagan was excoriated abominably by the Press and the nascent Media, which included radio broadcasters.  Back then, we only had venerable radio broadcaster Bob Grant, who was put off onto night radio, where he’d have the fewest listeners.  I was one of them, though.  He passed away in December 2013 (RIP).

 

By the end of the decade we had Rush Limbaugh.  He was like a comet in the sky of Conservative radio.  Maybe he’s not too concerned about African Elephants.  But he is concerned about Conservative Elephants.  A whole host of broadcasters joined him – Glenn Beck (at first on CNN, then Fox News, and then when Fox dumped him for being too outspoken he started his own cable television show, until that network provider dropped him).  Michael Savage.  Mark Steyn.  Mark Levin (definitely the cranky heir to Bob Grant! 😊  Sean Hannity.  Curtis Sliwa was already out there.  I used to listen to him in the mornings when I worked.  I was listening to him and that Liberal guy on 9/11.  They’re all funny, but Sliwa really takes the prize for New Yorker humor.  No one does sarcasm like a New Yorker.  Too funny.

 

Thank goodness the Internet came along in the 1990s.   Limbaugh was accessible only to people at home by their radios.  Ditto Glenn Beck and the others.  Levin is on during the Evening Rush Hour.  He’s a dead-pan New Yorker, too.  By the time I “retired” radio programs – and videos – were easily accessible on our computers.  Tablets.  Notebooks.  Even cell phones.

 

We don’t have to let the Left get away with their despicable tactics any longer.  We can lampoon them.  We can criticize them.  We can splash their idiocy all over Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube.  Go ahead, Amy Schumer.  Pump that Marxist fist.  Because I can spread YOUR photo all over the Internet alongside that of Lee Harvey Oswald (the alleged assassin of Pres. John F. Kennedy) giving the photographers the clenched fist (in those days, we knew it to be the Communist Clenched Fist, not the renamed and rebranded Black Power Salute, or Power Fist, or whatever lie the Left is telling you it represents.

 

It’s the clenched fist used by Marxists worldwide since 1917.  They own it.

 

Here you are:

Amy Schumer                               Lee Harvey Oswald

 

Peter Grahm, Dublin Marxist       Anders Behring Breivik

Peter Graham, Dublin Marxist            Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian “Far-                                                                                        right” Terrorist – guess he was confused

Just to show you how ignorant people are about the Power Salute, here’s our own President Trump doing it:

Pres Trump

Don’t do that again, sir.  Please.  You’re not one of them.

 

As you can see, none of these people are Black.  But they are obsessed with capital “P” Power.  Well, Trump was just misinformed.  They’ll stop at nothing to gain power over us.  They want to control over every movement.  They don’t want to control their own, though, and they certainly don’t want US to control them.  If we continue to allow the Democrat-Marxists to run our government, the threats will continue and the fear they instill will grow exponentially.

 

They’re making an example of Kavanaugh and any Senators who support him.  Once upon a time both Korea and Vietnam were united countries.  The Marxists, like the Nazis before they infiltrated those respective countries, murdered or imprisoned their political opponents, and menaced the general population.  Yeah, Vietnam was a democracy.  It stopped being a democracy when the Communists took over the countries, murdered uncounted (by the press) millions, murdered or jailed their opposition, and then proceeded to invade South Vietnam (and South Korea), where they were trying to make inroads.

 

They had the support of the worldwide press, unions, university professors, China, and our own Congress.  The national networks played out the war on our home television sets along with the protests and riots, and intimidated the American people into caving on their support of democracy.  Millions of people were also murdered in Cambodia, were there was more resistance against a Communist regime and support for bombing raids into Viet Nam.  The name was always two words, not one.  One name helped the press convey the sense that Viet Nam is unified now that it’s a collective, communist union.  In a pig’s eye.

 

That’s why we have divisions now.  That’s why we had divisions back in the Sixties.  Just because the Marxist protestors have freedom of speech – and abuse that right abominably to include violence and intimidation – doesn’t mean we have to listen to them or that we can respond.

 

We have the power – we’ve always had the power – and now the platform – to oppose them.  We don’t need to relive the Sordid Sixties.  We don’t need to cower before their theatrics of the absurd, disgusting and depraved, sinking into submissive silence.

 

The President shouldn’t have been shushed.  What?  We’re afraid of Susan Collins, the RINO Republican?  That she might not vote for Kavanaugh?  Well, maybe the Maine GOP should have backed a Conservative candidate instead of thinking they could make deals with such enemies of freedom and true justice.  The New Jersey GOP should be rethinking their strategy, too.  Or maybe New Jersey Republicans should start thinking about creating the nation’s first state Conservative party.

 

How do we combat super-organizers like the evil, Marxist George Soros, a financial billionaire who turned all his ill-gotten gains toward creating a global Communist state?  His minions can pass out street money like its candy, especially in the inner cities where illegal immigrants enter the voting booths with impunity.

 

If we don’t pay attention to this particular mid-term election (people keep making the mistake of dismissing them) and the Republicans, particularly Conservative Republicans, lose, we’ll have a Democrat-controlled Congress that will defeat or undo Pres. Trump’s agenda.  The most important item is illegal immigration.  We will see a flood of illegal immigrants from Third World Marxist nations whom we will never stand another chance of removing from our borders.

 

The Democrats are trying to shame us and our representatives into accepting their inevitability by saddling us with phobic adjectives like Xenophobic and Homophobic, and their long list of -ists:  racist, sexist, nativist, etc.  Nativist.  That’s a laugh.  Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska-RINO) probably sees herself as a champion of women’s rights and a leader against sexual assault (Alaska ranks No. 1 in sexual assaults).

 

Guess who those Alaskan women-bashers are?  The native Eskimos.

 

We’ve been pushing back against the Demo-Marxists.  We elected a tough, no-nonsense man to the presidency:  Donald J. Trump.  A Capitalist!!  Horrors!  The Marxists are furious.  Just to show how “divided” we are, they’ve taken to the streets, harassing and intimidating even such wimpy Republicans as Jeff Flake.  They drove Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas-R) and his wife out of a public restaurant.  Didn’t the Cruz’ pay for that dinner?  Where was the restaurant owner to protect his customers’ rights?

 

This is their idea of democracy.  That’s what true democracy is about, actually:  every voter participating in every vote.  Every single vote.  We already have trouble getting voters out to the polls.  Can you imagine if every voter had to be ready to vote on every question put before their municipal, state or federal government.  You’d have chaos.  That’s we live in a federated republic.  The Marxists believe only violent action can bring about the change that they want.

 

Just like in Viet Nam.  And in Russia.  China.  Cuba.  Czechoslovakia.  Hungary.  Korea.  Central and South America.  Democrats like John Kerry supported the Marxist Sandinistas in Nicaragua in the 1980s.  Congress tried to criminalize United States support for the Contra rebels, those opposed to the new Marxist government.  Former Pres. Obama reopened the United States Embassy in Havana, Cuba.  Closing it again was among Pres. Trump’s first, brave acts.  Bravo, Pres. Trump.

 

Pres. Nixon first opened the doors to trade with China.  Companies like Westinghouse quickly discovered just how corrupt and ruthless the Chinese Communists could be.  Vice President Mike Pence just announced a renegotiated trade deal with China that promises fairer trade.  The Chinese were selling Western companies corrupted computers through which China could steal intellectual data.  In regard to Westinghouse, the company took in Chinese workers who quickly stole Westinghouse’s plans and ideas, then built identical Chinese plants given favorable status by the Communist Party in order to out-sell Westinghouse.

 

Sen. Joe McCarthy was disgraced in the press and the Senate for charging a group of Communist spies within the U.S. Army.  He was right.  He also accused many of the leading writers of the day with being Communist moles.  He was right about them, too.  But he didn’t stand a chance against a Marxist press and was driven out of office, a broken man.

 

The Communists had a harder time silencing the author of The Gulag Archipelago, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.  He described the horrible conditions of the political prisons in the Soviet Union, into which anyone who even mildly rebuked the Communist Party was thrown.  His novel, written between 1958 and 1968, was smuggled out to the West for publication.

 

If you don’t think the Marxists aren’t still a danger, in spite of the downfall of the Soviet Union, take another look at Amy Schumer’s clenched fist.  And then sit down with Solzhenitsyn and be prepared to be truly horrified.

 

Amy Schumer is only the tip of the Communist iceberg trying to sink the United States.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Published in: on October 5, 2018 at 3:28 pm  Leave a Comment  

Trump Was “Mean” to Blasey-Ford

“You will be assimilated.  Resistance is futile”  The Borg.  Star Trek television series

 

The consensus from graduates of Sensitivity Training courses in college and seminars is in:  President Trump “mocked” Christine Blasey-Ford’s Senate Judiciary Committee testimony:  Trump was “mean.”

 

Since sometime in the Eighties – mercifully after I graduated from college – most college freshman have been required to take “sensitivity” courses:  Blacks and Minorities, Women, and White, Western Cultural Privilege.  They’ve probably added Deviant Sexuality courses since then.

 

These brainwashing seminar courses are designed to ensure that no one ever criticizes, questions, or even looks the wrong way at one of those protected groups.  Thus the response to Trump’s comments at a Mississippi rally:  They’re shocked – shocked! – that Trump would attack poor, vulnerable, world-traveling, CIA polygraph trainer Christine Blasey-Ford.

 

The Democrats and RINOs have taken these “protected” groups and wrapped them in cotton-batting from being criticized politically.  We can thank the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for this eroding of our justice system.  Since then, the requirement is that women and Blacks must be taken at their word during criminal trials.

 

Unless you’re the Central Park Jogger.  Black thugs trump women beaten into comas.

 

These seminars have been very effective in intimidating outgroups like men into compliance.  That’s what they call it in the corporate world:  “Compliance.”  Never mind touching a woman, if you’re a man.  Just tell her she looks nice and she’ll be in Human Resources before you can say “Hugh Hefner”.  Her first call will be to your wife, the second to her lawyer.

 

It’s not that men can’t be jerks.  But we can handle them without literally turn it into a big FBI case.  Unless they actually touch you (or worse – demand your services in exchange for your job), let it go.  We need to stop acting like prissy little girls.  Is the office jerk telling an off-color joke?  Walk away from him.  Deprive him of his audience.  That’s all there is to it.  It’s one of life’s annoyances, not a federal case.

 

We’re acting like prissy little girls because the Liberals pat us on the hands like we are prissy little girls and say, “There, there!”  When my brothers acted like jerks and I complained, my parents told me to stop whining.  I was reacting like a prissy little girl.

 

Kavanaugh acted like a man at the hearings.  He didn’t take the false accusations lying down.  Sure he was angry.  Like the President, that’s what we’re looking for.  A man who’ll stand up for himself will stand up for others.  It wasn’t belligerence, arrogance, or some anger-management issue; it was righteous indignation.

 

New Jersey Sen. Leonard Lance (7th Distr.-R) was forced to backtrack his defense of President Trump.  President Trump doesn’t really need to be defended, because he was right.  Our August United States Congress, and their state-level cohorts have been sensitivity-trained right out of their common sense minds.

 

They’re not worried about justice or legal precepts.  They’re worried about optics, which the Democrat machine controls.  The Democrat machine pulls up skewed polls claiming that women don’t like Donald Trump and Republican Senators get the willies.

 

Those are what I call “The Montclair Mommies.”  Montclair (New Jersey) women have a certain look, a certain carriage that makes them stand out like mannequins in the western New Jersey suburbs.  These ultra-liberal women wanted to be “heard” at our Tea Party in Morristown.

 

I warned the organizers about her.  I had her pegged the moment she walked in the door.  I was right, too.  I countered her arguments until she harrumphed out the door.

 

President Trump had Blasey-Ford cold.  To every question that would pin down the incident, she replied, “I can’t remember.”  She admitted, though, to prepping a friend for a polygraph test.  It turns out that the friend (who subsequently denied Ford’s ex-boyfriend’s claim), a “beach friend” who helped her fabricate anti-Kavanaugh smears just happened to be a FBI PR representative in the office of Preet Bharara, who used to work for Charles Schumer on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

 

The FBI report has been released.  At Dianne Feinstein’s insistence, there’s only one copy, only Judiciary Committee members are allowed to see it, and they cannot duplicate it in any way or report on its contents.  Former FBI agents on Fox News have reminded viewers that it is only a report on the interviews of witnesses into Blasey-Ford’s particular accusations against Brett Kavanaugh, not an “investigation.”

 

The Democrats have had not just a chilling effect on freedom of speech and our system of justice; they’ve turned the temperature down to absolute zero.  Congresswoman Maxine Waters (43rd Distr.-Calif.) urged Marxist activists to hunt down any Senators, Congressional representatives, staffers, and administration officials and harass them emotionally and physically to make sure they “comply” with the Democrat agenda.

 

In their cocooned world, Pres. Trump’s criticism of Blasey-Ford was “shocking” to Republican Senators and Congresspersons.  As their knees quake, they worry that the Media will make hay of his remarks.  Last night on Fox Business News Network, Lou Dobbs asked a guest Senator whether he really thought Trump’s comments were mean.

The senator gave poor Dobbs the “silent shaming” treatment by turning to another subject.  In this political climate, perhaps that senator can’t be blamed for avoiding answering the question – at least he didn’t condemn the president.   Today, anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of the Media. Politicians also have to assume that a certain percentage of their staffers and volunteers are moles (if they don’t suspect anyone, they’re pretty stupid).

But the non-answer (given with a smug smile) left poor Varney flapping in the wind.  Never mind, Mr. Varney.  Wait until the FBI report comes out?  Well since we’re never going to see it, we just have to depend upon what Blasey-Ford and Kavanaugh said.  Which was pretty much she said (nothing) and he said (I didn’t do it).k

Plenty of real-world people, though, are angry that Blasey-Ford was given any air time.  So much for waiting for the FBI report.  Real people don’t suffer liars gladly.  We watch enough television to recognize an actress when we see one, and Ford’s character and background were dubious enough to warrant skepticism on the part of the Conservative public

I’m STILL waiting for the Democrats to tune up their violins in sympathy for the Central Park Jogger, Trisha Meili.  All I hear from both sides is crickets.  The attack occurred during the administration of New York Mayor Ed Koch – a Democrat.  Crime was running rampant in the city.  Mentally ill people menaced pedestrians and commuters.  It was a Murder City.

Well, Sen. Mitch McConnell is ordering the full-Senate cloture vote for tomorrow, or at the very latest, this weekend.

This soap opera cannot end soon enough.  As for President Trump, he showed fire and spirit.  That’s why we voted for him.

The lack of that same fire and spirit is why Conservatives don’t turn out for Republicans in the Mid-Terms.

 

 

Published in: on October 4, 2018 at 12:12 pm  Leave a Comment  

Saint Blasey-Ford and the Gospel of Victimhood

A dean at the Catholic University of America has been suspended over tweets that “called into question the validity of some accusations of sexual assault” against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh the Washington, D.C., school’s president said.

Will Rainford, who has led the university’s School of Social Service since 2013, was suspended for the remainder of the semester over the tweets that President John Garvey said were “unacceptable” and “demonstrated a lack of ‘sensitivity’ to the ‘victim.”

“The Catholic University of America has no position on the Kavanaugh matter,” Garvey said in a statement Friday.

“But let there be no doubt that our University, and particularly our National Catholic School of Social Service, has a special concern for every victim and survivor of sexual assault.”

Rainford has since deleted his Twitter and Facebook accounts, but the student newspaper, The Tower, captured a screenshot of one of the posts targeting Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick.

Then there’s Congressman Leonard Lance (NJ-7th Distr, Lakewood; R)

According to a report by Scott Applewhite, of the Associated Press:

“Some of the most influential women leaders in New Jersey are denouncing comments made by Rep. Leonard Lance (R-7), who was caught on tape saying that he ‘tends not to believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. Dr. Ford testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding her allegation of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh today.

“Not only should everyone who has a serious allegation be heard, the ongoing legitimacy of our Supreme Court hinges upon the handling of this hearing,” said First Lady Tammy Murphy. “I believe Dr. Ford — she is compelling, credible and an unwilling participant here who is stepping up and performing a heroic feat of civic duty. Sadly, even before Dr. Ford testified today,

Congressman Lance dismissed Dr. Ford’s credibility and said he doesn’t believe her.

Congressman Lance’s time is up, and it’s time for new leadership in Congress. That’s why I’m supporting Tom Malinowski, a fighter for women, and a person who would take the honorable steps to absolutely ensure a citizen is heard, and a proper investigation would follow.”

“Sexual assault is the most traumatic experience any woman could be forced to live with and questioning the credibility of a victim is simply unacceptable,” said Lieutenant Governor Sheila Oliver.

“The nation watched as Dr. Ford provided hours of emotional testimony today detailing Judge Kavanaugh’s attack on her so he could be held accountable for his actions and ensure the next judge appointed to the Supreme Court will protect the values of all Americans. Congressman Lance’s attempt to further humiliate Dr. Ford is intolerable and not representative of New Jersey values. It is clear we need new leadership in the Seventh Congressional District to protect and defend the rights of women.”

“It doesn’t surprise me that Congressman Leonard Lance is falling in lock step with the good old boy’s club of his Republican party on Judge Kavanaugh. He said he ‘tends not believe the charges.’ How much more outrageous can it get?” said Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg. “He already formed an opinion without hearing her testimony! Dr. Ford is a courageous and brave young woman — She has chosen to come forward, disrupt her family, her life, her privacy and her safety to recount these traumatic events in front of Congress. These comments from Leonard Lance are irresponsible and wreak with partisanship without any regard for the survivor of a sexual assault — this is exactly why he should not be representing us in Congress. This is why we need Tom Malinowski. And we need him NOW!”

Gee, Sen. Feinstein declared before hearing Kavanaugh’s testimony that she wouldn’t give it any credit. Blasey-Ford’s story was already all over the media.

“I think Judge Kavanaugh is a brilliant judge, and I tend not to believe the charges,” Lance is heard saying in an audio clip that became part of a digital advertisement released by Tom Malinowski, Lance’s Democratic opponent.

Lance, in an interview, said that his comments had been taken out of context. “I spoke about a minute and I think, what did they use, six seconds?” he said.

He said he had made the comments after Ford’s lawyers initially said she would not testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“I take the charges seriously,” Lance said. “It’s important that both sides be heard. And that was my point last week. I tend not to believe any person who says, ‘I’m sorry, I’m not going to testify on it.’ As a matter of due process, those who make serious allegations should testify, and the person against whom the allegations have been made should be able to testify as well.”

Then there are the students at the University Texas-Austin who gathered together for a rally in support of Kavanaugh. According to a report by The College Fix.com:

“Signs ripped up in anger. Chants of ‘We believe survivors.” Furious finger pointing.

“A large group of students became enraged Tuesday afternoon by a pro-Brett Kavanaugh tabling effort at the University of Texas at Austin put together by its Young Conservatives of Texas chapter. A crowd of furious students encircled the group and yelled at its members while chanting obscenities and destroying their signs.

“The conservative group had decided to set up a ‘Confirm Kavanaugh’ display in an effort to show support for the embattled U.S. Supreme Court judge nominee and argue for the need for corroborating evidence, said student Anthony Dolcefino, vice chairman of the group.

Then there’s Sen. Jeff Flake (RINO-R, Ariz.) who was mobbed by a group of women (probably Code Pink) and “shamed” for agreeing to vote in favor of Brett Kavanaugh. When he returned to the Senate chamber, he changed his vote from “Yes” to “Conditional Yes” if the FBI was ordered to investigate Blasey-Ford’s claim. Well, we never really trusted him to begin with. What’s the matter with you, Arizonans? Has the sun been too hot?

And yesterday Pres. Trump expressed extreme doubts about Blasey-Ford’s allegations, which was met with denunciation by the Left (naturally) and the “Mild-Mannered” on the Right. He was accused of “mocking” Blasey-Ford. Aww.

What do they all have in common?

They regained their sanity and tossed out the Democrat talking points of “Believe the Woman.”

The Democrats and their Marxist activists will stop at nothing to intimidate anyone who doesn’t agree with them. Right around the time Brett Kavanaugh was NOT doing anything to anyone, I was working at big shopping mall anchor store.

The Marxists were agitating to unionize the store. I was in college and well-versed in Conservatism. I knew all the arguments against Communism. Late one night (around 10:30), my supervisor came over to me. She said another girl (about my age) was afraid to go out to the parking lot because a union agitator was outside.

I told the supervisor no problem; I’d walk with the girl.

The girl asked me if I was scared of him (it was a guy.) Not a bit. She thought I was very brave. So I told what we were going to do.

Once we were outside, I immediately confronted him and drew him away from the other girl. That was her cue to run for her car. While he was blathering on, she got to her car. He realized what had happened and ran after her. She screamed got into her car just as he reached the door.

The girl made her escape while I stood on the sidewalk, laughing. The agitator cursed me. I just laughed again and went to my car.

Once you realize they’re full of hot air and you can counter their social justice arguments, there’s nothing to fear. Not exactly. They are violent. Marxists have always been violent. In the Thirties, they burned out businesses that refused to unionize and often murdered the owners.

My older brother filled in for striking workers at his company. He had to hire extra security to protect him and he carried an enormous wrench or screwdriver.

This propensity for violence and intimidation is the main reason why the Marxists, Socialists, whatever you want to call them, must be defeated at the polls. This year. The idea that any and all women must be “believed” no matter the circumstances must be abolished thoroughly if our republic is to survive.

The Democrats are established liars. They have no scruples, no integrity, and no respect for anyone who disagrees with them and their agenda. What an insult to real victims of sexual assault, like Trish Meisli, the Central Park Jogger, beaten within an inch of her life in April 1989 during a riot in Central Park and left for dead.

Did the Leftist Media show Meisli sympathy? Not a bit of it. All their sympathy was for the black thugs who initially accused. They were found guilty of beating and attacking other people – women – in New York’s Central Park. They claimed that the NYPD had “forced” a confession out of them.

Ultimately, the DNA found did not match that of the accused. Now the Liberal Media was really up in arms. They blamed Meisli’s boyfriend for the attack, which was absurd. Only after the black guys had been cleared and the trial was off the radar, was it revealed that someone else’s DNA was discovered, that did not belong to the boyfriend.

Someone else finally “confessed” to the crime, conveniently, after the statute of limitations had run out, just like it had for Blasey-Ford. So where’s the sympathy for Meisli? I’m still waiting. Where’s the sympathy for the poor girl in the Green Car at William Paterson College?

She refused to get out of the car. The door was open on her side, so there was nothing the campus police could do for her. I personally tried to talk her into getting out. We would help her (a big crowd had gathered). We would drive her home, or anywhere she wanted to go. But still, she shook her sadly.

We’re under no obligation to “believe” any accuser, male or female, without the evidence.

Congratulations to all those who have spoken about their doubts about Blasey-Ford’s credibility. President Trump has restored my faith in his credulity.

This attack on our judicial system, from top (nominating candidates to the Supreme Court) to bottom (the importance of factual evidence), by the Democrats is why we should never trust them again. We need to stand firm and vote them completely out of office (beginning with California’s Dianne Feinstein, who withheld the “anonymous” letter until the last minute).

We must not be afraid to stand for the truth and denounce liars. Even if we’re thrown out of the courtroom. Or fined for contempt of court. Or mobbed by Code Pink harpies. Or defiled by female politicians seeking political gain. (Or shut down by Marxist hackers.)

Interestingly, one of Blasey-Ford’s boyfriends has told the FBI that he was a witness as Ford coached a friend on how to game the polygraph test. It seems she is a part-time instructor in CIA obfuscation at Stanford University.

Nor is she afraid of flying. Nor did she ever tell him about any attack by Brett Kavanaugh.4

The Gospel of Victimhood

 

A dean at the Catholic University of America has been suspended over tweets that “called into question the validity of some accusations of sexual assault” against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh the Washington, D.C., school’s president said.

 

Will Rainford, who has led the university’s School of Social Service since 2013, was suspended for the remainder of the semester over the tweets that President John Garvey said were “unacceptable” and “demonstrated a lack of ‘sensitivity’ to the ‘victim.”

 

“The Catholic University of America has no position on the Kavanaugh matter,” Garvey said in a statement Friday.

 

“But let there be no doubt that our University, and particularly our National Catholic School of Social Service, has a special concern for every victim and survivor of sexual assault.”

 

Rainford has since deleted his Twitter and Facebook accounts, but the student newspaper, The Tower, captured a screenshot of one of the posts targeting Kavanaugh accuser Julie Swetnick.

 

Then there’s Congressman Leonard Lance (NJ-7th Distr, Lakewood; R)

 

According to a report by Scott Applewhite, of the Associated Press:

 

“Some of the most influential women leaders in New Jersey are denouncing comments made by Rep. Leonard Lance (R-7), who was caught on tape saying that he ‘tends not to believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford.  Dr. Ford testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding her allegation of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh today.

 

“Not only should everyone who has a serious allegation be heard, the ongoing legitimacy of our Supreme Court hinges upon the handling of this hearing,” said First Lady Tammy Murphy. “I believe Dr. Ford — she is compelling, credible and an unwilling participant here who is stepping up and performing a heroic feat of civic duty. Sadly, even before Dr. Ford testified today,

 

Congressman Lance dismissed Dr. Ford’s credibility and said he doesn’t believe her.

 

Congressman Lance’s time is up, and it’s time for new leadership in Congress. That’s why I’m supporting Tom Malinowski, a fighter for women, and a person who would take the honorable steps to absolutely ensure a citizen is heard, and a proper investigation would follow.”

 

“Sexual assault is the most traumatic experience any woman could be forced to live with and questioning the credibility of a victim is simply unacceptable,” said Lieutenant Governor Sheila Oliver.

 

“The nation watched as Dr. Ford provided hours of emotional testimony today detailing Judge Kavanaugh’s attack on her so he could be held accountable for his actions and ensure the next judge appointed to the Supreme Court will protect the values of all Americans. Congressman Lance’s attempt to further humiliate Dr. Ford is intolerable and not representative of New Jersey values. It is clear we need new leadership in the Seventh Congressional District to protect and defend the rights of women.”

 

“It doesn’t surprise me that Congressman Leonard Lance is falling in lock step with the good old boy’s club of his Republican party on Judge Kavanaugh.  He said he ‘tends not believe the charges.’  How much more outrageous can it get?” said Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg. “He already formed an opinion without hearing her testimony!   Dr. Ford is a courageous and brave young woman — She has chosen to come forward, disrupt her family, her life, her privacy and her safety to recount these traumatic events in front of Congress.  These comments from Leonard Lance are irresponsible and wreak with partisanship without any regard for the survivor of a sexual assault — this is exactly why he should not be representing us in Congress.  This is why we need Tom Malinowski. And we need him NOW!”

 

Gee, Sen. Feinstein declared before hearing Kavanaugh’s testimony that she wouldn’t give it any credit.  Blasey-Ford’s story was already all over the media.

 

“I think Judge Kavanaugh is a brilliant judge, and I tend not to believe the charges,” Lance is heard saying in an audio clip that became part of a digital advertisement released by Tom Malinowski, Lance’s Democratic opponent.

 

Lance, in an interview, said that his comments had been taken out of context. “I spoke about a minute and I think, what did they use, six seconds?” he said.

 

He said he had made the comments after Ford’s lawyers initially said she would not testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

 

“I take the charges seriously,” Lance said. “It’s important that both sides be heard. And that was my point last week. I tend not to believe any person who says, ‘I’m sorry, I’m not going to testify on it.’ As a matter of due process, those who make serious allegations should testify, and the person against whom the allegations have been made should be able to testify as well.”

 

Then there are the students at the University Texas-Austin who gathered together for a rally in support of Kavanaugh.  According to a report by The College Fix.com:

 

“Signs ripped up in anger.  Chants of  ‘We believe survivors.” Furious finger pointing.

 

“A large group of students became enraged Tuesday afternoon by a pro-Brett Kavanaugh tabling effort at the University of Texas at Austin put together by its Young Conservatives of Texas chapter. A crowd of furious students encircled the group and yelled at its members while chanting obscenities and destroying their signs.

 

“The conservative group had decided to set up a ‘Confirm Kavanaugh’ display in an effort to show support for the embattled U.S. Supreme Court judge nominee and argue for the need for corroborating evidence, said student Anthony Dolcefino, vice chairman of the group.

 

Then there’s Sen. Jeff Flake (RINO-R, Ariz.) who was mobbed by a group of women (probably Code Pink) and “shamed” for agreeing to vote in favor of Brett Kavanaugh.  When he returned to the Senate chamber, he changed his vote from “Yes” to “Conditional Yes” if the FBI was ordered to investigate Blasey-Ford’s claim.  Well, we never really trusted him to begin with.  What’s the matter with you, Arizonans?  Has the sun been too hot?

 

And yesterday Pres. Trump expressed extreme doubts about Blasey-Ford’s allegations, which was met with denunciation by the Left (naturally) and the “Mild-Mannered” on the Right.  He was accused of “mocking” Blasey-Ford.  Aww.

 

What do they all have in common?

 

They regained their sanity and tossed out the Democrat talking points of “Believe the Woman.”

 

The Democrats and their Marxist activists will stop at nothing to intimidate anyone who doesn’t agree with them.  Right around the time Brett Kavanaugh was NOT doing anything to anyone, I was working at big shopping mall anchor store.

 

The Marxists were agitating to unionize the store.  I was in college and well-versed in Conservatism.  I knew all the arguments against Communism.  Late one night (around 10:30), my supervisor came over to me.  She said another girl (about my age) was afraid to go out to the parking lot because a union agitator was outside.

 

I told the supervisor no problem; I’d walk with the girl.

 

The girl asked me if I was scared of him (it was a guy.)  Not a bit.  She thought I was very brave.  So I told what we were going to do.

 

Once we were outside, I immediately confronted him and drew him away from the other girl.  That was her cue to run for her car.  While he was blathering on, she got to her car.  He realized what had happened and ran after her.  She screamed   got into her car just as he reached the door.

 

The girl made her escape while I stood on the sidewalk, laughing.  The agitator cursed me.  I just laughed again and went to my car.

 

Once you realize they’re full of hot air and you can counter their social justice arguments, there’s nothing to fear.  Not exactly.  They are violent.  Marxists have always been violent.  In the Thirties, they burned out businesses that refused to unionize and often murdered the owners.

 

My older brother filled in for striking workers at his company.  He had to hire extra security to protect him and he carried an enormous wrench or screwdriver.

 

This propensity for violence and intimidation is the main reason why the Marxists, Socialists, whatever you want to call them, must be defeated at the polls.  This year.  The idea that any and all women must be “believed” no matter the circumstances must be abolished thoroughly if our republic is to survive.

 

The Democrats are established liars.  They have no scruples, no integrity, and no respect for anyone who disagrees with them and their agenda.  What an insult to real victims of sexual assault, like Trish Meisli, the Central Park Jogger, beaten within an inch of her life in April 1989 during a riot in Central Park and left for dead.

 

Did the Leftist Media show Meisli sympathy?  Not a bit of it.  All their sympathy was for the black thugs who initially accused.  They were found guilty of beating and attacking other people – women – in New York’s Central Park.  They claimed that the NYPD had “forced” a confession out of them.

 

Ultimately, the DNA found did not match that of the accused. Now the Liberal Media was really up in arms.  They blamed Meisli’s boyfriend for the attack, which was absurd.  Only after the black guys had been cleared and the trial was off the radar, was it revealed that someone else’s DNA was discovered, that did not belong to the boyfriend.

 

Someone else finally “confessed” to the crime, conveniently, after the statute of limitations had run out, just like it had for Blasey-Ford.  So where’s the sympathy for Meisli?  I’m still waiting.  Where’s the sympathy for the poor girl in the Green Car at William Paterson College?

 

She refused to get out of the car.  The door was open on her side, so there was nothing the campus police could do for her.  I personally tried to talk her into getting out.  We would help her (a big crowd had gathered).  We would drive her home, or anywhere she wanted to go.  But still, she shook her sadly.

 

We’re under no obligation to “believe” any accuser, male or female, without the evidence.

 

Congratulations to all those who have spoken about their doubts about Blasey-Ford’s credibility.  President Trump has restored my faith in his credulity.

 

This attack on our judicial system, from top (nominating candidates to the Supreme Court) to bottom (the importance of factual evidence), by the Democrats is why we should never trust them again.  We need to stand firm and vote them completely out of office (beginning with California’s Dianne Feinstein, who withheld the “anonymous” letter until the last minute).

 

We must not be afraid to stand for the truth and denounce liars.  Even if we’re thrown out of the courtroom.  Or fined for contempt of court.  Or mobbed by Code Pink harpies.  Or defiled by female politicians seeking political gain.  (Or shut down by Marxist hackers.)

 

Interestingly, one of Blasey-Ford’s boyfriends has told the FBI that he was a witness as Ford coached a friend on how to game the polygraph test.  It seems she is a part-time instructor in CIA obfuscation at Stanford University.

 

Nor is she afraid of flying.  Nor did she ever tell him about any attack by Brett Kavanaugh.4

 

And now Dianne Feinstein has vowed that she will not make the seventh FBI investigation report on Brett Kavanaugh public.  Just the way Nancy Pelosi, in the House of Representatives, refused to make the details of Obamacare available to the public until after the House had voted on it.

 

Nothing is ever going to change with the Democrats.  Except our country.

 

Vote them out in November.

 

 

 

And now Dianne Feinstein has vowed that she will not make the seventh FBI investigation report on Brett Kavanaugh public. Just the way Nancy Pelosi, in the House of Representatives, refused to make the details of Obamacare available to the public until after the House had voted on it.

Nothing is ever going to change with the Democrats. Except our country.

Vote them out in November.

Published in: on October 3, 2018 at 1:22 pm  Leave a Comment  

Who is Dr. Blasey Ford?

According to radio broadcaster Michael Savage, “Well, besides being a “professor” at the off-brand [Palo Alto] university, she also works at a major university [Stanford] down the street from Palo Alto. She just so happens to head up the CIA undergraduate internship program at Stanford University.

“Christine Blasey’s brother, Ralph the Third, used to work for the international law firm of Baker, Hostetler. The firm created Fusion GPS, the company which wrote the Russian “dossier”. They later admitted it was only a collection of field interviews.

“Baker Hostetler is located in the same building where the CIA operates three companies called:

1. Red Coats, Inc. (a Maryland janitorial service)
2. Admiral Security Services (a security services operating in the Washington, D.C. area)
3. Datawatch (another security guard service in Washington, D.C.)

They are operated by Ralph Blasey II. He is the father of Christine and Ralph III.
Baker Hostetler is located at 1050 Connecticut Avenue. A map of Washington confirms that Datawatch is located on Connecticut Avenue in Washington, D.C. Red Coats is now listed as being at 4904 Wisconsin Avenue. Admiral Security no longer has a Washington address.

That’s not to say that at one time those two companies weren’t there.

According to Bloomberg.com: Ralph G. Blasey, Jr. serves as a Vice President of Business Development of Red Coats, Inc., a private company specializing in commercial office cleaning, uniformed guard services and access control systems. From October 1982 to July 1989, Blasey owned and operated several privately-held companies. He has over 40 years of executive management experience in financial and manufacturing corporations and responsibilities include identifying selling opportunities for the Red Coats Family of Companies, working in conjunction with the Vice President of Sales & Marketing and the Executive Vice President. He served as the President of Weston International Corporation, a Maryland corporation, from February 1974 to October 1982.

From June 1962 to January 1974, Blasey served as a Vice President of National Savings and Trust of Washington, D.C., Blasey served as the Chairman of the Beverage Industry Council of the Food Processing & Beverage Manufacturing Association from 1996 to 1998. He has been a Director of US Liquids Inc. since December 2002. He served as a Director of Weston International Corporation, a Maryland corporation, from February 1974 to October 1982. He graduated from Rutgers University with a degree in Commercial Banking.

Mr. Savage was worried that the Media wasn’t taking his claims seriously. It seems Media Matters did and posted this refutation:

“Savage’s conspiracy theory makes three claims about Ford’s connections to the CIA, all of which are false or baseless:

1. The post claims that Ford “happens to head up the CIA undergraduate internship program at Stanford University.” This claim ‘seems to’ originate from a conspiracy theory website, brassballs.blog, that drew this conclusion because Stanford does have an undergraduate CIA internship program, and Ford, who is a psychology professor at nearby Palo Alto University, is also listed as an “affiliate” in the “psychiatry and behavioral sciences” department at Stanford. The blog post argues that it is suspicious that Ford’s contact information has been deleted from her Stanford profile page, although the more likely explanation is that it has been removed due to the threats and harassment that Ford has received since coming forward.

2. The theory draws another connection between Ford and the CIA via her brother’s previous work for law firm Baker Hostetler. A previous Ford-related conspiracy theory connected her brother’s work at Baker Hostetler to Fusion GPS, a research firm involved in the ongoing Russian collusion investigation. However, Ford’s brother left Baker Hostetler six years before Fusion GPS was ever founded. Savage’s conspiracy theory repeats this false claim and goes even further, claiming that three CIA-controlled businesses are located in the same building as Baker Hostetler. There is no evidence these businesses are connected to the CIA — in fact, one, Red Coats, Inc., is a janitorial company that does not even share office space with Baker Hostetler.

3. Savage’s post also claims that Ford is the granddaughter of Nicholas Deak, who worked with the CIA during the Cold War. According to his 1985 Washington Post obituary, Deak only had one child, a son named R. Leslie Deak. But as the conspiracy theory’s second claim also notes, Ford’s father is actually Ralph Blasey Jr.

Media Matters conveniently ignores her mother’s side of the family. But since Google has scrubbed all information on the Blaseys, it’s rather hard to tell.

Janitorial and security guard services are precisely the kind of firms a spy agency would engage for the purposes of spying. One of my companies “spied” on its employees in precisely that way. One day, I got up to stretch my legs and went to the back window. There was a janitor holding a soda can over my co-worker’s cubicle. The janitor looked at me surprise, packed up his gear, and hustled off.

As for Nicholas Deak, turns out he was a Hungarian-born U.S. banker, according to Wikipedia: chairman of the Deak-Perera group and a secret service operative, serving both in the OSS during World War II and its successor the CIA during the Cold War.

Deak earned a Ph.D. from the University of Neuchatel in Switzerland in 1929. In 1939 he came to New York to open Deak & Company, a foreign exchange business. During World War II he worked for the Office of Strategic Services, serving in Egypt, Burma, Thailand and Malaya. In 1946 he returned to New York and resumed his business, subsequently acquiring Perera U.S., Inc. His business expanded into banking and dealing in gold coins and bullion.

His worldwide financial group, spanning both legitimate enterprises and fronts for CIA operations, was shaken in the late ’70s and early ’80s by multiple scandals involving money laundering and criminal connections. In 1984, Deak & Co. faced allegations from the President’s Commission on Organized Crime that they laundered money for Latin American drug traffickers, facilitated the Lockheed bribery scandals, and smuggled currency from the Philippines. As a result, Deak & Co. declared bankruptcy in 1984 in order to reorganize. In 1985, the company was purchased by a Singapore lawyer for $52 million — the most valued asset was Deak’s Swiss bank.

In 1986, the foreign exchange and gold business was sold to Australia’s Martin Properties Ltd. (later renamed Deak Morgan) for $12 million. In the following year, the company was transferred to New Zealand-based NZI and expanded its gold coin dealerships by one-third. At the same time, Deak Investor Services, Inc. changed its name to Deak International Goldline Ltd.

Ironically, on Nov. 18, 1985, a mentally unstable and homeless woman, Lois Lang, entered Deak’s Manhattan office and shot and killed both Deak and his receptionist. Lang was arrested and tried in court. She had claimed that she was a part owner of Deak & Co. and said that she had suffered some injustice from the company. She was initially institutionalized at Kirby Forensic Psychiatric Center, but later sent to Bedford Hills Correctional Facility for Women. Because of Deak’s work for the intelligence community and the company’s involvement with money laundering, some theories have been suggested that he was targeted for assassination.

The Wikipedia entry makes no mention of his family. Maybe Lang was her real mother. Just kidding.

We’re looking forward to hearing more from Dr. Savage.

Meanwhile, on the fraudulent charges front, Brett Kavanaugh is now accused of throwing ice – or was it just beer – during a brawl in 1985. As an undergraduate at Yale in September 1985, police “questioned” Kavanaugh about the brawl, when the accuser claimed Kavanaugh threw a beer – or was it ice? – at him.

The incident, which occurred in September 1985 during Mr. Kavanaugh’s junior year, resulted in Mr. Kavanaugh and four other men being questioned by the New Haven Police Department. Mr. Kavanaugh was not arrested, but the police report stated that a 21-year-old man accused Mr. Kavanaugh of throwing ice on him “for some unknown reason.”

A witness to the fight said that Chris Dudley, a Yale basketball player who is friends with Mr. Kavanaugh, then threw a glass that hit the man in the ear, according to the police report, which was obtained by The New York Times.

The incident was referred to in the police report as an “assault’ – presumably on the part of Dudley, not Kavanaugh – and no charges were filed. The Times reported the story; it’s unknown whether the FBI will “investigate.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell has vowed that the full Senate will vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination this Friday. The Republicans, it seems, have found their backbone. Media Matters claims that Blasey-Ford has received death threats and her family has had to move. So has Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh’s house was vandalized yesterday. The vandals tore up the lawn and garden and defecated on the property. Threats to burn down the house were painted on the garage doors.

This is what comes of the Democrats’ dirty tricks and agitation. They’re like the Terminator:

“[They] can’t be bargained with. [They] can’t be reasoned with. [They don’t] feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And [they] absolutely will not stop… ever, until you are dead!” Kyle Reese [Actor Michael Biehn], The Terminator, 1984

I threw my soda at a girl at a birthday party when I was five or six. She was dressed in black (who dresses a kid black for a birthday party?) and making fun of my hand-me-down clothes and that of another girl. I threw my soda but hit the birthday girl instead. I was immediately sent home (I was thrilled to get out of there).

Good thing I’m not running for office – the FBI might investigate me.

Is anyone, other than Democrats, going to care about what someone else in Kavanaugh’s company actually did? The pal threw the glass, slightly injuring the target; Kav threw the ice.

Maybe Kav was trying to help stop the bleeding.

Good grief!

Published in: on October 2, 2018 at 11:55 am  Leave a Comment  

The Minds of Teenaged Girls

If the minds of teenaged boys are pretty much of one sort – girls, girls, girls – girls’ minds seem to dwell on boys in varying degrees. Boys don’t only have their minds on girls. Girls are in one room. They also think about cars. Or motorcycles. Or anything else that goes fast.

They also think about sports. Football, mainly. Baseball. Basketball. Track. Some of them also make fine students. They serve on the student council and engage in other resume-enhancing activities.

Girls think about boys. When they’re not thinking about boys (excluding, of course, their classes, where they are anxious to earn good grades), they’re thinking about how they look to boys (and to one another).

Where boys think about cars and sports, girls think about make-up, hair-dos, and clothes. Dresses, skirts, pocketbooks, shoes. Shoes, they’re a very big item. If teenaged boys’ brains are in their pants, teenaged girls’ brains are in their shoes.

We don’t need the FBI to investigate teenagers. We wouldn’t want them to. Teenagers are in a world all their own. When a children turn 13, the aliens abduct them and they don’t return until after they’ve graduated from college. The aliens leave behind pretty much brainless bodies functioning on only the most basic level: Eat, sleep, and swear (boys); Eat, sleep and cry (girls).

The whole teenaged drama should have ended last week, after Kavanaugh’s testimony.

According to the San Jose Mercury News, Blasey-Ford participated in a “science march” in January 2017 protesting Trump’s proposed cuts to research. During the “march” she donned a “pussy hat” – a knitted cap that was supposed to resemble the human brain.

“It’s a science party!” said biostatistician Christine Blasey, of Palo Alto, who was inspired to wear the hat by the “pussy hats” worn by pro-abortionists during the Women’s Marches. Specifically, according to the newspapers, she was protesting cuts to climate-change research.

Ford worked for a pharmaceutical company that sells Korlym, a drug that treats Cushing’s syndrome. The main ingredient in that drug is used in combination with another drug to induce
abortions, but the doses differ. The company does not promote the drug for abortions; in fact, it requires that doctors rule out pregnancy in order to administer the drug.

Politifact, which published the above report, fails to note that the caution is for women who are pregnant and do not want to miscarry. The mislead report also only anecdotally notes that the pharmaceutical company manufactured a drug for Cushing’s syndrome. It never mentions what other drugs she assisted in producing reports for. If the company produced a drug that could be used as an abortifacient, you can be pretty sure they sold it for that purpose as well.

They don’t promote Korlym for the purpose of abortion; that doesn’t mean they don’t promote its main ingredient for that purpose.
Once Sen. Jeff Flake (Ariz.-R) betrayed his promise to vote in favor of Kavanaugh, doing so only on condition that yet another FBI investigation take place, Pres. Trump, feeling that Blasey-Ford was “believable,” allowed the investigation to proceed.

Pundits are finally coming forward, complaining about the manner in which special counsel Rachel Mitchell, conducted her questioning of Blasey-Ford, effectively making Ford appear “sympathetic.” Without a shred of evidence, she could have been reciting the testimony of any of her own subjects over the years.

Interestingly, her little-girl persona fits the profile of a child under the age of puberty rather than a 15 year-old.

So now the Democrats are focusing on Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook entry. The entry is full of the kind of blustering, baloney, and boasting you’d expect from a typical 16 year-old boy.

Teenaged boys are full of it. My brothers were full of it. Their friends were full of it. They get their information from bathroom walls, dirty movies, and porn magazines and from older boys who are just as full of it as their younger siblings.

Teenaged girls in high school do get pregnant, usually by teenaged boys, so we do know that sometimes they make good on their boasting. It’s equal-opportunity stupidity on the part of both parties. The girls are just as anxious to make a name for themselves as the boys are.

Girls are just as fixated on their girly parts as boys. It’s a big thing among young teenaged girls. What’s more, if you haven’t been with a boy by 16, something’s the matter with you, in their eyes. Girls who’ve been with a boy in middle school get a bad name. Girls who haven’t by senior year in high school get a bad name.

“What are you saving it for?” the other girls ask. “Your wedding night?” The question was followed by gales of giggles. Both sides are guilty of this hustle. The same for drugs and booze. In the Fifties and Sixties, you were “square” if you didn’t. God knows what they call it today.

For Blasey-Ford to put on such a cringe-worthy performance of “vulnerability” (she’s in her 50’s, for crying out loud) in this day and age is simply beyond belief and credibility. Take a look at her own high school yearbook. It was the Eighties, not the Fifties. From what I’ve been told, even the Fifties weren’t the Fifties.

Boys are boys. They’ve always been boys. They always will be. And girls will always be girls, weepy, shrill drama queens. This is all about convincing women that they need the “protection” of an all-encompassing government. Women need the government to make sure that they get paid equally, that they can accuse a man of sexual assault without any proof, and that they can abort inconvenient babies when they go all the way with a guy but don’t want to bear the responsibility.

That’s what is so infuriating about Blasey-Ford’s accusation (she sent the letter; she started the ball rolling; she’s at fault), her performance at the Senate hearing, and the Democrats determination to railroad an understandably angry Kavanaugh – that the government wants to make women wards of the state.

I can take care of myself, thank you very much. I don’t need a government representative to protect me from some man. I don’t need to be told not to go to alcohol- and pot-fueled parties. When my older brother decided to take advantage of my parents’ absence on a desperately-needed vacation alone and try to hold a beer party, I raised the roof (“Like HELL you are!” I declared and called my mother. My poor parents.) I don’t need to be told not to go walking down dark alleys or go to the mall at night alone.

One brazen, middle-aged creep approached me in broad daylight when I got out of my car in the college parking lot on my way to the graduation ceremony. Fortunately, my six-foot-four younger brother was coming up right behind me. “Wally!!” I wailed. “Who’s ‘Wally’?” the creep sneered.

By now, “Wally” was standing head and shoulders right behind me.

“THAT’S Wally,” I replied. The guy’s eyes bugged out of his head and he took off, stumbling over his feet, heading for the nearby road.

Actually, it’s a good thing “Wally” showed up. “Wally” saved the creep from me, because I would have done to him exactly what I had done to the last creep who thought he could put his hands on me. I wrapped my hands around his neck and squeezed until his eyes bugged out of his head and he started to turn blue.

I let go of him.

Eventually.

Published in: on October 1, 2018 at 1:32 pm  Leave a Comment  

Late Breaking: Flake the Snake Demands FBI “Reopen” Blasey Case

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted this afternoon, 11 to 10, to pass Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court on to the Senate for a full vote.

However, Senator Jeff Flake, RINO Republican from Arizona, threw a monkey-wrench into the process by demanding that the FBI conduct yet another investigation into Brett Kavanaugh’s suitability to be a Supreme Court judge.  What did the Democrats promise him?  To throw whatever race he’ll be running in next?

“The Poor-Little-Dear” consensus has even infected Pres. Trump, who just stated that he felt Blasey-Ford was a “credible witness” yesterday. She was no such thing. She was prepped for the hearing. They put big owlish glasses on her to make her seem near-sighted, which is an indication of “weakness”. They brushed her hair over her face, to make her face seem more narrow and gaunt that it really is, so she’d have a haggard appearance.

She had to read from written notes before answering every single question. She seemed to stumble over every question, and when she seemed incapable of answering, a phalanx of men gathered around her to “help” her – the poor thing.

Are you kidding me?!

This is a woman with a PhD? To describe her as a “professional” woman is a gross insult to every professional woman in the world. Her entire testimony was a performance from start – when she stood up so “bravely” to be sworn in – to finish when she giggled and smirked, not to mention casting some very telling glances when she looked up to see if the Senators were falling for her act.

She was “too afraid” to appear in the same room with Brett Kavanaugh. Oh, she might swoon!

Wake up, you men. This woman is playing you. She’s been a willing participant from Day One when she mailed that letter. Do you know how she really sees herself? As a “martyr” to the Democrat Marxist cause. She has no evidence whatsoever that Kavanaugh attacked her.

All she has to know is there are enough stupid, gullible men to fall for her manipulation. She’s probably been in court often enough to see it happen. Even when her mendacity is clearly in front of you, you’re blind to it. You dismiss warnings from other women as “jealousy.”

The Democrats insisted that Blasey testify. She couldn’t give a shred of evidence. There isn’t any evidence. Just what is the FBI supposed to investigate? And after this FBI investigation, the Democrat Senates on the Judiciary Committee will delay the hearings another week. And another week. And another week.

Have Blasey come back again to testify, by all means.  Maybe next time, she’ll lift her skirt and wink at you, you damned fools!

Published in: on September 28, 2018 at 3:18 pm  Leave a Comment  

Victimology 101: The Kavanaugh Case

U.S. jurisprudence took one more step away from due process and one step closer to “social justice” yesterday during the Senate hearing for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Here’s the proof that the Democrats have precisely that goal:

 

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said this morning the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh is “a real test” for the Senate and the nation “to see how we treat women, especially women who are survivors of sexual assault.”

 

The top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee says that 27 years after the Clarence Thomas hearings, Republicans appear to have a new strategy for handling sexual assault allegations.

 

She said, “The Republican strategy is no longer ‘attack the victim.’ It is to ignore the victim.”

 

Feinstein says she’s disappointed the committee is set to vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination less than a day after emotional testimony by Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, who accuses Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when both were teenagers. He denies the allegation.

 

Republican Senators treated Blasey-Ford accordingly with tenderness, sympathy, and understanding, even though there was not a scintilla of evidence to support her claim of sexual assault by Kavanaugh.

 

Yet the Democrats are selective in attacking the victim themselves.  In the case of the Central Park Jogger in April 1989.

 

Trisha Meili, a white female jogger (she only came forward later), and attacks on others in Manhattan’s Central on the night of April 19, 1989. The attack on the jogger left her in a coma for 12 days. Meili was a 28-year-old investment banker at the time.

 

On the night of the attack, five juvenile males – four African American and one Hispanic – were apprehended in connection with a number of attacks in Central Park committed by around 30 teenage perpetrators. The defendants were tried variously for assault, robbery, riot, rape, sexual abuse, and attempted murder relating to Meili’s and other attacks in the park (called at the time “Wilding,”) based solely on confessions that they claimed were coerced and false.

 

Before the trial, the FBI tested the DNA of the rape kit and found it did not match any of the tested suspects. The office of District Attorney Robert Morgenthau presented these findings to the press as “inconclusive.”  They were convicted in 1990 by juries in two separate trials.

 

Subsequently, known as the “Central Park Five,” they received sentences ranging from 5 to 15 years. Four of the convictions were appealed and the convictions were affirmed by appellate courts. The defendants spent between 6 and 13 years in prison.

 

The Central Park Five were then acquitted of the other charges of attacking other people as well.

In 2002, Matias Reyes, a convicted murderer and serial rapist in prison, confessed to raping the jogger, and DNA evidence confirmed his guilt. He knew facts about the crime that only the offender could have known, and also said he committed the rape alone.  At the time of his confession, Reyes was already serving a life sentence. He was not prosecuted for raping Meili, because the statute of limitations had passed by the time he confessed.

 

Morgenthau suggested to the court that the five men’s convictions related to the assault and rape of Meili and to attacks on others to which they had confessed be vacated (a legal position in which the parties are treated as though no trial has taken place) and withdrew the charges. Their convictions were vacated in 2002.

 

Charges of racism won the day.  The Central Park Five got away with their other crimes, and earned a boodle of money.  The rapist got away with his crime.  At the time, the defense claimed that the DNA evidence belonged to the victim’s boyfriend.

 

Five suspects served between 6 and 13 years in prison; four appealed unsuccessfully.  Five suspects sued for “emotional distress” and received $41 million from Bill DeBlasio’s New York City as of 2014.

 

Meili never received justice at all, even though she had been physically beaten into a coma and there was definite evidence of violation.  Her attacker – or was it attackers, after all – never served a moment of time for his confessed crime.

 

Christine Blasey-Ford, on the other head, was brought before the United States Senate, dramatically holding her head high in a show of “courage.”  She was coddled and nursed through her testimony by the Republican-appointed sexual crimes expert, an outside counsel, Rachel Mitchell.

 

Mitchell behaved more like a nursery school teacher than a criminal witness expert, soothing the trembling Ford through the hearing.  Given Feinstein’s “standards” for how to treat sexual assault accusers, perhaps Mitchell and the Republicans simply had no choice.  In any case, the woman had not a shred of evidence to back up her accusation, so why bother “attacking” her?4

 

Why didn’t the counsel, at the outset, ask this seemingly addled woman, whether the lights were on in the upstairs of the house?  Why did Ford attempt to use an upstairs bathroom in a strange house, which is usually reserved for family?  Didn’t the house (which undoubtedly was large) have a guest bathroom on the ground floor?

 

Ford kept “correcting” her story.  She couldn’t answer when it happened, as to a precise date.  She couldn’t answer where it happened.  She couldn’t recall how she, a 15-year-old got to the “party”.  She couldn’t recall how she got home again.  All of her witnesses recanted their testimony.  Guess they read the part about the penalty for perjury.

 

She sniffled and whined and wept her way through her testimony.  Afterwards, she smiled and giggled and simpered before the Senate.  Oh it was all over.  She’d been “heard” and no one “attacked” her with any pertinent questions.  She spoke in a voice that is described as “up language” a condition common to very young (pre-adolescent) sexual victims, not 15 year olds.  The victims revert back to the age at which they were said to have been attacked.

 

Ford is a professor of Psychology at Palo Alto University.  She claimed that she was so traumatized by the event that she did poorly in college, getting mostly Cs.  If she got Cs as an undergraduate, how did she gain admission to a graduate school, which requires a B average, much less earn a PhD.?  What did she do, cry her way through the admissions interview?

 

It would be very interesting to hear from Ford’s college classmates at the time, as well as her professors.  How does she behave in her classroom?  Does she address her students in that same “wispy” voice?

 

The general consensus on Twitter yesterday was that she was “convincing” and “credible.”  Twitterers expressed sympathy and pity for her.  She certainly played the part of Prof. Ding-Dong very well.  Even Kavanaugh couldn’t help remarking that while he didn’t do anything to her – didn’t even know her – he was convinced someone must have done something to her.

 

Sympathy for an alleged victim is not supposed to play a part in a juror’s determination of guilt or innocence on the part of the defendant.  On another trial on which I sat, a Paterson bus driver have been assaulted with a blunt object.  The police did a poor job of presenting evidence and following procedures, and no matter how sorry we felt for the poor man (another Hispanic), we had to find the defendant not guilty.  The defense attorney was also none other than Johnny Cochrane himself, who had no qualms about practicing his new ‘race-card” theory – even though both the defendant and the victim were considered, if not Black, at least minorities.

 

Two of the black jurors admitted they wanted to let this guy go in order to strike a blow for 400 years of injustice towards blacks (I reminded them, as did other jurors, that the slaves were freed in 1865).  The race card strategy worked – O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder.

 

So now we have the “Survivor Card?”  Where did they get this “Survivor” business from?  Maybe Dianne Weinstein and her Feminist minions (which includes Ford) have found the word “victim” doesn’t play so well in court.   Perhaps it comes from the Cancer Survivor campaign, which draws more sympathy.  Except that very few people actually survive Cancer to old age.  A few might.  The drugs and the research are getting better, so that patients are living longer.

 

But it still gets them in the end.  At least that’s been my experience among the many people I know who’ve had Cancer.  Only two people – my brother’s ex-mother-in-law and my godmother, who lived to 92.  She got Cancer very young.  She had four children.  She and her husband were quite religious.  They formed a family circle to pray to God.  He must have been listening because the next time she went to the doctor, the tumor had vanished and never reappeared.

 

There’s a good reason not to believe Ford.  She was a Democrat activist, actively campaigning against Kavanaugh’s nomination.  She sent her letter not to her current California Congressional representative but to the one in Maryland.  Ford claimed she wanted anonymity.  The letter was forwarded to Sen. Dianne Weinstein, the co-chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Weinstein claims that she sat on the letter since the end of July because Ford didn’t want it made public.  At the time, as numerous Republican Senators pointed out, this affair could have been investigated.  Waiting until the last minute smacked of political grandstanding.  Weinstein denied it and said she withheld the letter out of respect for Ford’s request for anonymity.

 

The question of course is whether Ford knew precisely what she was doing or whether her handlers and attorneys advised her not to allow the letter to be publicized until the right political moment.  But then Ford went ahead and spoke to the Washington Post, which meant someone leaked the letter, either Ford herself, or some member of Feinstein’s or the Congressional member’s staff.

 

Weinstein haughtily denied leaking the information and so did her staff.  So how did the press get hold of the information, Republicans wanted to know?  The Democrats declared that it must have been one of Weinstein’s friends, whom she had told about the letter, one of the friends who advised her to write it.  Ford claims a reporter confronted her in her classroom.

 

So why did Ford talk to the reporter, then?  That was an unasked and unanswered question.

 

No one can be blamed for being “sympathetic” after Ford’s performance.  But those people should ask themselves how such an example of pathetic feebleness – a true embarrassment to respectable women everywhere – ever have earned a PhD. or deserved to be treated like a “professional.”

 

The only thing professional about Ford’s testimony yesterday was her acting.

 

As for Kavanaugh, he acquitted himself thoroughly, with strength, determination, and real courage.  Our thanks to the senators who stood up for him, particularly Sen. Lindsey Graham (didn’t know he had it in him – but hurray!), as well as Senators Ted Cruz (Tex.-R) and John Neely Kennedy (Louisiana – R), as well as others whom if we haven’t named, we haven’t forgotten, either.

 

Men everywhere, to be sure, are sighing with relief, although they shouldn’t get too comfortable.  Democrats are notorious for their tyranny by increments.  Lawyers are no longer allowed to question an accuser’s testimony (“attack the victim”).  The Democrats are determined to overturn our system of law, order, and justice.

 

Women shouldn’t be lulled into a false sense of security by Democrat assertions.  They want to turn all women into “victims” the better for a Marxist government to take over their lives.  The Democrats had no particular concern for Trish Meili back in 1989 – just remember that.  In 1989, it was all about the Black vote.  They weren’t even concerned about Puerto Ricans, whom they regarded as “white” back in 1982 (that was exactly the defense’s assertion – that it was a case of a “white” man against a black.  We white voters protested, to no avail.

 

That’s the Democrat hypocrisy for you.

 

The Senate Judicial Committee vote on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh (a moderate, not a conservative, incidentally; he wouldn’t have been my first choice) this afternoon.

 

We pray that Republican Senators will all do the right thing and cast their vote for Kavanaugh and dismiss Ford’s uncorroborated accusations against him.  Kavanaugh has a sack of mail from women he’s known since high school who can vouch for his character.

 

What does Ford have?  A scrubbed high school yearbook that indicates she attended an exclusive “party” high school that bragged of their partying abilities, an admission that she slept around.

 

And recent pictures of her protesting Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, wearing a vagina hat.

 

For myself, I hope I never have to sit on a jury again.  During the last jury case, we were told we had to vote unanimously.  I protested against this pressure of “collectivism” by a “collectivist judge” and fined for contempt of court.  I told him I was happy to pay because I was contemptuous of our court system.

Victimology 101: The Kavanaugh Case

 

U.S. jurisprudence took one more step away from due process and one step closer to “social justice” yesterday during the Senate hearing for Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Here’s the proof that the Democrats have precisely that goal:

 

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said this morning the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh is “a real test” for the Senate and the nation “to see how we treat women, especially women who are survivors of sexual assault.”

 

The top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee says that 27 years after the Clarence Thomas hearings, Republicans appear to have a new strategy for handling sexual assault allegations.

 

She said, “The Republican strategy is no longer ‘attack the victim.’ It is to ignore the victim.”

 

Feinstein says she’s disappointed the committee is set to vote on Kavanaugh’s nomination less than a day after emotional testimony by Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, who accuses Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when both were teenagers. He denies the allegation.

 

Republican Senators treated Blasey-Ford accordingly with tenderness, sympathy, and understanding, even though there was not a scintilla of evidence to support her claim of sexual assault by Kavanaugh.

 

Yet the Democrats are selective in attacking the victim themselves.  In the case of the Central Park Jogger in April 1989.

 

Trisha Meili, a white female jogger (she only came forward later), and attacks on others in Manhattan’s Central on the night of April 19, 1989. The attack on the jogger left her in a coma for 12 days. Meili was a 28-year-old investment banker at the time.

 

On the night of the attack, five juvenile males – four African American and one Hispanic – were apprehended in connection with a number of attacks in Central Park committed by around 30 teenage perpetrators. The defendants were tried variously for assault, robbery, riot, rape, sexual abuse, and attempted murder relating to Meili’s and other attacks in the park (called at the time “Wilding,”) based solely on confessions that they claimed were coerced and false.

 

Before the trial, the FBI tested the DNA of the rape kit and found it did not match any of the tested suspects. The office of District Attorney Robert Morgenthau presented these findings to the press as “inconclusive.”  They were convicted in 1990 by juries in two separate trials.

 

Subsequently, known as the “Central Park Five,” they received sentences ranging from 5 to 15 years. Four of the convictions were appealed and the convictions were affirmed by appellate courts. The defendants spent between 6 and 13 years in prison.

 

The Central Park Five were then acquitted of the other charges of attacking other people as well.

In 2002, Matias Reyes, a convicted murderer and serial rapist in prison, confessed to raping the jogger, and DNA evidence confirmed his guilt. He knew facts about the crime that only the offender could have known, and also said he committed the rape alone.  At the time of his confession, Reyes was already serving a life sentence. He was not prosecuted for raping Meili, because the statute of limitations had passed by the time he confessed.

 

Morgenthau suggested to the court that the five men’s convictions related to the assault and rape of Meili and to attacks on others to which they had confessed be vacated (a legal position in which the parties are treated as though no trial has taken place) and withdrew the charges. Their convictions were vacated in 2002.

 

Charges of racism won the day.  The Central Park Five got away with their other crimes, and earned a boodle of money.  The rapist got away with his crime.  At the time, the defense claimed that the DNA evidence belonged to the victim’s boyfriend.

 

Five suspects served between 6 and 13 years in prison; four appealed unsuccessfully.  Five suspects sued for “emotional distress” and received $41 million from Bill DeBlasio’s New York City as of 2014.

 

Meili never received justice at all, even though she had been physically beaten into a coma and there was definite evidence of violation.  Her attacker – or was it attackers, after all – never served a moment of time for his confessed crime.

 

Christine Blasey-Ford, on the other head, was brought before the United States Senate, dramatically holding her head high in a show of “courage.”  She was coddled and nursed through her testimony by the Republican-appointed sexual crimes expert, an outside counsel, Rachel Mitchell.

 

Mitchell behaved more like a nursery school teacher than a criminal witness expert, soothing the trembling Ford through the hearing.  Given Feinstein’s “standards” for how to treat sexual assault accusers, perhaps Mitchell and the Republicans simply had no choice.  In any case, the woman had not a shred of evidence to back up her accusation, so why bother “attacking” her?4

 

Why didn’t the counsel, at the outset, ask this seemingly addled woman, whether the lights were on in the upstairs of the house?  Why did Ford attempt to use an upstairs bathroom in a strange house, which is usually reserved for family?  Didn’t the house (which undoubtedly was large) have a guest bathroom on the ground floor?

 

Ford kept “correcting” her story.  She couldn’t answer when it happened, as to a precise date.  She couldn’t answer where it happened.  She couldn’t recall how she, a 15-year-old got to the “party”.  She couldn’t recall how she got home again.  All of her witnesses recanted their testimony.  Guess they read the part about the penalty for perjury.

 

She sniffled and whined and wept her way through her testimony.  Afterwards, she smiled and giggled and simpered before the Senate.  Oh it was all over.  She’d been “heard” and no one “attacked” her with any pertinent questions.  She spoke in a voice that is described as “up language” a condition common to very young (pre-adolescent) sexual victims, not 15 year olds.  The victims revert back to the age at which they were said to have been attacked.

 

Ford is a professor of Psychology at Palo Alto University.  She claimed that she was so traumatized by the event that she did poorly in college, getting mostly Cs.  If she got Cs as an undergraduate, how did she gain admission to a graduate school, which requires a B average, much less earn a PhD.?  What did she do, cry her way through the admissions interview?

 

It would be very interesting to hear from Ford’s college classmates at the time, as well as her professors.  How does she behave in her classroom?  Does she address her students in that same “wispy” voice?

 

The general consensus on Twitter yesterday was that she was “convincing” and “credible.”  Twitterers expressed sympathy and pity for her.  She certainly played the part of Prof. Ding-Dong very well.  Even Kavanaugh couldn’t help remarking that while he didn’t do anything to her – didn’t even know her – he was convinced someone must have done something to her.

 

Sympathy for an alleged victim is not supposed to play a part in a juror’s determination of guilt or innocence on the part of the defendant.  On another trial on which I sat, a Paterson bus driver have been assaulted with a blunt object.  The police did a poor job of presenting evidence and following procedures, and no matter how sorry we felt for the poor man (another Hispanic), we had to find the defendant not guilty.  The defense attorney was also none other than Johnny Cochrane himself, who had no qualms about practicing his new ‘race-card” theory – even though both the defendant and the victim were considered, if not Black, at least minorities.

 

Two of the black jurors admitted they wanted to let this guy go in order to strike a blow for 400 years of injustice towards blacks (I reminded them, as did other jurors, that the slaves were freed in 1865).  The race card strategy worked – O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder.

 

So now we have the “Survivor Card?”  Where did they get this “Survivor” business from?  Maybe Dianne Weinstein and her Feminist minions (which includes Ford) have found the word “victim” doesn’t play so well in court.   Perhaps it comes from the Cancer Survivor campaign, which draws more sympathy.  Except that very few people actually survive Cancer to old age.  A few might.  The drugs and the research are getting better, so that patients are living longer.

 

But it still gets them in the end.  At least that’s been my experience among the many people I know who’ve had Cancer.  Only two people – my brother’s ex-mother-in-law and my godmother, who lived to 92.  She got Cancer very young.  She had four children.  She and her husband were quite religious.  They formed a family circle to pray to God.  He must have been listening because the next time she went to the doctor, the tumor had vanished and never reappeared.

 

There’s a good reason not to believe Ford.  She was a Democrat activist, actively campaigning against Kavanaugh’s nomination.  She sent her letter not to her current California Congressional representative but to the one in Maryland.  Ford claimed she wanted anonymity.  The letter was forwarded to Sen. Dianne Weinstein, the co-chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Weinstein claims that she sat on the letter since the end of July because Ford didn’t want it made public.  At the time, as numerous Republican Senators pointed out, this affair could have been investigated.  Waiting until the last minute smacked of political grandstanding.  Weinstein denied it and said she withheld the letter out of respect for Ford’s request for anonymity.

 

The question of course is whether Ford knew precisely what she was doing or whether her handlers and attorneys advised her not to allow the letter to be publicized until the right political moment.  But then Ford went ahead and spoke to the Washington Post, which meant someone leaked the letter, either Ford herself, or some member of Feinstein’s or the Congressional member’s staff.

 

Weinstein haughtily denied leaking the information and so did her staff.  So how did the press get hold of the information, Republicans wanted to know?  The Democrats declared that it must have been one of Weinstein’s friends, whom she had told about the letter, one of the friends who advised her to write it.  Ford claims a reporter confronted her in her classroom.

 

So why did Ford talk to the reporter, then?  That was an unasked and unanswered question.

 

No one can be blamed for being “sympathetic” after Ford’s performance.  But those people should ask themselves how such an example of pathetic feebleness – a true embarrassment to respectable women everywhere – ever have earned a PhD. or deserved to be treated like a “professional.”

 

The only thing professional about Ford’s testimony yesterday was her acting.

 

As for Kavanaugh, he acquitted himself thoroughly, with strength, determination, and real courage.  Our thanks to the senators who stood up for him, particularly Sen. Lindsey Graham (didn’t know he had it in him – but hurray!), as well as Senators Ted Cruz (Tex.-R) and John Neely Kennedy (Louisiana – R), as well as others whom if we haven’t named, we haven’t forgotten, either.

 

Men everywhere, to be sure, are sighing with relief, although they shouldn’t get too comfortable.  Democrats are notorious for their tyranny by increments.  Lawyers are no longer allowed to question an accuser’s testimony (“attack the victim”).  The Democrats are determined to overturn our system of law, order, and justice.

 

Women shouldn’t be lulled into a false sense of security by Democrat assertions.  They want to turn all women into “victims” the better for a Marxist government to take over their lives.  The Democrats had no particular concern for Trish Meili back in 1989 – just remember that.  In 1989, it was all about the Black vote.  They weren’t even concerned about Puerto Ricans, whom they regarded as “white” back in 1982 (that was exactly the defense’s assertion – that it was a case of a “white” man against a black.  We white voters protested, to no avail.

 

That’s the Democrat hypocrisy for you.

 

The Senate Judicial Committee vote on the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh (a moderate, not a conservative, incidentally; he wouldn’t have been my first choice) this afternoon.

 

We pray that Republican Senators will all do the right thing and cast their vote for Kavanaugh and dismiss Ford’s uncorroborated accusations against him.  Kavanaugh has a sack of mail from women he’s known since high school who can vouch for his character.

 

What does Ford have?  A scrubbed high school yearbook that indicates she attended an exclusive “party” high school that bragged of their partying abilities, an admission that she slept around.

 

And recent pictures of her protesting Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, wearing a vagina hat.

 

For myself, I hope I never have to sit on a jury again.  During the last jury case, we were told we had to vote unanimously.  I protested against this pressure of “collectivism” by a “collectivist judge” and fined for contempt of court.  I told him I was happy to pay because I was contemptuous of our court system.

 

Yesterday’s proceedings confirm my contempt – and the resurrection of my belief in some Republicans.

 

Yesterday’s proceedings confirm my contempt – and the resurrection of my belief in some Republicans.

 

Published in: on September 28, 2018 at 12:09 pm  Leave a Comment  

The Minds of Teenage Boys

We often drub Hollywood for exaggerating and misrepresenting life.  But when it comes to teenaged boys, two movies got them exactly right:  Grease (1978) and E.T.:  The Extraterrestrial. (1982 – that infamous year, again).

 

Early on in Grease, there’s a scene where Danny Zuko and pals are in homeroom, which happens to be one of the science rooms.  One of them gets hold of Patty Simcox’s pocketbook and puts a frog or some sort of lizard in it.  She sits down, opens it, and goes shrieking out of the room, while the boys laugh themselves silly.

 

That’s pretty much what teenage boys do – and how most silly teenaged girls react (not all of us, but the teenage boys can spot them pretty quickly).  I grew up around teenaged boys.  Our house seemed to be a magnet for them.  One night, my mother burned the biscuits or something, and she said, “Oh, I guess I pulled a b-word [the teenaged boy b-word].”  My brothers burst into hysterical laughter.

 

My newspaper-head father suddenly appeared from behind the Paterson Evening News.

 

“Dear, don’t use that word again,” he said sternly.  Mom’s eyes popped out of her head and she clamped her mouth shut.  Mom wasn’t allowed to use sexually explicit terms.  Ever.  She could swear and blaspheme like her sailor father, as long as it wasn’t anything profane.

 

More laughter from the boys.  My father gave them The Look.  The Dad Look.  Usually, The Look comes from The Mom, which instills terror in most kids.  But the Dad Look, because it’s not used as often, silences even the most incorrigible 17-year-old.  The boys stopped laughing.

 

The other scene is from E.T., when the boys are all gathered in the kitchen, playing Dungeons or Dragons (or some such game).  Their banter is more PG-13 rated, but still well within teenaged boy parameters.  Later on, Elliott tells his older brother, Michael, to “shut up, P-breath!”  Mama laughs then warns him off.

 

That’s teenaged boys – rude, lewd and crude.  They glory in it.  The more outrageous the better.  They sneak Playboy and Penthouse magazines under their beds.  They ogle their sisters’ teenaged beauty magazines.  When they’re among themselves, they boast about girlquests, gossip about girls’ breasts, and plan non-parental beer parties.  Here in the suburbs, the parties were often in the woods, at the old Nazi Bundt Camp, which afforded local teenagers cabins for shelter from rain and snow.

 

They belch.  They burp.  They swear.  They tease girls.  They don’t flush the toilet.  They have peeing contests.  They perform armpit sonatas.  They pull pranks, some harmless, some not.  They drive too fast.  They do everything you would expect teenaged boys to do.  It’s the reason boys and girls need their space (take note “Boy” Scouts of America).

 

Teenaged girls?  Well, they’re another story.  They’re all about the drama.  They don’t want boys to be boys.  That’s what the Feminist Movement is really all about – making sure boys don’t have any space to be themselves.

I’d like to say that Brett Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook entry is your typical yearbook entry, filled with his scholastic accomplishments.  But it’s not.  He writes about the Key City Keg Club (position – Treasurer).  He writes about beach parties.  Lots of them.

 

Georgetown Prep allowed students to write their own yearbook entries.  What the hell were they thinking?!  We’re talking a Jesuit prep school here.  Where were the teachers?  Where was the yearbook advisor?  Where were the editors?  Where were the PARENTS?

 

It would be interesting to see other entries from that year.  Who lets a kid write this kind of garbage into his yearbook?  We’re not talking about a penned inscription, either.  This is the official record, for all time.

 

Apparently, this is the evidence upon which Kavanaugh is being damned; something he wrote as a 16- or 17-year-old butthead.  Christine Blasey-Ford’s yearbook was no better.  She attended a nearby all-girls’ prep school which bragged of their girls’ partying skills.

 

The model prep school for this behavior was the notorious Choate-Rosemary Hall School in Connecticut, reputed for its cocaine parties.

 

This entry of Kavanaugh’s, this arrogant presumption of his privileged status is an insult to all hard-working students in public high schools who didn’t stand a chance of getting into Yale or Harvard, no matter how good their grades were.

 

I have no beef, personally; I was a mediocre, unmotivated student.  But I knew plenty of classmates who studied hard, got good grades, and deserved a chance to go to Harvard or Yale as much as any wealthy scion of a judge or a politician.

 

Were the students of Georgetown Prep and Holton Arms so incredibly haughty that they could brag about beer-soaked high school keggers with nary a worry that they might be rejected by Yale or Harvard.  Or Stanford?

 

Or well-assured that they’d be accept because Mom or Dad was an alumnus, were they advertising for acceptance into a particular sorority or fraternity once they arrived at college?  For this, better students are denied access to the best schools?

 

Most, if not all, of what Kavanaugh wrote sounds like boyish braggadocio.  He talks about the five-Fs Fourth of July.  What rot.  Chances are, he was on his parents’ yacht that Fourth of July.  That’s just teenaged boy trash talk.  They’re at the age where their brains are in their pants.  “Girls” are the fantastic creatures in the porno magazines they pore over.

 

Fortunately, most teenaged boys grow up to become respectable citizens (if they don’t, they’re found out pretty quickly and wind up in jail).  They become businessmen, lawyers, teachers, husbands and fathers.  Some divorce their first wives, often when romance vanishes and reality sets in.  Others “get it” and remained faithful.

 

Nothing about Kavanaugh’s yearbook entry indicates that he would have assaulted a girl.  Clearly, he was too fond of beer parties.  So are most high school students.  He’s obviously no longer that teenaged boy.

 

Ford has no evidence that Kavanaugh “assaulted” her.  Some pundits are trying to play the “fair-minded judges.”  They should think of themselves, instead, as the jury having to listen to all this.  There’s no reason for her to be heard, decades later, on this case; it sets a bad precedent for believing witnesses without a shred of evidence.

 

Ford doesn’t want to “heard”; she wants to be “believed.”  She’s insisting on it.  However, whether she and the Feminists like it or not, the burden of proof is on her.  He is innocent until proven guilty.

 

There’s a big difference between being “heard” and being “believed.”  She wants to put on trial – and make no mistake, this is criminalization – a teenaged boy who no longer exists because what she really wants is to prevent a grown man whose political beliefs she opposes from being nominated to the Supreme Court.

 

Belief is for God and fairytales.  What you “believe” doesn’t hold water in court.  Belief isn’t good enough to tarnish an innocent man’s reputation, especially when the accuser has as spurious a background as Ford does.  So far, all Kavanaugh appears to be guilty of is being a spoiled, idiotic schoolboy.

 

Prep schools, on the other hand, deserve a huge F minus.  “F” as in how “Furious” middle class parents should be.

 

 

 

Published in: on September 26, 2018 at 11:31 am  Leave a Comment