Home » I want to ask you…

Comments

I want to ask you… — 108 Comments

  1. “I think our current puritanism is absurd.” [Neo]

    Actually, I submit that it is not Puritanism per se, but an aggressive politically weaponized Puritanism.

    Our society has become so hyper-sexualized that virtually every public message is imbued with, or interpreted as, some kind of sexual message; IMO it is an end-stage evolution of the 1960s “If it feels good, do it” mantra.

    Yet while we are encouraged to be sexually free-wheeling by the cultural zeitgeist, the minute we are and someone disapproves, that feel-good-do-it attitude becomes a liability attacked with a “Puritanical” condemnation. The most egregious example, as I noted in an earlier post, is that the political party of Bill Clinton, Gerry Studds and Teddy Kennedy, and Anthony Wiener among others, dares to accuse any non-Democrat of any sexual or moral indiscretion.

  2. Agreed, Neo. It just isn’t an episode which, by itself, should derail an entire career, and I would say that about a Democrat appointee.

  3. The Left cares because it will stop at nothing to keep a Trump nominee off the bench.

    On the other hand, alleged rapist Bill Clinton is okay to be President and alleged murderer/drunk driver Teddy Kennedy is the Lion of the Senate.

    Ted Cruz, Lindsay Graham, John Coryn and Mike Lee will expose this liar. She has no idea what she has walked into.

  4. Cornhead:

    The left pretends to care.

    And they want us all to think—in kneejerk fashion—that we should care, too.

  5. If Trump nominated William O. Douglas or RBG to SCOTUS, the Dems would still oppose. Because Trump.

    Seriously, this is all politics. The Dems are worried that their judicial gains will get evaporated if BK is on the bench. The Dems can’t pass legislation, so they depend on the Judiciary. This is mostly about abortion.

  6. The puritans in the old days had a simple test, the accused were thrown in the water, and if they drowned, they were innocent. Modern puritans seem to be seeking the same system of justice.

  7. GASP…!!!!
    Her attorney says her CLIENT believes it was an (GASP!!) attempted rape!! What year? Doesn’t know, but high school/ early 80’s. What location? Don’t know. Who’s party? Don’t know.

    Holy S***!!! Dianne Feinstein & your whole despicable mob: F… U!!!

  8. This testosteronel ‘yootful male and all whom I knew “tried” & got “denied”….Multiple teenage times.

    Duuhhhh…DUUHHHH…!!!

  9. It’s pretty clear that, for the Democrats, it doesn’t really matter if the accuser is telling the truth or not.

    She is a useful tool, one that they will discard when her usefulness is done.

    I am firmly convinced that the Democrats will use any tool–no matter how transparently fake, farfetched, or lowdown–if they think that it will sink Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

    That’s been their MO up until now, and I see no reason why they would change it–because–given the pathetic responses to that MO by weak-kneed Republicans–it usually works.

    P.S.–As someone commented recently, this ain’t nothin’ to the ruckus the Democrats will throw when it comes time for Trump to nominate a replacement for the half alive, cadaverous, mumbling Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

  10. My earlier post on another thread about the accuser references and linked to a story about student evaluations that said that she was made one reviewer afraid, while another that she had something wrong with her, etc.

    Now, the author of that article has issued a correction, saying that the reviews he had found and quoted were for a different teacher with the same name as Kavanaugh’s accuser.

  11. I’m going to have to disagree here, Neo. I do care. And I am likewise concerned, irrespective of party or ideology.

    Like you, and most posters on this blog, I wholeheartedly agree this is a leftist smear campaign against Kavanaugh. Disheartening, frustrating, disgusting. But all too predictable. Furthermore, I highly doubt Kavanaugh did anything close to what Ford describes (if he did anything at all). Lastly, I still believe (and hope), this will play out quickly and as seamlessly as possible under the circumstances. Let her ramble off some testimony; have him testify in denial, and on to a confirmation vote. Lefties can (and will) shriek red faced for a few weeks, until the newest “outrage” attracts their attention. And, its impact on the midterms….unknown.

    All that being said, if Ford is describing roughly what objectively happened, I do care. I think it disqualifies Kavanaugh from any position of public trust and, yes, he should withdraw his nomination; perhaps even resign his current judgeship. I freely concede there is no way to confirm what happened, unless Kavanaugh admits it. But hypothetically, if he did it, he should go.

    I understand behavior between high schoolers of opposite genders differed a great deal in 1982 than today. But this goes beyond mere drunken flirting. It’s sexual assault, plain and simple. And that’s inexcusable regardless of the perpetrator’s age…anywhere past entering adolescence.

    I’m ten years younger than Kavanaugh. But I truly cannot fathom ever behaving in the way he’s alleged to. Nor can I envision any of my male friends, when I was that age, doing so. It just speaks volumes about character.

    To repeat, I believe Kavanuagh and I support him. But…if it’s true, he should do the honorable thing and step down.

  12. “I am firmly convinced that the Democrats will use any tool–no matter how transparently fake, farfetched, or lowdown–if they think that it will sink Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

    That’s been their MO up until now, . . . .” [Snow on Pine @ 4:35]

    I am convinced that the primary reason they do this and it works is because the Dems know that the MSM will pick up the thread and run with it no matter how preposterous or unethical. Without media collusion this technique would die a quick, lonesome, and unheralded death.

    Trump was correct to call the MSM the enemy of the people

  13. I think our current puritanism is absurd.

    Puritanism is not necessarily absurd. It has its use. Focusing on morality makes groups more united: it defines clearly the rules inside the group and gives its member a common purpose against the wicked (according to them). Nazi Germany, for example, focused heavily in morality (of course, the outcome was that Jews were wicked). And it could happen that US has been traditionally such a puritan country because that helped to draw together a very young country. Something that European countries, for example, didn’t need, since modern European nations were mostly built after the Renaissance (in a period which, by the way, happened quite a highly puritan one too).

    My personal theory? White America is splitting in two different societies, probably two different nations. And the current wave of puritanism could be just the way to create cohesion in the one represented by the Democrat Party and to separate them from the rest.

    It could be, actually, the birth of a nation.

  14. As someone who would be deemed a prude, staid and old-fashioned when it comes to sexual matters I find all this sexual vetting immensely interesting, if not humorous, from those who lean left.

  15. I don’t think any of us fully comprehend how near a precipice the US really is. I can only guess from a distance…as I live overseas atm…but I know what I see in the people I know most closely and fully, and love most dearly who are still in the US…family & friends. Most of them are on the right-hand side of the political world but there are a few fence-straddlers & a small smattering of lefties.

    Anyone not of the left is loathed by those who are.
    Those closer to the right are genuinely fearful & in response genuinely angry & preparing for a violent showdown.

    The progressives in the US are trying to replicate Sherman’s March & are prepared to destroy everything in their path to unmitigated unchecked rule by force & fiat. This “he assaulted me” BS in this case (and I don’t believe it for a minute just like I didn’t believe Anita Hill) is just the next weaponized tactic to overthrow a constitutionally elected president that the progressives hate like nothing else on earth.

    If you thought the Javier Bardem-hitman in No Country for Old Men was serious about his work…just watch the left today. They are that serious…

  16. All throughout the last couple of years, especially since Trump won the Presidency, the MSM has–bit-by-bit–succeeded in almost totally discrediting itself.

    The MSM has reduced itself from being a source of information that almost everyone paid attention to, and a majority usually trusted and believed, to just “elevator Music”–it’s there, but it lacks the power it once had and, increasingly, fewer and fewer people really pay attention to it; it’s almost totally become just background noise.

    It’s a shame, too, because we all really need objective, reliable sources to deliver the key information we need to make decisions, and to navigate through our increasingly complex lives.

    What we don’t need is someone deliberately giving us the wrong directions, and steering us down a blind alley, or in the direction opposite from where we actually need to go.

  17. On “Puritanism.”

    The baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations.

    What this is all about.

  18. Acker:

    “All that being said, if Ford is describing roughly what objectively happened, I do care. I think it disqualifies Kavanaugh from any position of public trust and, yes, he should withdraw his nomination; perhaps even resign his current judgeship. I freely concede there is no way to confirm what happened, unless Kavanaugh admits it. But hypothetically, if he did it, he should go.”

    And if has he or whomever ever had a bad thought, he must resign. After all we are not a nation of laws but a nation of saints and angels and all must cleave to the new standard of absolute purity in thought and action, especially those who are on the wrong side of the arc of history, He must denounce himself at once, for the people!

  19. I agree whole heartedly with you, Neo. And I think it’s worth noting that the accuser is a professor now living in California.

  20. Virtue signalling and “memories’ from 1982 somehow are relevant because #metoo or is it #metwo? Nope, it’s the old means and ends game.

  21. Agree, don’t care about this disputed incident, whether it happened or not. I strongly suspect that none of our esteemed Senators do either, from either party. Democrats are using this as a weapon to delay and, ideally, derail the judge’s nomination.

  22. Ackler,

    I was a bit on the wild side in my youth, and allowed myself to get into unsavory situations where alcohol was involved. I wouldn’t expect any of the involved parties to not be in a position of ‘public trust’ based on something inappropriate from high school, or even college. People change, people make mistakes, especially where alcohol is involved.

    I’m so tired of women who were drinking (although she claims just 1 beer, my how convenient) blaming men who were drinking too. Unless the other party was stone cold sober, I think it’s a double standard. Who’s to say what really happened?

  23. “I think our current puritanism is absurd.”

    Democrats have clearly established that they support puritanical standards when it involves the right. When it involves those on the left, they get a pass.

    There is no issue too important, no lie too big that the left will not use to further its agenda.

    When I am the weaker, I ask you for mercy because that is YOUR principle but when I am the stronger, I show no mercy because that is MY principle” the Dialectic of the Left

    The Left’s dialectic only works when the lie is bought into that treating an enemy by the standards they themselves have embraced is “uncivilized” forgetting that “he who calls the tune… pays the piper”.

  24. So yes, Neo, this is bupkes. What if he had gone farther than whatever Miss X described and it was an assault of some sort — let me specify the sort, the kind that a 17yo boy with a few beers in him might think was invited by some look in her eyes, some flirty intonation in her voice, that extra-meaningful smile…. He followed her, grabbed her to kiss her, when she resisted he thought that was just part of the fun; and then he managed to get on top of her at one point, wow, cool.
    And he got shot down, one way or another. Her bathing suit (?!?) defeated him. His friendly accomplice Markie jumped in but only got in the way. He came just a little bit to his senses and started feeling disgusted with himself. She really doesn’t want to fool around, damn it all.
    Now what? He had tried to get some part of her clothes off, he insisted she “really” wanted to play too. Up to the point of the failure and halt.
    Is that an assault, or an attempted assault?
    Is that it for Brett Woebegone’s future?
    @Ackler says yes. So Brett goes off to college. Life is different. They expect more maturity. He is growing up all this time. He sees upper classmen and they act pretty coolly. He thinks, sheesh, glad that little episode didn’t go much further. What an ass I was!
    So he’s now unfit for public office? In a world of (fillintheblanks, we all have half a dozen names here)?
    No way. The man who learns from experience is worth a lot more than the man who never has any, in my book.

  25. Faith,

    People do make youthful mistakes (I certainly made many of my own) and people do mature. I don’t expect perfect ion or saintliness. But these allegations, if true, go well beyond a youthful mistake. They would disqualify any potential judge, regardless of party or ideology (or gender, for that matter).

    “If true”. And I don’t believe they are true. But, I don’t think it’s an unreasonable standard to require our judges not to assault people, even in high school

  26. The sublimated war that for so long characterized U.S. politics, and the
    rules that everyone followed, so as to avoid actual mayhem, the “comity” that toned down things, concealed, and prevented that war, has been shredded; it’s gone.

    I, too, think that the Democrat’s scorched earth policies and behavior have a good chance of leading the U.S. to another Civil War.

    When you have absolutely no trust in the other side and what it’s saying, and when the other side has demonized you and increasingly resorted to violence, what else is left beside actual war?

  27. the Me Too folks think they are speaking for all women. In the case of Harvey Weinstein, they may be. What about the mothers of boys? They all know what teens are like, and I can’t believe these moms would like to see their sons’ lives ruined at age 50 because of an unsubstantiated claim about an event that occurred thirty years previously. Besides, most women know that some girls and women can be pretty trashy.
    Someone needs to talk to the mothers of boys.

  28. Snow on Pine on September 17, 2018 at 4:46 pm at 4:46 pm said:
    My earlier post on another thread about the accuser references and linked to a story about student evaluations that said that she was made one reviewer afraid, while another that she had something wrong with her, etc.

    Now, the author of that article has issued a correction, saying that the reviews he had found and quoted were for a different teacher with the same name as Kavanaugh’s accuser.
    * * *
    This is not the first time the crowd-sourced justice leagues have fingered the wrong person.
    Sometimes it’s the left, and sometimes it’s the right; and sometimes it’s the police going in the wrong door at midnight.

    However, if this other teacher is not called into her dean’s office for a consultation, then there is no point in having student comments at all.

  29. T on September 17, 2018 at 4:54 pm at 4:54 pm said:

    Without media collusion this technique would die a quick, lonesome, and unheralded death.
    * * *
    Which is what happens in most cases involving Democrats.
    Only when something gets too big to be squelched do we hear stories, and even those are spun like a top.
    Examples are too well-known to bother listing them.

  30. steve walsh on September 17, 2018 at 5:52 pm at 5:52 pm said:
    Agree, don’t care about this disputed incident, whether it happened or not. I strongly suspect that none of our esteemed Senators do either, from either party. Democrats are using this as a weapon to delay and, ideally, derail the judge’s nomination.
    * * *
    Gee, ya think?

    AesopFan on September 17, 2018 at 11:51 am at 11:51 am said:
    https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2018/09/17/shocka-sen-dicky-durbin-just-accidentally-proved-timing-on-christine-blasey-fords-accusations-is-absolutely-political/?utm_campaign=twitchywidget

    “If you had any doubt as to whether or not Democrats deliberately sat on the accusations from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford against Brett Kavanaugh for political purposes, Sen. Dicky Durbin looking to stall her testimony should wipe all doubt AWAY.

    ‘John Berman
    ?
    @JohnBerman
    JUST NOW: @SenatorDurbin told me he supports public testimony from Dr. Christine Blasey Ford…but this week would be too soon.’

    They knew about these accusations.

    For months.

    While they cried they didn’t get the documents they needed to make a decision.

    And now that they’ve leaked this woman’s name and her allegations they want to stall her testimony which would stall the vote … they are absolutely pathetic.”

  31. Geoffrey Britain on September 17, 2018 at 6:04 pm at 6:04 pm said:

    Democrats have clearly established that they support puritanical standards when it involves the right. When it involves those on the left, they get a pass.

    * * *
    Kai Acker on September 17, 2018 at 6:14 pm at 6:14 pm said:
    So he’s now unfit for public office? In a world of (fillintheblanks, we all have half a dozen names here)?
    No way. The man who learns from experience is worth a lot more than the man who never has any, in my book.
    * * *
    Ackler on September 17, 2018 at 6:17 pm at 6:17 pm said:
    “If true”. And I don’t believe they are true. But, I don’t think it’s an unreasonable standard to require our judges not to assault people, even in high school.

    * * *
    He wasn’t a judge when he was in high school.
    I’m going with Acker, rather than Ackler.

  32. expat on September 17, 2018 at 6:46 pm at 6:46 pm said:
    Besides, most women know that some girls and women can be pretty trashy.
    Someone needs to talk to the mothers of boys.
    * * *
    Some mothers of boys told them to never be alone with a woman they weren’t married to.

  33. I remind people that the standard tactic to prepare the ground for the destruction–and sometimes the actual physical destruction–of the people who are your enemies is to dehumanize them–to make them the scary “other,” to paint them as less than human, as “unpeople.”

    As we have seen, during WWII this tactic worked exceedingly well against the Jews in Germany and elsewhere.

    Thus, first we had Hillary saying that Trump supporters were a “basket of deplorables.”

    You might remember that, during the 2016 election, Peter Strzok said in one of his emails that the could “smell the Trump supporters” when he visited a Walmart in the southern part of Virginia.

    Then, more recently, we had the recent characterization of supporters at a recent Trump rally in Miami, by Marc Caputo, a reporter at Politico, as being toothless “garbage people.”

    Finally, a day or so ago, in a speech to an LQBTXXX group, former VP Biden said that many of Trump’s supporters were “the scum of the earth.”

    Could the “preparation of the battle space” be any clearer?

  34. https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/17/christine-blasey-ford-testify-congress-826078

    “The Senate Judiciary Committee will have a chance to hear in public from the woman accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault and the Supreme Court nominee himself, a Republican member of the panel said on Monday.

    The hearing has been scheduled for Monday Sept. 24. Both Kavanaugh’s camp and that of Christine Blasey Ford, who came forward Sunday with the allegation, have been contacted about the planned public hearing, a source close to the confirmation said.

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) aligned with Kavanaugh’s denials, lamenting in a floor speech that Ford’s allegation had emerged “at the last minute and in an irregular manner” as he gave Grassley a vote of confidence in conducting interviews of both the judge and the professor.”
    * * *
    Irregular is a bit of an understatement, if he means “regular process” in the Congress.
    It’s a VERY regular manner for the Democrats.
    * * *
    “Katz, during the CBS interview, said she has heard that Republicans “intend to play hardball” if Ford testifies.

    “This is not an exercise that is designed to get at the truth,” she said. This is an exercise that’s designed to terrify somebody that’s already been traumatized.” ”
    * * *
    It happened 30 years ago (if at all), and nothing actually happened other than rough groping (if that).
    She’s a clinical psychologist who has got to have heard far worse, if she did any legitimate practice at all.
    She’s an adult who started the food fight.

    Cry me a river.

  35. Verbally and then, sometimes physically attacking smelly, deplorable, toothless “garbage people” and “the scum of the earth,” people who might even be the bigots, white supremacists, racists, or even the Nazis they have been labeled as, can seem to be a lot more righteous and justifiable than attacking people who are “just like you.”

  36. Harsanyi calls out the Dem play book.

    http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/17/democrats-have-ensured-brett-kavanaugh-will-never-get-a-fair-hearing/

    “It’s worth remembering that these Democrat tactics aren’t only meant to sink this nomination — should they end up forcing Kavanaugh to withdraw — but also to damage the credibility of any Supreme Court featuring Trump-nominated (or, let’s be honest, Republican-nominated) justices. Democrats have been dishonestly challenging the “legitimacy” of the court throughout these hearings. They don’t want to abide by any authority that treats the Constitution seriously, because it’s often the only thing standing in the way of their coercive policies.

    The Kavanaugh hearings were already an embarrassing spectacle in which Democrats ignored the rules, processes and procedures when it suited them. Yet, if Republicans refuse to hold more open hearings now, they will be accused of ignoring sexual assault. If they do hold hearings, they will be accused of attacking a sexual assault survivor, anyway. Republicans will never be able to ask Ford anything useful, because they’re mostly white men, and white men are, I’m told, perfunctorily racist and misogynist. If Republicans bring up the fact that Ford’s allegation wasn’t reported or relayed to anyone for more than 30 years — until Kavanaugh’s name emerged as a possible Supreme Court justice — they will be accused of attacking a woman. If they point out that her therapist’s notes, the ones that Ford claims prove her charge, in some ways contradict what she is now saying, they will be portrayed as a bunch of men attacking a sexual assault survivor. When they point out that polygraph tests are unreliable and inadmissible in courts, they will be accused of berating a victim.

    Republicans are simply expected to nod their heads in agreement.

    The entire time, the media will cover the hearings, and the accuser, according to well-established norms – which is to say Ford will be treated like Anita Hill, not Juanita Broaddrick.

    Then there is another separate, uncomfortable question: Even if we believed Ford’s accusation as she states them, should the ugly drunken actions of a 17 year old disqualify an exceptionally qualified 53 year old who hasn’t been accused of any other wrongdoing since?Is that a standard everyone in Washington is willing to live with moving forward, or is it going to be one of those oscillating norms that will be exclusively deployed for Republicans?

    Whatever the case, if the GOP surrenders to what might be a cynical ploy (unless new credible evidence emerges about Kavanaugh), they will be creating a precedent that says every and any unsubstantiated accusation against a Republican, no matter how old it is, should be disqualifying.”

  37. Here is my irrelevant musing.

    If he is not guilty, then its outright lying, or its either a conflated memory or a manufactured memory.

    There is GREAT pressure in our country in the generations after mine, to somehow NOT come from a decent family, or not have some abuse on you as most others claim and so, have no connection to contemporaries… To sit around while others told their tales and punching their ticket to sing the blues, and have decent parents, never be molested, etc… is a horror unexplored in film (yet)

    Did it happen? is it outright lying?
    was it conflated or manufactured memories?
    who could tell without a heck of a lot of work?

    not I!

    The most interesting part however, would come from Kavanaugh completely innocent…

    Oh what a tangled web we weave then…

    looking back in hindsight… sitting on the queens thrown of the movement
    which Kavanaugh would you want on the bench?

    the one who was confirmed without accusation?
    or
    the one who was confirmed with accusation?

    if innocent, then insert false in the right part of the dual question above…

  38. Instapundit & PJM are going to town on this; PowerLine, not so much.

    A Selection of Links via Instapundit —

    https://mobile.twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/1041754798482239488
    “Debra Katz, the attorney for the woman accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, said that it is not her client’s job to corroborate her claims.”

    As accuser and “prosecutor” it certainly is her lawyer’s job to do so.

    * *
    https://pjmedia.com/trending/grassley-feinsteins-office-not-cooperating-with-scheduling-follow-up-calls-with-kavanaugh-and-accuser/

    “Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said in a statement Monday that the allegations of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh “deserve to be heard” and investigated, but that Senator Dianne Feinstein’s office is refusing to cooperate in setting up follow-up calls.”

    In other words, this is so important I waited months to tell anyone, and we have to have hearings, but I don’t think we should be in any hurry.

    * * *
    http://amp.dailycaller.com/2018/09/17/kavanaugh-judiciary-democrats-wont-participate

    “According to a new report, Democrats do not plan to participate in a phone call with Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh on Monday afternoon.

    Democrats, who have called for the Senate to delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote in light of the allegations, are not planning to join in on the call.”

    But we have to get to the bottom of this immediately!!
    This may be why Katz said “This is not an exercise that is designed to get at the truth,” — because that is not the Dem agenda at all.

  39. One more from Instapundit — I have read more Twitter the last two days than in the last 2 years.

    https://twitter.com/varadmehta/status/1041727843191934978

    “The accuser will testify but this week is too inconvenient, and when she does no Republican can question her because they’re all middle-aged white guys, is not what you say if you’re trying to convince people this isn’t something you cooked up for maximum political advantage.”

  40. In the meantime—
    https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/17/trump-declassification-fisa-documents-comey-texts-826304

    “President Donald Trump has moved to immediately release a tranche of former FBI Director James Comey’s text messages and declassify 20 pages of a surveillance application that targeted former campaign adviser Carter Page, his latest offensive against a Russia investigation that has ensnared associates and has consumed Trump’s attention for much of his presidency.

    The breadth of the order came as a surprise and landed amid a full-court White House effort to shore up the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, as he defends himself against a sexual assault allegation. Trump demanded that the FBI produce 20 pages of the surveillance application — which Republicans on Capitol Hill have suggested would help show anti-Trump bias at the highest levels of the FBI.

    Trump also called for the release of senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr’s notes related to the Russia probe.”

  41. Ackler on September 17, 2018 at 6:17 pm at 6:17 pm said:
    “If true”. And I don’t believe they are true. But, I don’t think it’s an unreasonable standard to require our judges not to assault people, even in high school.”

    It certainly is a reasonable standard… when both sides operate by that standard. But when only one side plays by that standard and the other side does not, it’s a rigged game in which the ‘house’ always wins. Until… there’s only one side left.

    Snow on Pine,

    “Thus, first we had Hillary saying that Trump supporters were a “basket of deplorables.”

    Yes followed by Caputo and now by Biden. But Hillary cast a far more heinous label upon Trump supporters than merely “deplorable”. She also claimed Trump supporters to be “irredeemables” the definition of which is “not able to be saved” generally used in a religious context, it indicates an individual “beyond redemption” even by God…

    Given that animals are ruled by instinct and thus not ‘responsible’ for what they do, can there be a more grave dehumanization than declaring that Trump supporters are so reprehensible that not even God can redeem them?

    Which brings to mind Bill Ayers & Bernadine Dohrn’s famous meeting of the Weather Underground terrorist group* in which it was opined that 25 million Americans would prove unable to be ‘reeducated’ and have to be terminated.

    “Antifa Website Shows How To Injure Police, Hold Up Banks, Sneak Across The Border, & More”

  42. “(although she claims just 1 beer, my how convenient)”

    A beer? She admits to having downed a beer? At 15? Serving her beer is illegal in most places. Her having it, is complicity in a crime.

    How can she ever be trusted to do the right thing, when she did not then?

    “Madam, were you then aware that it was illegal for you to be drinking alcohol at 15? If so, then why did you do it … etc. etc …”

    Of course it is probably legal to serve minors alcohol in Maryland, DC and Virginia. LOL

  43. If, after having sampled the behavior of Democrats–House and Senate–in recent Capitol Hill hearings, you believe that the “questioning” by Democrats will, in any way, be a fair and honest attempt to determine the truth of these accusations, you are a deluded fool.

    This will be warfare, Leftist agitprop, political theater.

    About as legitimate and even-handed a search for the truth and for justice as one could have found in one of those old “Revolutionary Operas”–Communist propaganda produced by his wife, and Mao supposedly really loved them–that the Chinese Communists used to send on tour around China during and to justify their murderous Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution; a GPCR that killed, maimed, and destroyed the lives of countless tens of millions of Chinese.

  44. I’m’ pretty sure, as well, that you can count on Leftist audience members doing their best to disrupt the hearings next Monday.

    Code Pink, and every other Lefty outfit will have their disruptive shriekers there in full force.

    Why are people with the obvious intent to disrupt the hearings–and a past record of doing just that–admitted?

    How do people get admitted to the very limited seating in these Hearings?

    They can’t just stroll in and take a seat, Senators have to give them passes to get in.

    And guess who Democrat Senators will give their limited number of passes to?

  45. Ackler:

    No, it’s not a reasonable standard.

    Depends on the assault. What if Kavanaugh had gotten into a fight and hurt someone when he was 17, and had never done anything even remotely like that again? What if he had shoplifted, or cheated on a test?

    Do you really think that a person’s behavior, once, at 17—short of a serious crime, which this was not (in fact, it’s the sort of thing a lot of teenagers do, especially when under the influence)—means they can never be in a position of trust again? I don’t.

    I think that’s actually an absurd position to take.

    I evaluate a judge’s behavior by his or her behavior as an adult, and as a judge. I think that’s a reasonable standard. By all accounts, Kavanaugh has been exemplary. That’s why they had to dig up something that supposedly occurred when he was 17, 36 years ago, without any details that would allow him to defend himself.

    Another reason your standard is an unreasonable one is that it cannot, literally cannot, be defended against. It is the ultimate she-said/he-said. It can be mounted against anyone (particularly men, of course) and can never be disproven, particularly if the accuser gives no date or place, and especially if many years have passed.

    If someone is convicted of the crime of assault, that’s different. But that’s not the situation here, and it never will be.

  46. I have the feeling that this woman is lying in some manner. We have reports of what she said happened, and then we have Mr. Kavanaugh’s categorical denials of everything, including of even knowing who she is.

    Something may have happened like that to Christine Blasey, but it was done by someone else entirely, not Brett Kavanaugh. The hearings will likely show that she has some serious credibility problems, but by that time, it won’t matter. The false accusation will have served its purpose, and there will be no consequences for making it.

  47. I know Neo and Yann were using the word puritanism is a very generalized sense, but one of the reasons Americans have a cultural sense of that word is because THE Puritans emigrated to Plymouth, Mass. That is, the Pilgrims.

    The backstory to that trip is interesting. They were ejected, or perhaps felt rejected from their home in England. France was very Catholic at the time, but they were welcomed in the Netherlands and lived there some time. But they were uncomfortable with their children and grandchildren becoming acclimated as Dutch citizens. Against the threat (and reality) of great hardship, they came to America, … so they could remain Brits! Ha!

    Europe didn’t have much use for real Puritanism, but they did have Victorianism which was a bit similar.

    Geoffrey Britain says,
    “Democrats have clearly established that they support puritanical standards when it involves the right. When it involves those on the left, they get a pass.”

    We’re getting warm here; but people! This is straight from the Alinsky playbook, Rules for Radicals, rule #4:

    “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”

    These rules could refer generally the Republican “religious right,” but more specifically, at the time of the assault allegation Kavanaugh was attending a Jesuit prep school, so I’d say Jesuit rules.

    It must be wonderful being a leftist who’s rules are grounded in Gaia Mother Earth. You can make that sh_t up as you go along.

  48. Aesop: Okay, I phrased that poorly. Let me restate: it is not unreasonable to expect judges to have never committed sexual assault in their lives, even while in high school.

    Geoffrey: You’re absolutely right. The standard should be held to both sides. Democrats are hypocrites and knaves in this regard and…so many others. I’m not one to advocate some lofty notion of “rising above” ever popular among GOPe, and almost always a losing proposition. I’m merely saying Kavanaugh personally should withdraw if these allegations are true. He has a moral obligation to do so. If he does not, well….politics is politics and Republicans shouldn’t be shy about fighting just as dirty as the left.

  49. And a Hatch spokesperson told ABC News of Kavanaugh: ‘He told Senator Hatch he was not at a party like the one she describes, and that Dr. Ford, who acknowledged to the Washington Post that she ‘did not remember some key details of the incident,’ may be mistaking him for someone else.’ Daily Mail

  50. Ackler:

    Are you a concern troll? You seem to buy the allegation made and discount the denials made by Judge Kavanaugh and then feel better telling us what is most honorable for him to do. Polish your halo elsewhere.

  51. Neo,

    I think a distinction needs to be made from the offenses you described and sexual assault. Shoplifting is a petty crime (usually) and against property. Cheating on a test is not typically a crime, but a moral breach, yet still largely “victimless”.

    I would certainly not suggest either morally disqualifies one from an office of public trust; in particular if it was committed under age 18. And to be honest, I committed both of those acts under 18.

    Fighting is more complicated; I think it would really depend on the context. Are we talking about a schoolyard spat, entirely mutual, and only a few bruises? Or are we talking about bullying and beating another kid bloody?

    Sexual assault, to me, is as serious as the latter fighting scenario. I just don’t buy the “boys will be boys” defense, or its companion “Well, we all did stupid things in high school”. As I said, I did plenty of stupid and regretful things, but nothing like what Ford alleges. Nor did it ever even cross my mind. To the best of my knowledge, neither did any of my friends. Maybe such antics were going on all around me yet I was blissfully ignorant? Maybe…

    In any case, I agree, allegations like these allow for little to no ability to successfully rebut. Based on what paper thin evidence Ford has presented, of course Kavanaugh should not withdraw…if he’s innocent. But if he’s not, yes he should.

  52. om: I assure you, I am not a concern troll. Given that I’ve been posting on here (granted, sometimes with months-long hiatus) for six or so years, I hope that’s amply demonstrated.

    To repeat: I do not believe Ford. I believe Kavanuagh’s denials. I do not think he should withdraw based on anything that’s been presented or anything that is likely to be presented, if he is innocent (and I believe he is). But if he is guilty (and only he knows this), then he should withdraw.

  53. https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2018/09/17/it-will-never-be-enough-raw-story-goes-after-mike-pence-for-being-the-anti-kavanaugh/

    For those playing along at home: frat boy culture is bad if it hurts Kavanaugh and rejection of frat boy culture is bad if it hurts Pence. Any questions?

    Raw Story
    ?
    @RawStory
    Mike Pence dumped his college fiancee for being a ‘sinner’ and narced on his beer-drinking frat bros: report https://www.rawstory.com/2018/08/mike-pence-dumped-college-fiancee-sinner-narced-beer-drinking-frat-bros-report/#.W58VJIYH5E8.twitter

  54. https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2018/09/17/well-look-at-that-senate-democrats-have-officially-given-away-their-entire-kavanaugh-game/

    Dems won’t get on a call because they want an FBI probe instead?

    These things are not mutually exclusive.

    Seung Min Kim
    ?
    @seungminkim
    Kavanaugh will have call with Republican Judiciary Committee staffers at 5:30 pm today, per official familiar. Dems not on call as they continue to call instead for FBI probe

    https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2018/09/17/its-a-game-dianne-feinstein-is-pissed-that-kavanaugh-and-ford-are-willing-to-testify-at-public-hearing/?utm_campaign=twitchywidget

    A public hearing is coming for Kavanaugh and the woman who has accused him of assault. Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s office said they were not made aware.

    https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tariniparti/brett-kavanaugh-assault-christine-ford-public-hearing

    “On Monday afternoon, Republican staff scheduled a phone call with Kavanaugh concerning the allegations. Democrats did not participate to protest of the “enormity” of the allegations, saying it was not proper for the situation to be handled at the staff level behind closed doors.

    “As I said earlier, anyone who comes forward as Dr. Ford has done deserves to be heard,” Grassley said in a statement after the call. “My staff has reached out to Dr. Ford to hear her account, and they held a follow-up call with Judge Kavanaugh this afternoon. Unfortunately, committee Democrats have refused to join us in this effort. However, to provide ample transparency, we will hold a public hearing Monday to give these recent allegations a full airing.””

    Don’t be confused, as I was; the phone call Dems didn’t participate in was today; the public hearing is next week.
    I think.

  55. I am sure that the Democrats on the Committee will try their best to shield Kavanaugh’s accuser from searching questioning, to try to run out the clock by sidetracking the hearing with a constant barrage of points of order and objections, and will dramatically posture, moan, and complain “that she has already suffered enough,” and argue that, in her “already traumatized condition,” Kavanaugh’s accuser should not be subjected to a rigorous examination of both her story and her motives.

    But, she is the accuser here.

    This is political hardball with a lot at stake, so I advocate that the accuser–a “hostile witness” if there ever was one–not be treated by her Republican questioners with kid gloves, but rather be subjected to the most rigorous, searching, and thorough questioning possible.

    If this is done, I expect that her story will fall apart and that, at least, viewers will recognize that she is a far Left wing partisan, has every reason to lie, and that her vague accusation–according to reports, she can’t remember the specific date, the specific place, or even the specific season when this supposed attack took place, and, moreover, she never told anyone about it at the time, but reportedly only “recovered” the memory of it in a 2012 therapy session–is very likely a fabrication.

  56. The Leftist alliance controls the mind of Americans. Why people thought Trum could just get rid of all that after being easily elected… I don’t know. Perhaps Americans think wars can be won just by pressing a button.

    Ackler

    Om thought the Trum supporters here were trolls in 2015, just to give you a historical pov.

  57. With this incident having supposedly taken place almost 40 years ago, and the woman’s reported inability to supply any specifics as to the time, place, or even the season when this supposed sexual attack occurred, anyone could be accused of such an attack, and be totally unable to refute the accusation.

    In fact, this accusation appears to have been constructed to be unable to be refuted.

    Anyone can say well, I just recently “remembered” that that person over there did something awful to me several decades ago–the details in my mind are hazy, vague, and I don’t exactly know the date or the place where the attack took place or even the season of the year it was in, but–trust me–the attack did take place, and the offender should pay for his misdeeds.

  58. https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/307824/#respond

    THEY’RE ANONYMOUS, AND THE ONES QUOTED DIDN’T GO TO SCHOOL AT THE TIME OF THE CLAIMED ASSAULT: More than 200 schoolmates rally around Kavanaugh’s accuser.

    More than 200 women who attended the same all-girls school as Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser have signed an open letter supporting her allegations of sexual assault when they were both high school students.

    The letter says the women — who graduated from the private Holton-Arms School in Bethesda, Md., between 1967 and 2018 — believe California psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford “and are grateful that she came forward to tell her story.”

    “Dr. Blasey Ford’s experience is all too consistent with stories we heard and lived while attending Holton,” the letter says.

    “Many of us are survivors ourselves.”

    The letter is posted on the Google Forms website and says it’s been signed by “200+ alumnae,” but the names of the signatories aren’t included.

    Sarah Burgess, a member of the class of 2005, told the Huffington Post that she wrote the letter with several schoolmates because Ford’s claims felt “personal.”

    Well, if a claim feels personal, even if it happened before you were born and you don’t know a thing about it, it must be true. Because feelings. This is feminism in 2018.

    Posted by Glenn Reynolds at 10:07 pm

    (story linked above)
    https://nypost.com/2018/09/17/more-than-200-schoolmates-rally-around-kavanaughs-accuser/

    “More than 200 women who attended the same all-girls school as Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s accuser have signed an open letter supporting her allegations of sexual assault when they were both high school students.

    The letter says the women — who graduated from the private Holton-Arms School in Bethesda, Md., between 1967 and 2018 — believe California psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford”

  59. https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/307835/#respond

    CONFIRM HIM AND BE DONE WITH IT: Megan McArdle: Caution, the Kavanaugh mess may never be resolved satisfactorily.

    Contra conservatives, the vagueness of Ford’s story isn’t proof that it didn’t happen. If anything, the reverse: Liars tend to provide an excessive wealth of detail. But the lack of detail does make it essentially impossible for Kavanaugh to defend himself. “Prove you weren’t at a house party somewhere in Montgomery County between the years 1979 and 1982” would set a new high for Supreme Court nomination standards. A version of that standard would be applied again and again if this story, by itself, scuttles his nomination.

    Well, of course, the plan is for it to only be applied to Republican nominees.

    Posted by Glenn Reynolds at 10:29 pm

  60. They werent even classmates, they went to different schools, strangers met in parties dont know each other in last name basis. Most likely she was attacked by someone in the party but hardly remember who he was so she asked her friends who attended ithe party which guys were in the party and got his last name that way. All white teenage guys look alike, unless they know each other she could easily mistaken someone else as him.

  61. This interesting chart was referenced by a commenter at the above Instapundit post about McArdle. There are 13 points, and Ford’s story doesn’t fit most of them, but there are some suggestive parallels.

    https://www.law.northwestern.edu/legalclinic/wrongfulconvictions/exonerations/documents/ilDotsonMcDowell.pdf

    “False accusers frequently claim that they
    offered vigorous and continuing physical
    resistance but suffered no serious reprisals.
    Most actual rape victims do not offer
    vigorous resistance, and those who do often
    suffer extremely brutal reprisals.”

    “False accusers tend to be vague on the details,
    but when a false victim does provide details
    she tends to do so with a relish that actual
    victims seldom have.”

    “False accusers, far more frequently than
    actual victims, cannot say exactly where the
    rape occurred”

  62. They need to ask her if they knew each other and if she knew his last name before the incident or if she only assumed it was him by picking him out in a crowd or in a yearbook after the incident with her getting his face committed to memory during the act.

  63. I can recall every place i partied in the 7th to 10th grade, she was nearly raped there, she can remember who were there 30 years later and what she wore but cant remember where it took place, give me a break. Does she remember who drove her there? obviously she couldnt be walking there otherwise it would be around her neighborhood.

  64. On Puritanism: The U.S. occilates back and forth from the extremes. In my life, I have seen two complete cycles. Those who live here don’t notice the changes from one day to the next, but if you visit every few years, or so, the changes become more obvious.

    So, part of the problem with such old accusations is that behavior from one era is being judged by the social norms of another era. I went to university in the seventies and I sure wouldn’t want my life then put under the microscope of today.

    Actually, come to think of it, I really don’t care much what anyone today thinks. But then, I am not being vetted for high public office.

    In any case, I think most people conveniently forget about their own youthful indiscretions.

  65. The problem with Puritanism today is it is not reciprocal. If Karanaugh is an obama nominee none of these accusations would hardly get noticed or get reported in the news, you know jake tapper would be rationalising it as a smear job from the right who is trying to destroy this decent man with an unsubstantiated claim or preaching to us how we shouldn’t judge a person by what he did as a child. That is exactly how they are defending the dnc chair, or weiner when his strange habits were first exposed. We used to judge people who demand Puritanism from others with higher moral standards since it’s silly for someone who can’t control their own impulses to be the morality judge who can pass judgment on how others be. That is the reason why the conservatives were judged with high moral standards in the past. The problem today is democrats is the Puritanical party demanding everyone to live as a saint today but instead of morally setting a higher bar for themselves they actually protect each other for doing things that they would condemn conservatives for.

  66. TommyJay:
    I know Neo and Yann were using the word puritanism is a very generalized sense, but one of the reasons Americans have a cultural sense of that word is because THE Puritans emigrated to Plymouth, Mass. That is, the Pilgrims.

    I know what you mean, and you’re right, but I don’t think it’s really relevant. Puritanism in US is way more widespread and I’m not that sure the cause can be linked to the original Puritans.

    TommyJay:
    The backstory to that trip is interesting. They were ejected, or perhaps felt rejected from their home in England. France was very Catholic at the time, but they were welcomed in the Netherlands and lived there some time. But they were uncomfortable with their children and grandchildren becoming acclimated as Dutch citizens. Against the threat (and reality) of great hardship, they came to America, … so they could remain Brits!

    As a sidenote, not all of them went to America. You can notice the remaining influence in modern Holland. The freedom that defines Amsterdam as a city is linked to the concept of freedom in US. Actually, Amsterdam is an extremely libertarian city.

    TommyJay:
    Ha!Europe didn’t have much use for real Puritanism, but they did have Victorianism which was a bit similar.

    Well, that’s not really true. Europe was far more puritan than people think. It’s kind of similar to what happens with slavery. Everybody thinks that US was the big market of slaves, and when you check the numbers, US slave market was quite small in comparison with the rest of America, not to say in comparison with the Muslim slave market, or the internal African slave market.

    During the Salem Witch Trials, 19 people were executed. To compare, there were THOUSANDS of people executed for witchcraft in Europe. Nobody knows for sure, but the number is likely between 30,000 and 60,000

  67. I am really getting sick of this stuff. Women allow their teen daughters to wear anything but modest clothing, and then they are offended when boys look at their breasts. The teen years are the time when kids are supposed to learn about interacting with the opposite sex.A girl may be attracted to a good.looking guy and then learn that he is really dumb and boring. Or she may be interested in the richest guy in the class, only to find that he cares more about clothing labels than about her. She may find that the rather nerdy guy who gets A’s in math may be really fun to be with and likes to talk to her.

    That is what should happen. Of course kids will make mistakes and hopefully learn from them. All teens will sometimes read the signals wrong. We aren’t a society where parents arrange marriages. Teens have to learn for themselves.

    I would like to know what kind of signals Ford sent out. Did she go to this “party” because she was looking for a cool rich slightly older guy? What was she wearing? What was she drinking? If she sent out the wrong signals, why is she a saint and the guy (maybe not Kavanaugh) who misread them a sexual assaulter? After decades of work in psychology, why hasn’t Ford been able to admit that she screwed up?

    Sure there are abusive men out there, but there are also lots of women who will put up with anything to get ahead. A vagina does not confer sainthood. Women have to stop telling their daughters that it does. And they should try to teach their sons the values they should look for in women.

    I gave up on feminism in the early 70s.

  68. The odds are high that any question asked of the accuser by the Republicans will be portrayed by the Dems as an attack on a victim. But Republicans must ask questions. Their audience for the questioning then is not the Democrats but rather the fence sitting Republicans (Collins, Flake, etc.). They need not question whether this happened or not, in fact they can be quite deferential and sympathetic, rather they should seek to establish why and how they should believe she was attacked by Kavanaugh. They can use the holes in her story to cast doubt on her assertion that it was him.

  69. The letter from 200 women who went to the accuser’s high school over a period of fifty years is immaterial. It’s not personal to Blasey Ford, and most of them, presumably, weren’t there when she was. It adds nothing other than that for five decades there were teen parties in the area.

    The letter from 65 women who knew Kavanaugh is evidence of his character. They knew him then and since. In addition, there are statements from a woman who dated him in high school and a woman who dated him in college to the effect that he was a gentleman.

  70. The rule I have gone with is: No contemporaneous police report. No assault.
    If you don’t go to the police and bring it up years and years later I have no foundation to judge the validity of you statement.

    I came to the opinion during the Clinton presidency. While I believe that probably Juanita Brodrick was telling the truth, that she didn’t file a report made me discount her testimony. I know she was afraid of reprisals and possibly with good reason, but it seemed unfair to make something that is often he said/she said be judged so far in time from the act. I didn’t like Clinton and thought he got away with a lot of bad actions, but we need to have a standard of proof for both sides and try to stick to the rational as much as we can.

    In this case there is no good reason for this woman not to have filed a report if she, at the time, believed that Kavanaugh had tried to rape her. He was a random high school student so she should not have been afraid of reprisals.

  71. Martin: It is true that Jaunita Broaddrick did not file a police report, and at the time she spoke publicly, the statute of limitations had expired. However, she did tell people about the assault at the time, including one friend who saw her cut and swollen lip, and she had details which verified that she was there and Clinton was there. That makes it “credible,” although not proven in court. Paula Jones also told people about Clinton’s behavior at the time it occurred, making her story credible enough to pose a legal risk to Clinton in her sexual harassment lawsuit. that’s why he lied, to avoid liability.

    This present case reminds me more of the faux UVA story. “Everybody knows” that prep school guys assault girls, so this must be true, without any corroborating details.

  72. Given the political makeup of the Senate, it’s unlikely that Kavenaugh will be approved and that will enshrine a new paradigm; the accusation itself is ‘proof’ of the crime.

    It’s a rigged game when one side refuses to play by the rules and the side that obeys the rules continues to participate.

    The Left is making a mockery of our political system.

    What can’t go on… won’t go on.

    We’re already in a cold civil war.

    The Left is driving America toward a ‘hot’ civil war.

    They’re playing with fire and their ideological blindness prevents them from foreseeing the reaping of the whirlwind they are sowing.

  73. I’m getting really, really irritated at people saying this crazy woman deserves to be heard. Why? Nothing she has said should disqualify the judge. This isn’t about her getting justice. No matter what happened, she punted on her chance for justice decades ago. It’s not about her! Her feelings are irrelevant to the nomination process. Her story is irrelevant to the nomination process. Her behavior in all this has been scandalous. She should be shamed and shunned for what she’s done. This is an outrage. She has done enormous damage to the nation and all morally decent, patriotic citizens should be angry about it. It may take decades to heal the harm she’s caused. Regardless of the outcome of the nomination.

  74. no women should be believed unless substantial evidence corroborating her story could be provided…just like every other crime.

    Don’t go to his room or invite him to your room if you don’t want to f**k him, Don’t get drunk in a party if you don’t want to be f**ked by strangers, don’t claim rape when you have sent the guy thousands of emails about how you want to sleep with him. Wear a Chastity belt too

  75. They should make a law that drunk means consent. If you know that getting drunk in public means you put yourself into a situation where strangers can take advantage of you but you do it anyway that should be interpreted as a consent.

    Your vagina, your responsibility. it shouldn’t be the guy’s responsibility to figure out what is in your mind. Your consent is in your actions. stop using the power of the government to restrict the freedoms of guys so you can be a sl*t free of consequences.

  76. Good points Yann. The numbers I saw indicated the U.S. had about 1/7 of the African slaves in the Western hemi. Brazil and the Caribbean had most of the rest.

    To answer Neo’s question, I don’t care if Kavanaugh did it, assuming it couldn’t be worse than Ford is claiming.

    Wow! My wife just read Kathleen Parker’s article effectively stumping for a bi-partisan vote in favor of Kavanaugh.

  77. “It’s a rigged game when one side refuses to play by the rules and the side that obeys the rules continues to participate.” [Geoffrey Britain @ 9:48 am]

    That is why the argument “we’re better than that” does not hold water. It’s not unlike being a pacifist. One can be a pacifist in only two circumstances: 1) when someone else is willing to do the heavy lifting so you don’t have to; 2) until one is directly attacked. At that second point, pacifism is nihilism.

    Likewise, a gentleman’s demeanor and a “we’re better than that” sanctimony at this point in the confirmation process is useless. As the line from Josey Wales notes:

    “Now remember, when things look bad and it looks like you’re not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean. I mean plumb, mad-dog mean. ‘Cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live nor win. That’s just the way it is.”

    I think it is that time. This is the end of the line because if Kavanaugh can not be confirmed, then no Trump appointment is going to be confirmed barring a Republican supermajority in the senate, and that seems unlikely.

  78. When the older ladies threw their bras in the fire, and followed Kolontai (which would have shocked the non communist feminists who didnt love lenin as the first leader for women), they liberated themselves…

    and threw all the young girls out into the cold
    they knew it, cause either these girls would rut like dogs
    or the boys and older men and the drug era of that period as well would

    How else could you fund the revolution on the dead babies and body parts needed for money?

    anyone besides me realize that in the new liberated world, girls lost their common sense, no chapperones were allowed, alcohol and such was ok, drugs were cool, and pulling a train of five guys is liberating if no one knoes and you can say you also went to bed with your girlfriends

    prior to THAT era, such things were much more rare
    planned parenthood would have had a hard time

    So, the young ladies now start sex even EARLIER than the shocking period before, except now they get pregnant at 12, get an abortion, and the guy who is a man, doesnt have to marry them, or even pay support.

    cause THAT is what women wanted
    and THAT is what they got
    and its not what they wanted
    it is what they asked for

  79. if they thought it was bad before liberation
    it became much worse AFTER liberation
    and how bad is it?
    well now they ask invaders to come in and force rape them

    there is a wordd for it, and i wont say it
    but basically they surround a western liberal on her own feminist inspired lady
    the inside ring basically rapes her
    the middle ring eggs them on and switches places
    the outer ring makes sure outsiders dont know whats going on in the group center

    next time you watch a movie… do notice how nice the kids used to be
    what kind of clothes they wear, and what kind of environment we thought was healthy

    right now 2/3 of college kids are mental cases..
    ony 25% are fit to serve – but dont want to
    we have constant sabotage now, like czechs did to the soviets

    another 40 years of this and……….
    we will be liberated into a soviet existence

    did you try to fly recently?
    you need internal passports now..
    just had mine finished..

  80. Could Grassley issue a subpoena for Keith Ellison to testify on this issue? He has been accused and is currently on the DNC and running for the Attorney General office in Minn. To my knowledge, no one in the Democrat leadership has addressed the allegations against him. Airing his in public at the same time and place would be refreshing. But perhaps the Dems would throw Ellison under the bus then to get Kavanaugh.

  81. Federal Employee for State Department: “Resist everything… Every level. F**k sh*t up.”

    Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) Embedded in Federal Government Positions, Actively Resisting

    Stuart Karaffa Does Work for DSA While on Taxpayer’s Dime: “I’m careful about it. I don’t leave a paper trail.”

    “I have nothing to lose. It’s impossible to fire federal employees.”

    Ethics Officer Fails to Recognize Breach on Ethics Form: “somebody just rubber stamps it and it goes forward…”

    [reminds me of why you find cigarett butts in soviet tanks, odd bolts, etc… why schindlers bombs were duds… they are no longer citizens, they are doig what in the past we shot people for doing… sabotage in civilian clothing…]

    you think this kavenaugh thing is real?
    maybe it is, maybe it isnt
    but as the social democrat (communist) above said: she has nothing to lose and lots to gain from tons of people who would celebrate her, even if she lied..

    the concepts of the founders are gone
    morals are redefined by the left
    war is constant and on all levels
    like termites..

    and you thought feminist moms were raising healthy kids
    sure looks like they were raising an internal army that by their own self hate and loathing for their own – gave them no homes, and so, nothing to care about – but a dream of a place that doesnt exist they hope to make by moving a mountain one grain of sand at a time

    welcome to checkoslovakia
    i did say to read taht history
    and the history of the Bela Kuhn movements

    why bother?
    you have front row seats…
    too bad the play is in a language you dont understand
    not unless you study the dual langauge they speak about and i have quoted

    “When we get ready to take the United States, we will not take it under the label of communism; we will not take it under the label socialism.

    These labels are unpleasant to the American people, and have been speared too much.

    We will take the United States under labels we have made very lovable; we will take it under liberalism, under progressivism, under democracy.

    But, take it we will.”

    Alexander Trachtenberg at the National Convention of Communist Parties, Madison Square Garden, 1944

    Alexander “Alex” Trachtenberg (1884–1966) was an American publisher of radical political books and pamphlets, founder and manager of International Publishers of New York. He was a longtime activist in the Socialist Party of America and later in the Communist Party USA. For more than eight decades, his International Publishers was a part of the publishing arm of the American communist movement. He served as a member of the CPUSA’s Central Control Committee

    then

    International Publishers Company, Inc., was founded in 1924 with funds given the project by A. A. Heller. Heller was the radical son of a wealthy jeweler doing business in Paris. He expanded his fortune as head of the International Oxygen Company, a welding supply company that operated a trade concession in Soviet Russia during the time of the New Economic Policy in the early 1920s. A lifelong socialist, Heller had previously been a heavy financial donor to the New York Call, the Socialist Party’s New York daily newspaper. He had been instrumental in funding the purchase of the headquarters building for the Rand School of Social Science

    During the 1920s, International Publishers produced the first English-language editions of important works on Marxist theory by Karl Kautsky
    Foundations of Christianity, 1925;
    Are the Jews a Race? 1926;
    Thomas More and His Utopia, 1927),
    Leon Trotsky
    Literature and Revolution, 1925;
    Wither England? 1925;
    Wither Russia? 1926),
    Nikolai Bukharin
    Historical Materialism, 1925,
    The Economic Theory of the Leisure Class, 1927;
    Imperialism and World Economy, 1929);
    and Joseph Stalin (Leninism, 1928).

    International also joined with the Communist Party of Great Britain’s publishing house, Lawrence and Wishart and Progress Publishers (Moscow) to publish the massive, 50-volume Collected Works of Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, a project launched in 1975 and completed only in 2004

    International Publishers has also published a considerable number of memoir accounts by leading Communist Party participants, including those of
    William “Big Bill” Haywood (1929),
    Nadezhda Krupskaya (1930),
    William Z. Foster (two volumes, 1937 and 1930),
    Ella Reeve Bloor (1940),
    Joseph North (1958),
    W.E.B. Du Bois (1968),
    Benjamin J. Davis (1969),
    John Williamson (1969),
    William L. Patterson (1971),
    Hosea Hudson (1972),
    Elizabeth Gurley Flynn (reissue, 1973),
    Art Shields (two volumes, 1983 and 1986),
    Gil Green (1984) and
    Angela Davis (paperback reissue, 1988).

    The company also published the work of Herbert Aptheker, a historian specializing in African-American history.

    maybe you sould read
    Radical Publishing to “Reach the Million Masses”: Alexander L . Trachtenberg

    why not take some time and see what he had to do with Naiomi Goldstein (betty friedan) and kate millet…

    you can read
    Red Love Across the Pacific Political and Sexual Revolutions of the Twentieth Century
    https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057%2F9781137507037.pdf

    maybe you want to trace the lineage of thought from russia, to franz boas, and to his famous socilist communist students…

    not that it matters much
    no one had ot convince the kids to grow up and sabotage their own homes
    the women got the men out and then raised them into tiny revolutionaries
    till even nickelodeon advertises
    and colleges score extra credit towards entry

    Nickelodeon Went Off The Air To Support The School Walkout
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54pOYakF7Ws

    oh…
    did i mention that a writer that joined sesame street in 1984, turned bert and ernie gay, forgetting that there were writers (jim henson) going back to 1969… we are back to the era where men cant just be firends, they have to be lovers

  82. The question is whether Grassley could subpoena the Kavanaugh accuser. So far, reports this morning are that she is not cooperating with the Committee, and her lawyer is trying to put “conditions” on an appearance.

  83. Given the political makeup of the Senate, it’s unlikely that Kavenaugh will be approved and that will enshrine a new paradigm; the accusation itself is ‘proof’ of the crime.

    This is why the GOP has to keep its nerve. Report the nomination with no recommendation after Flake commits his treason. Then hold the vote and put all those red state Democrats on record. If he loses, and if the Senate has 57 Republicans next year, nominate him again. Trump has the guts and Kavanaugh is probably mad enough to stick it out.

    This will be the last public hearing for a supreme court nominee.

  84. Art,

    “We will take the United States under labels we have made very lovable; we will take it under liberalism, under progressivism, under democracy. But, take it we will.”

    Alexander Trachtenberg at the National Convention of Communist Parties, Madison Square Garden, 1944

    That’s the strategy and the goal. The Founder’s strategy was ensuring that we would have “a well-armed lamb contesting the vote”.

    Want to start a hot civil war? Try to outlaw gun ownership, that’s the ‘tripwire’. Ultimately, it’s the second amendment that guarantees the first amendment.

    That’s the factor that the Left’s ‘calculus’ fails to plug into its calculations.

  85. “This will be the last public hearing for a supreme court nominee.” [Mike K @12:21 pm]

    You may well be correct. See the Instapundit post by Glenn Reynolds below [09-18-18 @ 7:30 am]:

    If the Republicans hold the Senate, Mitch McConnell should use this precedent — together with the nonstop disruption of the hearings — to put Trump’s next nominee directly to a floor vote with no hearings, on three days’ notice.

  86. I still think there could be closed hearings but Democrats may not be willing to be honest on that. I’m just amazed that people still vote for them. Probably about the Emmy audience plus The View audience.

  87. Martin, Kate:

    On Broaddrick’s accusations.

    At the end of that post I said I just didn’t know if her accusations were true or false. I still don’t know, but at this point I come down on the side of “false.”

    I remember reading how George Stephanopolis visited the exact hotel room and looked out the window to see if he could show she was lying. He could not.

  88. An interesting comment from Akler that shows that even among amiable people, largely ideologically sympathetic, one may find hugely divergent moral sensibilities.

    “I think a distinction needs to be made from the offenses you described and sexual assault. Shoplifting is a petty crime (usually) and against property. Cheating on a test is not typically a crime, but a moral breach, yet still largely “victimless”.

    I would certainly not suggest either morally disqualifies one from an office of public trust; in particular if it was committed under age 18. And to be honest, I committed both of those acts under 18.

    Fighting is more complicated; I think it would really depend on the context. Are we talking about a schoolyard spat, entirely mutual, and only a few bruises? Or are we talking about bullying and beating another kid bloody?”

    Although I completely agree on the heinousness of sexual assault, my take at an age similar, would have been much more ruthless on cheating and stealing; and I would have seen little to nothing wrong with beating an aggressor bloody in retaliation. I suppose now I have a more forgiving attitude toward people who act impulsively or opportunistically … one that comes with being insulated from any possibility of now experiencing such a threat myself. It’s easy to forgive a lie told against another by a third party, or to make an excuse for the miscreant behavior of an unloved and unintelligent youth who “acts out” as a result.

    As for honor violations, I nowadays feel some pity nowadays for those who violate the code, whereas back when it were done by a youthful peer, I would have been absolutely unforgiving.

    I believe children are notorious for judging their peers much more harshly than would adults, who look at what they judge to be a lack of “maturity”, than what the kids judge -perhaps as, or more accurately – to be innate character.

  89. Mike K:

    So what?

    Proving someone is lying about a “he-said/she-said” story is not just difficult, it’s nearly impossible, particularly long after the fact.

    I would not expect anyone to ever be able to prove that she is lying. There is also no way to prove she’s telling the truth. I’ve already pointed out the arguments that say she is lying. I think they are more compelling than the arguments on the other side.

  90. A general thought:

    With all the pressure that must now exist on the Democrat side of the senate, it will be interesting to see how this will effect Manchin’s and Heitkamp’s confirmation votes. The pressure for them to vote with the Dems must be unbearable even though pundits have written that their doing so will undoubtedly make Manchin and Heitkamp lose their reelections.

  91. T:

    What Manchin and Heitkamp do depends on what Republicans like Corker and Flake et al do. If the members of the GOP give out signals that they will hang tough in favor of Kavanaugh, that would indicate that Kavanaugh will be confirmed even without Manchin and Heitkamp’s votes for him. If that happens, then Manchin and Heitkamp will probably be released to vote “yea” on Kavanaugh and preserve their own re-election chances.

    The problem will come for them if they don’t know how Flake and Corker and the rest will vote. Then they won’t be able to adjust. Another problem would be if enough Republicans signal they will vote “nay” that the Kavanaugh approval is in jeopardy, and a “yea” vote by Manchin of Heitkamp could save him. That would be the real dilemma for them. In that case I predict they will vote “nay” and hope they’ll be re-elected anyway.

  92. Neo,

    That all makes sense. Anecdotally relying on numerous W VA contacts, however, it would not surprise me that Manchin’s reelection is already a lost cause. The Republicans are shaking things up in that state in a no-nonsense way. They just impeached the entire State Supreme Court for profligate spending (2 justices resigned before the impeachment), and of course with Trump’s rebirth of the coal industry there, his support for Kavanaugh carries weight.

    We live in interesting times.

  93. T:

    I seem to recall that Manchin’s defeat was predicted because of his Obamacare “yea” vote, and yet he was re-elected anyway. I would think that he hasn’t forgotten that, and it might give him confidence that he’ll win despite a “no” for Kavanaugh.

  94. We need multiple, independent witnesses in order to optimize recovery of the signal, which may or may no reflect the truth, nothing but the truth, so help us a benchmark extra-universal entity.

  95. The problem with these sort of stories is listening to accusers after decades, involving our justice System to find the truth from what I can say a made story for personal gain.

    If Ford what she telling now, did she went to police when its happened?

    To stop these sort of distractive manipulative behavior we should stope talking or listening to any one coming now looking for something also justice system refuse to looking to cases or stories back decade unless it was reported to police and not been followed or covered or neglected .

  96. Neo,

    Manchin claimed he was against cap-and-trade and against dropping Obamacare’s allowance for pre-conditions. His ad showed him shooting both a cap and trade bill (with a rifle) and a bill noting a lawsuit to revive pre-conditions in health care (with a shotgun). The Patrick Morrisey mentioned in the ad, formerly attorney general, is Manchin’s current opponent in the senate race.

    As you know, the pre-conditions allowance was arguably the most popular aspect of the entire affordable care act. Add in the second amendment and . . .

    Manchin was a popular governor and much of his success relied on that. Times have decidedly changed though. Not making any predictions here; as I noted, interesting times.

    Link (the Manchin ad is at the 0:27 mark):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6940xNXB_k

  97. “when a false victim does provide details
    she tends to do so with a relish that actual
    victims seldom have.”

    Yes! One detail of Jackie’s story in Rolling Stone immediately struck me for this exact reason: she said one of the men attacking her told the others, “Grab ITS leg.” I’ve read countless police reports and victim accounts of real rapes and never encountered a rapist refer to a victim as “it.” Rapists often use the most vile and violent language but her account was straight from Silence of the Lambs: “It puts the lotion on.”

  98. Kate, I agree with you that she did give contemporaneous accounts to friends, and I understand that she had good reason to beware of accusing a powerful politician. I personally believe her but see no way to validly use this in any kind of legalistic way against President Clinton, whom I hold in very low esteem. I do think in a case like Clinton, who exhibited a pattern of this kind of behavior, it does lend credence to a current accusation that can be validated with additional evidence.

    My only point is that to be fair on these kind of issues I personally am unwilling to use poorly documented events, i.e. not reported to authorities, as evidence in a current issue, even against people I disagree with. It is too easy for them to be fabricated.

    To the people opposing Kavanaugh, the fact that there is no way to really corroborate this story is a feature more than a bug, since at the same time it is very difficult to rule it out as “possible”.

    Neo, I was simply expressing that I would feel uncomfortable using this kind of information to attack someone on the other side. Much like you said in your note at the end and in your previous thoughts on Al Franken.

  99. Martin:

    Just one thing about the Broaddrick accusations and Bill Clinton—he actually did not “exhibit a pattern of this kind of behavior,” “This kind of behavior,” in terms of Broaddrick, is rape or attempted rape. Clinton’s pattern of behavior was messing around of various kinds and serial, compulsive infidelity.

    I do not think there were any other allegations of rape, as far as I can recall (I’m not looking it up right now). Even Paula Jones did not allege that.

    And by the way, I do not believe all of Paula Jones’ story, either, I definitely believe he came on to her (probably in a pretty crude way) and they had some sexual goings-on. But there were significant parts of her harassment story that were not believable. See this, and in particular this:

    multiple other witnesses suggested that Jones was, to the contrary, elated by her interaction with Clinton. Pam Hood, a coworker of Jones’s, told the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer in 1997 that the meeting sparked a “bubbly enthusiasm” in Jones similar to her demeanor after seeing Arnold Schwarzenegger visiting Little Rock. Carol Phillips, a switchboard operator at the governor’s office, said Jones had a “happy and excited manner” in describing her meeting with Clinton, who Jones called “gentle,” “nice,” and “sweet.” In 1994, her sister and brother-in-law, Charlotte and Mark Brown, told Sidney Blumenthal — then a New Yorker reporter — that Jones was suing Clinton for “the money,” and that, “Paula’s suing over a stupid lie, and she knows it.”

    Unlike the Broaddrick case, the Jones case also has some physical evidence involved. Kind of. Jones gave an account of what the president’s penis looked like that was then thoroughly discredited…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>