Advise and Consent

by Deana Chadwell9/21/18
Any thinking person today is hearing alarms going off in all directions over the Kavanaugh accusations. It’s obvious that this is all dirty politics; we can see that in the timing, in the fussiness about Ford testifying, in the nasty rhetoric that swirls in poisonous clouds throughout Washington. But the problem is much deeper.

In the first place, we have no clearly defined morés for sexual behavior anymore. The sexual revolution has opened a multitude of fearful doors. Our young women find themselves defenseless in compromising situations and we have no guidance to give them. We have no way to council them – or our young men – about just where the line is. Sex is now allowed, performed, promoted. Women feel they can behave in any way they wish, wear whatever they wish, and men have to hold that line and read feminine signals with no idea of what they mean. This looseness has been trending for decades and suddenly now we’ve turned puritanical and are horrified at the very thought of sexual advances happening.

We have no clear idea of what, exactly, “sexual assault” means. From the precious little detail Ford has given, we can’t tell whether she’s describing teenaged rough-housing or attempted rape. She obviously wants us to picture the latter, but if she had suffered such a violent attack, would she not have been visibly distressed at the time? Wouldn’t friends have noticed? IF anything happened at all between these two people, how do we know what it was exactly? A hand brushing across a breast? Some pushing and shoving, playful or otherwise, that got out of hand? At what point do we know that a crime occurred?  “Assault” is a violent, injury-producing attack. At least it used to be. A quick check with a dictionary defines “assault” as “an unlawful threat or attempt to do bodily injury to another.“  If Kavanaugh had actually committed such an act, wouldn’t that have been noticeable to others? Wouldn’t all the details be burned into her brain?  You’d think so.

Secondly, we live in a time in which men, especially white men, are automatically  guilty — of most everything, and in which women are all victims – of everyone male. It is, in part, the vague definitions of sexual faux pas that have made this possible.  Almost any advance a man makes can now be interpreted as over the line because no clear line exists.  I find this disturbing. I’ve been around for a long time, worked with men for decades and have never known any who were sexually threatening, so this intense enmity between the sexes is incomprehensible to me.

Thirdly, it seems that evidence is no longer of any importance – for anything. Kirsten Gillibrand kept saying in her recent speech on Ford’s accusation, “I believe her. I believe her.”  On the basis of what? Guilt or innocence isn’t determined by “belief” but by evidence, but Gillibrand had already made up her mind without meeting Ford, without examining her testimony, without any specifics at all. Even my religious beliefs are based on overwhelming evidence, not on how I feel at the moment. But today, logic and facts garner no respect – every opinion is just based on emotional reaction. How is anyone to get a fair hearing under those circumstances?

Fourthly, all this is happening at a time when few seem to understand how things are done, how our government works. Ever since Trump became president I’ve been aware of this confusion. The left acts as if they can get rid of Trump – evidently by any means – that Hillary will take over. They don’t seem to be aware that losing an election is an actual loss.  Even Obama said “elections have consequences”.  It means loss of control over administrative agencies; the whole Russia debacle stems from a failure to recognize this fact.  An election loss means loss of control over who gets appointed to the Supreme Court and if you don’t have control of the Senate, that’s just done. So the leftists feel justified in throwing every hissy-fit they can drum up. Damn the law and ethics and truth.

According to the Constitution it is within the purview of the Senate to “advise and consent” on SCOTUS appointees. The Constitution says nothing about grilling these appointees half to death, about setting land mines made out of vague and ancient fictions. The concern is supposed to be whether or not the candidate has the education, the clarity, the self-discipline to weigh issues brought before them. It is not about changing the world. It is not about getting the jump on the opposing party. It is certainly not about high school antics – if in fact any happened.  The left seems to think that a SCOTUS judge can just haul off and change laws, which explains their hysteria, but a little knowledge about the balance of power would calm those fears. SCOTUS can’t initiate lawsuits; they can only rule on what is brought before them.

We also have forgotten that the FBI doesn’t do this kind of inquiry. Ford wants a special favor – an FBI investigation. But each federal agency has its own job, its own territory. The FBI can only do background investigations, investigate possible federal crimes, and teenage fondling doesn’t qualify — unless the activity crosses state lines and involves kidnapping. It is also questionable that the FBI is even capable of objectively investigating anything that connects to Donald Trump and his choice for the Court.  In the last two years this agency has demonstrated appalling bias and dishonesty in its dealings with our president; it is no wonder Ford is anxious for their support here.

We have also lost track of the concept of innocent until proven guilty  — beyond reasonable doubt. This has been slipping away for quite a while now. The media have become our judge and jury; the more sensational and politically potent an accusation is, the more likely it will be seen as true, and no amount of correction will undo that.

What bothers me the most, however, is that we’ve lost all contact with common sense, with any desire to arrive at the truth. The truth is that Democrats believe they will take Congress in November (The key word here is “believe.”) and they want to put off the confirmation vote until then. So, Ford’s accusations have burst onto the scene in a most orchestrated, obvious manner. She wants to raise a fuss, but not be held to account, which says to me that she is unsure about the whole thing. If it were me, I’d want to get on with it, get it over with, but her hesitancy feels really off. If she didn’t want the attention why write the letter in the first place? And where does she get off wanting Kavanaugh to testify first? Testify to what? This all flies in the face of thousands of years of jurisprudence. Common sense would dictate that we pay attention to policies that have worked for millennia, but common sense is dying.

Eventually the dust will clear and Brett Kavanaugh will be confirmed and things will calm down –until the next appointment comes up, until the next overblown accusation is thrown at the next decent man. How many drama-queen explosions can we put up with? How many lies can we absorb? How many crucifixions can one nation stand?


Deana Chadwell blogs at ASingleWindow.com. She is also an adjunct professor at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon. She teaches writing and public speaking.
About Author Author Archive Email • (317 views)

Share
Deana Chadwell

About Deana Chadwell

I have spent my life teaching young people how to read and write and appreciate the wonder of words. I have worked with high school students and currently teach writing at Pacific Bible College in southern Oregon. I have spent more than forty years studying the Bible, theology, and apologetics and that finds its way into my writing whether I'm blogging about my experiences or my opinions. I have two and a half moldering novels, stacks of essays, hundreds of poems, some which have won state and national prizes. All that writing -- and more keeps popping up -- needs a home with a big plate glass window; it needs air; it needs a conversation. I am also an artist who works with cloth, yarn, beads, gourds, polymer clay, paint, and photography. And I make soap.
This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

77 Responses to Advise and Consent

  1. Timothy Lane says:

    There are some interesting aspects to this political hit piece. One is that the most recent poll shows that 25% of women believe false accuser Ford’s fabrication — and 28% of men. Tucker Carlson discussed this tonight, noting that men tend to trust women but other women are less likely to do so. I can think of many possible reasons for this, but of course none of those are politically correct to discuss.

    One reason is simple: most women aren’t man-hating lesbians or other femocrats. They have husbands, fathers, brothers, and sons that they love — and they don’t want to see them destroyed by a vague, unsupported accusation that leftist vermin such as mother of lies Gillibrand and viper’s get Blumenthal insist must be believed without evidence or trial. And these are members of the Judiciary Committe willingly throwing away due process of law and the Bill of Rights for the sake of dirty politics.

    And they don’t even mean a word of their lies. If they did, they would attack sexual abuser Keith Ellison (the evidence against him comes from 2 different women with much more supporting evidence than false accuser Ford has supplied) as well, and demand that he step down as #2 at the DNC (and Gopher State AG candidate of the Demagogue-Former Laborer Party).

    With luck, Ford and her vile supporters (much worse than she is; it’s her lawyers who insist on overturning the legal system, which should get the vermin disbarred) will wreck the Me Too movement by exposing the commitment to tribal “justice” at the root of it. And if so, I hope someone rubs that in their faces.

  2. Timothy Lane says:

    Having ignored the deadline all day, viper’s get Debra Katz waited until 25 minutes before the deadline — to demand another day. Sean Hannity foolishly thinks they should give her the day. I disagree. This is just another effort to string them along.

    And, as he and Tammy Bruce both acknowledged, if Kavanaugh is confirmed the Demagogues will smear them for not throwing away all judicial standards — and all the while continue to ignore Karen Monahan. (Too few people bring up this contrast. It should be done in every discussion, since it exposes the blatant hypocrisy of these vermin of Demagogues.)

    In for a penny, in for a pound.

  3. Steve Lancaster says:

    We keep hearing that FBI investigate, but for any law enforcement agency, city, state or federal to investigate there need be some evidence a crime has been committed. In the case of assault the victim must present themselves to police as soon after the assault and press charges. Ford never did that additionally, she was a minor apparently without a drivers license, so some one drove her home, from somewhere, at sometime in the first half of the 80s. All that a police officer could do at the time was say go home, and when you can give me some specifics come back. She never went and nearly 40 years later is too late.

    Kavanaugh will be confirmed next week. The first Monday will see a full court.
    Just as importantly, democrats have blown all of the marginal good will they might have expected when the next Supreme Court opening, probably buzzy Ginsberg, occurs. The crying, wrenching of garments and nashing of teeth will be epic, bring popcorn for the hearings and watch a 6th conservative elevated to the court. Chucky Schumer will cry a river.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      democrats have blown all of the marginal good will they might have expected when the next Supreme Court opening, probably buzzy Ginsberg, occurs. The crying, wrenching of garments and nashing of teeth will be epic, bring popcorn for the hearings and watch a 6th conservative elevated to the court. Chucky Schumer will cry a river.

      I believe we are coming to an inflection point when the right will finally bare their claws and show their fangs in response to the criminal leftists. They will no longer care about or consider the lies spewed out by the likes of Feinstein, Booker, Schumer or Durbin.

      I find the minuet being danced by the likes of Hannity sickening. Everyone knows how the left and right hate each other and this silly/phony charade is believed by nobody with half a brain. It simply pisses most people off.

      This is one reason people despise the political class. My wife and I were listening to the Cruz/O’Rourke debate this evening and the moderator’s last question was something to the effect of, “Can both of you gentlemen point out something about your opponent which you admire?” Even my wife was disgusted by this oleaginous question. Everyone listening knew that politics is dirty and that the candidates probably hated each other. But it is bad form to say so, therefore reporters expect candidates to spout some dishonest hooey about how they admire their opponent. Bah humbug.

      Of course O’Rourke waxed dishonestly eloquent about how wonderful Cruz was. Cruz started out in much the same manner, but took the opportunity to stick Beto about his socialism being daft. At least Cruz was being somewhat more honest that Beto.

      The left and the media, oh I am being redundant, don’t seem to understand that the general population if fed up with oily politicians’ dishonesty and the assumption that people believe it. Rather a somewhat crude partially honest pol than a smooth lying completely dishonest one.

      By the way, I think the next Supreme Court nomination is very important, not because it will give a 6th seat to a constitutionalist, but because it will secure at least 5. Thomas is 70 will have to retire in the not too distant future. He doesn’t look particularly healthy to me either.

  4. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    So the leftists feel justified in throwing every hissy-fit they can drum up. Damn the law and ethics and truth.

    While it is somewhat annoying to listen to this constant nonsense spouted by the left, I will say again that I am very happy about it.

    It is clear to me that the insane behavior of the left is offending and sometimes scaring normal people in this country. The left’s behavior is so offensive that I am convinced many people who might normally have voted for a Dim will now vote for a Rep. I also believe that the same people will be motivated to get out and vote.

    Just as importantly, I see how the left’s actions against and treatment of Trump irritates him so much that he feels the need to return the favor and stick it to them. The best way to do this is to pursue policies and issue executive orders which drive them crazy. In such a way is Trump pushed further right than his natural inclinations would take him.

    I think we should send all the radical leftist nuts Thank You notes.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      As I mentioned, only a quarter of women believe the false accuser. Of course, a lot have no opinion for whatever reason. And that quarter are undoubtedly militant leftists anyway.

  5. Timothy Lane says:

    Unsurprisingly, given what we already didn’t hear last night, YBR Grassley caved again. Having given 10 a.m. Friday, then close of business Friday, and then 10 p.m. Friday as the final deadline, he give Ford and her attorney, viper’s get Katz, another day to come up with a stunt to avoid testilying while pretending to want to testify.

    Grassley should immediately take action to have the viper’s get disbarred on the obvious grounds that she has placed Demagogue partisan advantage above the interests of her client. Of course, she can always escape punishment if false accuser Ford will admit that this was a political hit job all along, so the viper’s get is just doing what her lying client wants.

    Then, since the Monday hearing has already been called but it’s clear the liar isn’t going to show up, he should bring in Karen Monahan and Juanita Broaddrick to show that the Judiciary Demagogues, who’ve trashed due process and the Bill of Rights to proclaim “believe the woman” even if all she has is a vague, unsupported allegation with no specifics of when or where or any other details, a chance to show whether or not they really mean it. I want to see vermin such as long pig Hirono, mother of lies Gillibrand, and viper’s get Blumenthal eradicated, but at least rubbing their faces in their own bullschumer would be a pleasant alternative.

  6. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    Admire the Left for playing for keeps. We don’t. Politics is war by other means. Trump is popular with conservatives not because he is a particularly good or thoughtful man but because he is willing to do battle. And although regarding the culture wars, Trump believes most of what the Left believes, he does give us our victories here and there (such as nominating Kavanaugh).

    Every single person here if they are sitting as a Republican Senator in that hearing knows the game being played. This is a smear. This is woman-as-victim and you’ll be damned if you don’t take her accusations seriously because we all know that women don’t lie about this stuff.

    Democrats are playing for keeps. They regularly win in the culture wars (with the politics then following) because they know they are in a war. Most conservatives and others do not. They simply believe that there’s nothing going on in our culture that is worth getting hot and bothered about. They believe it will just all work out because, gosh, what could be wrong with being tolerant, nice, and equal?

    As I was telling my friend, Pat, yesterday, most Americans are not capable of strategic thinking. There is no sense of pushing-back with some long-term goal. The idea of pushing back has such costs attributed to it (by the Left) that they don’t bother and then rationalize their inaction.

    The Left, on the other had, has definite goals, if only to defeat their hated enemy. (And any normal and decent person is their enemy.) If I’m a Republican Senator, I not only don’t cave but I push back. I remind this committee that time and again the Democrats have tried smear campaigns as a last resort. Fight. Back. Just. Do. It. Believe. In. Something.

  7. Timothy Lane says:

    I suggest a contest. How will Debra Katz blow off Charles Grassley’s latest deadline? Will she simply ignore it and count on him giving them yet more time? Will she demand still more time to decide? Will she insist on waiting till Thursday to delay the vote for yet another week? (She can count on dishonest leftist vermin — if you’ll pardon the redundancy — pretending that testilying on Wednesday is just an arbitrary date.) Will she demand that the accuser testily after the accused testifies so that he can’t answer whatever specifics she fabricates at the last minute? Will she go with the optics and continue to demand that only senators question the false accuser?

    Anyone who wants to suggest that the viper’s get will respond honestly is free to do so. You have a right to be foolish, after all. (Indeed, the right to be wrong is an essential right because otherwise someone has the right to decide by fiat what is right.) And if anyone has another suggestion, feel free to add it.

    There’s no need for a contest for how the YBR will respond. There are only 2 choices, and we probably all agree on which one he’ll opt for.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Oops. It turned out the deadline was 2:30 pm today, which I only found out after the viper’s get liar/lawyer blew it off as expected.

      I had expected the vermin to go with the optics and demand that only the males they complain about question the false accuser. But instead they demanded more negotiation time. The lying vermin didn’t have any specifics of what they wanted or what they didn’t accept among the Committee offer. Just more time.

      Now we get to see if someone finally transplanted a notochord into YBR Grassley. It’s too much to hope for that he actually got a spine.

      • Steve Lancaster says:

        Grassley, like most of the DC RINOs does not have a spine. In fact calling them Rhinos insults a magnificent beast. Better to call them jellyfish, they float from place to place on the current, kill whatever they can catch in their tentacles and have no spine.

      • Patrick Tarzwell says:

        I go with squirrels (Status Quo Unprincipled Incumbent Republican Reprobates Eloquently Lying Scumbags). No-one is afraid of a squirrel, but at least Jellyfish can sting.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Well, a rabid squirrel might be a danger, but I guess that could be equated to the Never-Trumpers. I think sea anemones would be less of a threat than either one. They have stings, but I don’t think they have enough venom to be a threat.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          I like squirrels. As I have written somewhere else at ST, squirrels are just rats with bushy tails.

  8. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    The link will take you to an article about Ben Carson’s comments that socialists have long been planning to takeover and change America.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/21/hud-secretary-ben-carson-kavanaugh-allegation-is-part-of-a-socialist-plot.html

    Somewhere in the piece the idiot writer says,

    “There is no basis for Carson’s claim that socialists are plotting to take over American civic institutions.”

    How does one deal with such monumental stupidity and dishonesty?

  9. Timothy Lane says:

    Well, according to FNC tonight, Cnidarian Grassley is still negotiating for false accuser Ford to come in . . . Thursday. It sounds like he totally caved in to the forked-tongue devils attacking Kavanaugh.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Who knows what is actually going on? I have read that there is still no agreement on Fraud’s testimony. If Grassley doesn’t kill this early next week it will be over until after the November elections. I understand the Senate cannot take any vote after September 30th as they will all be gone.

      It is hard to determine if Grassley and McConnell are trying to be too clever by half, or simply gutless. If they blow this, which is looking more and more likely, the Reps will get killed in the November elections.

      Given the below information, why would anyone listen to Ms. Fraud.

      https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/third-named-witness-rejects-kavanaughs-accusers-allegations/

      • Timothy Lane says:

        The Senate normally shuts down for campaigning season, but there’s no requirement that it do so — and McConnell has already threatened to keep them in session. This would conveniently force all those vulnerable Demagogue incumbents to stay in DC instead of going home to campaign. Cnidarian Grassley is a weak-kneed YBR, but not McConnell.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          This paragraph in a communication from Dr. Fraud’s lawyers to Grassley is what makes me say that there is still no agreement.

          Although many aspects of the proposal you provided via email, on September 21, 2018, at 2:33 pm, are fundamentally inconsistent with the Committee’s promise of a fair, impartial investigation into her allegations, and we are disappointed with the leaks and the bullying that have tainted the process, we are hopeful that we can reach an agreement.

          The only thing I have seen today is that there has been an agreement for Dr. Fraud to testify next Thursday, yet details still need to be worked out.

          This would conveniently force all those vulnerable Demagogue incumbents to stay in DC instead of going home to campaign.

          And it has the added plus of keeping Ted Cruz in D.C. And we all know how much Mitch dislikes Ted.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            The quoted paragraph is, as one would expect from the forked-tongue devils representing the false accuser, a tissue of lies. In particularly, the vermin implicitly blame the GOP for leaks that their side did, no doubt at their behest. Viper’s get Katz and the false accuser’s other liars/lawyers should be disbarred — and if Cnidarian Grassley had either vertebrae or a scrotum, he would already be initiating such proceedings.

            Kat Timpf tonight on Greg Gutfeld wondered not only how anyone could assume Kavanaugh was guilty in the absence of any real evidence, but also how they could assume he was innocent. She has a point that many are making decisions on the basis of partisanship. But she ignores that everything the forked-tongue devils have done since the false accuser discussed this with Rep. Sneezy has served the Demagogues’ partisan interest. And in particular, after lying on Monday that she was eager to testily, as soon as the GOP agreed (as they should have) she started putting up difficulties. That is when I concluded that she didn’t dare allow herself to face potential perjury charges.

  10. Timothy Lane says:

    One article I just read recommends that the GOP “bork the borkers” over false accuser Ford and their obvious use of it as nothing but a political dirty trick. Here’s my notion of how this should be done.

    First, Grassley should denounce — by name — every Demagogue who proclaimed that we must always believe the accuser regardless of evidence (even without her own sworn testimony). Then he should call Karen Monahan as a witness to give these vermin the opportunity to live up to their own claimed principles.

    Next, Grassley should denounce — by name — every Demagogue who rejected due process for the sake of a political hit. Then he should bring a witness who can explain the principles of due process in order to educate the Demagogues whose shocking ignorance of these principles should disqualify them from serving on the Judiciary Committee just as someone who can’t do basic arithmetic should be disqualified from serving on the Appropriations, Budget, or Finance Committee.

    Then Grassley should denounce — by name — every Demagogue who rejected the legal principles of the Bill of Rights for the sake of dirty politics. Then he should bring out a witness who could teach them for these ignorant vermin, for the same reason he had educated them about due process.

    Then Grassley should denounce — by name — every Demagogue who pretended to “always believe the woman” regardless of evidence. (Obviously, this must be done AFTER Karen Monahan testifies.) Then he should bring forward witnesses who could discuss the Tawana Brawley, Duke lacrosse team, UVA fraternity, and “mattress girl” rape hoaxes to remind them of why their sexist assumption was stupid and ignorant.

    After that, Grassley should bring out an FBI official to explain why they wouldn’t handle the case, and a memory expert such as Dr. Elizabeth Loftus to explain how unreliable distant memories can be, and especially how easily they can be altered or even invented.

    Then he should bring the 3 people false accuser Ford has said were at the party aside from herself and Kavanaugh. (The last, the sole woman, was known to the Post a week ago, but somehow her name only came out yesterday.) All 3 have denied seeing anything of the sort (and the woman, a “lifelong friend” of Ford, says she’s never met Kavanaugh).

    Then he should denounce false accuser Ford’s legal team (now consisting of 4 leftist activists) for placing politics above her client’s supposed interest, and call for them to be disbarred on that basis. (Of course, Ford could protect them by admitting that this was never anything but a dirty political trick, so they were simply doing her bidding.)

    Ideally, he would then have Kavanaugh deny the charges and call the vote. If they do “come to terms” with the false accuser’s political dirty tricks team, he should wait until she testilies and then call the vote immediately afterward. (This would be a violation of Senatorial courtesy, but the Demagogues’ attacks on their colleagues have forfeited their right to courtesy — and Grassley should make that clear, too, denouncing by name all those who did so.)

    Sadly, these would require a vertebrate with testicles, and Cnidarian Grassley clearly doesn’t qualify. To be fair, it may be just senility. He probably should resign, and do so while the GOP still holds the Iowa governorship.

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      A good article by Andrew McCarthy about this disgusting circus.

      https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/kavanaugh-hearings-chuck-grassley-senate-judiciary-committee-chairman/

      Note the comments after the article. The gutlessness by Reps is already hurting their chances in November.

      The Fight or Flight impulse has become the play dead impulse in the Congressional Reps.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Not all of them. The difference between the GOP blocking Garland and the Demagogues being allowed to destroy the GOP’s ability to name judges forever is that McConnell does have a backbone, and possibly senile Cnidarian Grassley hasn’t even a trace of one. If he at least has a notochord, the committee will vote tomorrow after he and false accuser Ford’s political dirty tricks team (they certainly aren’t there as a legal team, and Grassley should stop pretending they are) fail to agree on reasonable terms for Ford testilying.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          Another Dim female lie about Kavanaugh has been exhumed by the scum of the left. The woman in question sounds like she was a drunken slag. Note the following paragraph about her claim.

          Ramirez admitted to the New Yorker that she does not fully remember the alleged incident because she had been drinking at the time. The magazine also reported that Ramirez spent six days “carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney” before telling the full version of her story.

          Six days inventing the best lies possible to try and sink Kavanaugh.

          This is what happens when asses like Grassley try to appease the immoral left.

          If anyone had any questions as to whether or not the left will say and do anything for power, this should answer them.

          Again, the left wins either way. Can you imagine the number of stupid women who will cry out for blood and “justice?”

          The feminist left is killing the institutions of this country.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            This is the women I was mentioning below, but I didn’t have that much detail. As with false accuser Ford, she may well have had some sort of experience, but it’s clear from her account that Kavanaugh was added by someone (maybe her, maybe some other political hack) as the usual leftist political dirty trick.

            • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

              I find it interesting that both women who are accusing Kavanaugh were inebriated.

              I may not have the broadest experience in the world, but when I was young, most drunk girls/women at parties were of a somewhat loose virtue.

              Perhaps that changed the next morning once sobriety approached, but during a drunken night of wantonness…..

  11. Timothy Lane says:

    There has been some news tonight. The Cnidarian unsurprisingly is letting the false accuser testily Thursday. They still haven’t agreed to let the GOP use a female staff lawyer to question her, so it’s safe to assume she’ll object when they do. We’ll see what happens then, but I would never bet against the Cnidarian caving.

    Meanwhile, 76 days after Kavanaugh was nominated and a week after the false accuser came forward (as opposed to when she sent her letter to Sneezy, who sent it to the sow, who then sat on it until it was politically expedient to leak it), another woman has come forward and claimed that Kavanaugh exposed himself to her at a party while he was at Yale. At this point, given the timing, I assume she’s lying.

    And Michael Avenatti — “I’m not a lawyer, but I play one on TV” — says he has a witness who can provide some sort of information about Kavanaugh and Judge. I wouldn’t bet on that being true either, and we have no idea whether the witness will even have anything significant to say.

    The only good leftist/Demagogue is a dead leftist/Demagogue, and the sooner the better.

    • Avenatti is just the male version of Gloria Allred. Enough of him already.

      I’ve been reading that Kavanaugh, being the meticulous man that he is, has kept appointment calendars since 1980 and has all his activities recorded there. The summer in question, he wasn’t even in town. That’s what I’m reading, which may explain why Grassley is going to let the charade go on. Maybe he’s going to hoist her on her own petard.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        One can only hope you are right, but I fear subtlety does not work with demented Dims. The longer this is drawn out the more rubbish will be thrown against the wall by them. Their constituency is not know for its analytical powers, rather by its emotional incontinence.

        The Fraud woman has not been able to recall the exact year this supposedly happened, much less the exact date. This is no doubt intentional as if he didn’t assault her one day, he did it on another. A floating date is harder to refute and always leaves Dr. Fraud wiggle room. A pox on her.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          She is a pox on our body politic, and her fellow liar Ramirez too. As are their liars/lawyers and their fellow Demagogue vermin. Grassley should treat these forked-tongue devils as they deserve.

  12. Edickoff says:

    The matchless phrase, very much is pleasant to me 🙂

  13. Timothy Lane says:

    Avenatti came up with his invention today. He found in Kavanaugh’s diary an entry for July 4 in which the “four” is spelled with multiple F’s. Avenatti pretends to believe that this proves Kavanaugh was running a gang rape ring that somehow never came out in all his previous FBI background checks, or even now until 76 days after he was nominated. He says he has multiple unnamed witnesses to support his libel. Time to disbar him and sue him for libel. But he has at least guaranteed a strong position in the Demagogue presidential primary as the bottom-most feeder.

  14. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    This info from Gallup would seem to contradict the theory of a “blue wave” election this November.

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/242906/republican-party-favorability-highest-seven-years.aspx

  15. pst4usa says:

    I have a question I would like to pose. I have not heard anyone else ask this. If this happened while he was a minor and she had reported it. For the moment let us say all of it is true, nothing would have happened, he committed no crime from the stories I read, aside from drinking under age as she was as well, the cops investigate and he spends a day in jail maybe, until the cops find that no other crime, (other than underage drinking), occurred, maybe he gets a slap on the wrist and his records are sealed for good. Also if memory serves, I don’t think minors were allowed to be tried as adults back then. So this can be nothing more than the Democrap party doing what they do.
    Do we not, rightly or wrongly, protect yutes and the stupid things they do? Am I missing something here? If the Republican Senators would take off their pussy hats for a moment, they might remember what their jobs were.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Well, Ford’s false accusation would amount to a charge of assault and battery, I guess, but that still wouldn’t amount to much. If they decided he really was attempting rape, they might try that, but that really isn’t clear. Of course, the Ramirez false accusation would amount to nothing but underage drinking and indecent exposure, and I’m not sure how likely the Yale or New Haven police would have been to do anything about either.

      Note that the fork-tongued devils never sought to swear out complaints in the relevant local jurisdictions, even after coming forward. Instead they blathered about the FBI, which would have no jurisdiction in either case. It was Ford’s lawyers’ decision to switch overnight from “she wants to testify” to “we have all sorts of demands before testilying” as soon as Grassley rightly agreed to her original request that made me conclude this was just a dirty political trick by a bunch of smearmongers, all militant Demagogue activists.

      • pst4usa says:

        Timothy, I am a bit older than the so called victim and Kavanaugh, but I did some seriously dumb things in High School and I thought that when we grow up and become adults that although we may regret some of the stupid thing we did as kids, we do our best to become better men and women. If the stupid acts of any teenager were to disqualify a person from holding any higher office. There would be no-one in higher office….Wait… Well come to think about it, no-one would ever be qualified so no need for these higher offices. Only local offices…Hmmm

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      Pat,

      What is wrong with you? What do facts have to do with it?

      The American Dims have become a modern leftist party similar to those which arose in Europe in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The left will lie, steal, cheat and kill for power. History has clearly demonstrated this.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        According to what I read, having the accused testify before the accuser was standard practice at Stalin’s show trials. Naturally Ford, her liars/lawyers, and the Demagogues would favor this approach.

      • pst4usa says:

        You are right Mr. Kung, there is something terribly wrong with me. I still like the name sake of this site, Facts should indeed be stubborn things.

        • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

          Comrade, you must start trying to get your mind right. Start by writing 100 times,

          The party is always right. All hail the party.

          • Timothy Lane says:

            “He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”

            Incidentally, in Yale’s The Road to Terror (part of their Annals of Communism), a key point is that defending oneself was in essence a crime because it denied the infallibility of the Party-State that made the accusation. Confessing guilt and asking for the mercy of the Behemoth might work, though it rarely did in the Yezhovshchina. But denying guilt never did. It’s similar, though not quite identical, to the Salem witchcraft trials.

            • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

              Confessing guilt and asking for the mercy of the Behemoth might work, though it rarely did in the Yezhovshchina

              I guess we can take heart at the thought of what happened to (the malignant dwarf) Yezhov and then his confessor Beria.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Not to mention their (literal) predecessor, Yagoda. His death began the purge, and Yezhov’s ended it. The latter is a bit ironic because Beria replaced him. But of course, in the end what happened was the will of Stalin, not Yagoda or Yezhov or Beria.

                Incidentally, two of the documents in The Road to Terror were the original and English translations of a document setting up a provincial quota of people to be executed or sent to the Gulag. So it’s possible to see the actual Cyrillic spellings of names such as Yezhov and Khrushchev. The latter, using * for the Cyrillic letter transliterated as “shch”, is XPY*EB.

              • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

                I had not heard of “The Road to Terror.” I will have to see if I can find it in my local lending library.

          • pst4usa says:

            The party is always right. All hail the party.The party is always right. All hail the party.The party is always right. All hail the party….. Aaaaah… I …Just…Can’t……Go……….

  16. Timothy Lane says:

    The Sleazy Porn Lawyer, having decided he hadn’t been sleazy enough, fabricated a disgusting smear against Kavanaugh yesterday, claiming he had a witness who would come forward today. Now the viper’s get says that his unidentified source will do so in a couple of days. I would like to think that even the Cnidarian will totally ignore whatever the smearmonger has to say.

    But the Cnidarian already did nothing today instead of the simple proposals I had for how to proceed against the forked-tongue devils (or something else comparable). Does the senile fool care what his weakness could do to GOP turnout in the mid-terms? Given that most senators up for re-election in the next two cycles are Republican, does he think he’ll ever be a chairman again if they blow this election?

    • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

      One can only hope that McConnell can be taken at his word that Kavanaugh will have an up-or-down vote.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Unless Jeff the Flake and another Republican go over to the other side (the Flake claims to be Republican, but then so do the other Never-Trumpers who support the far-left Demagogues, such as the phallotoxic Jennifer Rubin), McConnell will do it. Even if they do, he would probably be well advised to hold the vote. Then at least blame would go to the defectors, not the GOP in general.

  17. Timothy Lane says:

    As I mentioned elsewhere, two YBRs (Jeff the Flake and Lisa Murkybrain) decided to pander to the Demagogue smearmongers and demand an FBI investigation lasting a week. No surprise, Collins and Manchin joined their idiocy. They did at least vote to send Kavanaugh’s nomination to the floor, and it seems McConnell will have them vote to end the filibuster along with voting to call for the FBI investigation. He even has the Demagogues’ word, which isn’t worthless because that implies it has no value rather than negative value. We’ll see if the troika of fools holds to their word a week from now.

    The Flake was more successful than Shylock. He actually got his pound of flesh from Trump. One hopes he remembers what happened to Shylock. Or even better, what happened to Barabbas the Jew of Malta.

  18. Timothy Lane says:

    Well, McConnell filed for cloture tonight. One blogger at Town Hall parodied How the Grinch Stole Christmas. “And in Whoville they say — that the Republicans small balls grew 3 sizes that day.” I wish I could have given him more than a single upvote, but naturally a lot of others upvoted it, too.

    The FBI report is now out. The senators will be able to start reading the single copy starting tomorrow, with the parties alternating hours even though the Demagogues all committed themselves to hating Kavanaugh even before he was nominated. McConnell said they’d have enough time to read it before the Friday cloture vote, which presumably means a Saturday confirmation vote.

  19. Timothy Lane says:

    The Senate has voted to end cloture, 51-49. All Republicans except Lisa Murkybrain voted to do so, and so did Joe Manchin. If they vote this way tomorrow, Kavanaugh will be confirmed even with Steve Daines attending his daughter’s wedding in Montana. If necessary they can wait until he comes back to hold the vote. Or maybe Murkybrain can pair with him, assuming they still do that.

    It might seem odd that Murkybrain voted no while Jeff the Flake and Curly Sue Collins voted yes. But this isn’t too surprising. I had already suspected she was the biggest problem, partly because she’s probably the least partisan of them. Collins is an actual Republican, and the Flake likes to claim to be a conservative.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Following up on this, Collins finally made it official that she will vote to confirm Kavanaugh on what amounts to due process grounds, which is an awfully good reason to do so and puts her way above Lisa Murkybrain. Barring some sort of catastrophe (and I think it would have happened already, though they might want to make sure there’s excellent security for Kavanaugh and the GOP senators lest the left finally take their last By Any Means Necessary option), Kavanaugh should be only a day away from confirmation.

      And when that happens (especially with Manchin also reportedly saying he’ll vote to confirm, making the vote technically bipartisan), there will be such a boatload of screaming that it will probably be heard everywhere. It will be an orgy of Schadenfreude.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        Well, Sarah Palin has an interesting response to Murkybrain’s vote today. She tweeted out that she can see 2022 (when Murkybrain next faces re-election) from her house. Amusing. Unfortunately, I’m not sure that she has much of a chance. There’s a long history between Palin and the Murkowskis, but right now Lisa may be the most popular. On the other hand, Murkybrain hasn’t said how she’ll vote for tomorrow. She always has the option of saying that Collins’s eloquent argument for Kavanaugh persuaded her to change her mind yet again. (Talk about weathercocks.)

        Incidentally, assuming nothing goes wrong tomorrow, harpies may not be the most accurate mythological term for the shriekers no matter how accurately it describes them. Banshees would be even more appropriate. “‘Oh, frabjous day! Callooh, callay!’ he chortled in his joy.”

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Well, it appears that the Senate no longer does pairing (or maybe never did; it may have existed only in the House). But Murkybrain has agreed to vote Present, thus accomplishing the same thing. This would allow McConnell to hold the vote once the 30 hours of debate are up. (It’s actually up to 30 hours, but naturally Chucky the Schemer will use every minute he can just out of spite.) Then comes the confirmation vote, very likely followed by the cry of the banshees.

  20. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    What can we learn about America from this confirmation process?

    One thing: The Left plays for keeps. Until Republicans/conservatives/liberaltarians understand this, we will lose. Trump plays for keeps. Again, regarding my policy here for political articles (and I give Deana and Selwayn a bye because they are serious writers and have a good track record), don’t just tell me how horrible the Left is. Tell me what you, or someone you know, is doing to confront and defeat them.

    I’m not a born-again Trumpster. I never liked the man and still don’t. But unlike some of the really unhinged people out there who are “Demeanor Uber Alles” squishy RINOs, I never objected to Trump because he was a louse. I objected to him because I thought he was a complete liar and fraud who would do as much damage to the anti-Left movement as any of the namby-pamby Bushes did. And for the same reason. He is not a conservative.

    I still couldn’t tell you what Trump is. “Nationalist” is such an all-inclusive term it means little. But he has apparently now nominated and had confirmed two thoughtful originalist Supreme Court justices amongst other good works. This is important because this high court is the Siegfried line against the lawless Left. They know this which is why (as will be shown in the coming weeks) there was an organized effort to take him out with concocted slanders.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      While it’s fair to say that Demagogues are jennies (they aren’t masculine enough to qualify as jackasses), an even better animal symbol might be the kangaroo.

    • Steve Lancaster says:

      Dealing with life as it is not as you wish it to be is an American trait. It is part of what spins the dynamo of our system. However, I don’t like the Supreme Court. I think it has given itself (Marbury v. Madison 1803) altogether too much power. If the founders were to suddenly appear in 2018 one of the things that would horrify them is the authority given to the nine wise old owls on the court.

      In theory they are supposed to hoot when the other branches of government stray off the path into the woods. I am not convinced the these wise old owls know where the trees are let alone the path, and giving them the final authority of what is or is not constitutional is nothing less than bizarre. Its like letting Moslems decide what is Christian or Jewish–wait they already do that.

      Our system was set up to be confrontational sovereign states v federal government and three CO-EQUAL branches of government. I wonder when does that co-equal part start? I admit I don’t trust government. I am glad that there are conservatives on the court rather than communists, but it doesn’t mean I like the courts position of deus ex machina.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        It was Charles Evans Hughes who said that the Constitution says that the courts say it does. Oddly, this was long before his time on the Supreme Court. At the time he was Governor of New York.

        All the Court is supposed to be able to do is handle individual appellate cases. If it thinks a law is unconstitutional, it can refuse to affirm any convictions for violating it. Thus, SCOTUS could refuse to affirm any convictions for abortion or homosexuality. It would be much harder to require states to recognize homosexual marriages (banning them has never been the issue despite the claims of homosexual militants and thus the synoptic media) if the Court did its proper job.

        The Court was never intended to be the sole arbiter f the Constitution, either. Early vetoes were usually justified on the basis of the unconstiuttionality of the law being vetoed. This is one reason Jackson’s veto of the Second Bank of the United States was so controversial. He was just disagreeing with it. But of course the Constitution offers no limit on reasons for vetoing. For all Article II is concerned, the President could just flip a coin to decide whether or not to veto a bill.

      • Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

        Various leftists are coming out and saying that the Supreme Court will no longer have the same standing after Kavanaugh’s swearing in.

        A conservative can only hope that the Supreme Court’s position in American governance and life is significantly diminished, but that is unlikely.

        Of course what the leftists mean is that the Supreme Court’s position is diminished until they can get control of it, at which time it will miraculously become the most pure and important institution in government.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        They are co-equal branches, as you said. Andrew Jackson apparently said: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” It’s not that these Justices don’t serve a function. It’s that we’ve given them far more authority than the Founders ever intended.

        Unfortunately, the South’s rebellion really did a job besmirching the idea of nullification. What state today has the balls to say “Now let them enforce it.” But many should. And Congress and/or the President should ignore rulings that they don’t agree with and let the voters decide.

        • Steve Lancaster says:

          What the left doesn’t want to ban, they want to make mandatory and use the court to do it.

          • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

            Steve, it will be interesting to see if the Left’s almost god-like reverence for The Court is reduced when that Court no longer dictates to the rest of us the Will of the Progressives.

        • Timothy Lane says:

          Well, we’re seeing the Demagogues doing this even as they proclaim the courts the keepers of the Constitution. When an appellate court (in the 9th Circus, be it noted) ruled that the California sanctuary state statute was partly unconstitutional because it didn’t recognize the (state) constitutional rights of charter cities, the state decided to ignore this instead of bothering to appeal. And the Black God did this sort of thing a lot. But then, leftists never have been big on the rule of law, at least when it doesn’t go their way.

          As for Steve’s point, T. H. White came up with it over 70 years ago. In the entrance to the ant colony the Wart enters in The Sword in the Stone (originally placed in The Book of Merlin, but that wasn’t included in The Once and Future King and White wanted to include the ant and goose visits in the omnibus) there is a sign reading “Everything Not Forbidden is Compulsory”. The ants were his parody of totalitarianism, especially the Nazis.

  21. pst4usa says:

    That is another of the big lies of the left. We seem to have bought into it since they have been pushing the lie for such a long time; the lie is that we have three co-equal branches of government. They are not co-equal. The Constitution gives Congress the power to create, as they see fit, inferior courts, and it only states that we must have one Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Congress can and should do there job and impeach worthless justices, and dissolve misbehaving courts, but we have bought this lie for way too long. They are there to be part of the checks and balances, so that any two branches could over rule an out of control third, but the branches were never intended to be co-equal.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *