Tags

, , , , , , ,

credit: daybydaycartoon

The political/cultural cold war is taking real steps toward turning hot in the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Normal, hard-working Americans that honor the constitution and love America, not a fundamentally transformed socialist worker’s (to quote President Trump) shithole, are watching closely, and congressional republicans are inches from handing both houses to Democrats in November.

President Trump was elected, and both houses entrusted to Republicans, because normals expected them to fight the insanity and cruel disdain of Democrats.  They expected them to fight for America, to protect Americans, and to restore the rule of law.  President Trump has kept his promises; he is doing just that.  Congressional republicans have not, are not and show no real sign of caring either way.

Democrats are fighting a daily insurgency, not only working to depose President Trump, but to undermine every aspect of our constitutional republic.  They fight the long war; republicans want to be invited to the latest cocktail party and stroked by the media.  We are in a real war, and republicans, if they notice at all, are too cowardly, or plainly stupid, to understand the stakes and to fight back.  But Mitch McConnell wrote a letter to Diane Feinstein and said he wouldn’t delay the Kavanaugh affair any longer!  Courage?  Steadfastness?  Words are cheap, lines barely drawn in the sand easily wiped away or ignored.  With Republicans, “action” usually means giving Democrats whatever they want.  Words always do.

Let us then, gentle readers, briefly recount what has happened over the last few days.  Democrats were able to delay the Kavanaugh affair long enough to materialize a new slander.  We begin with a new allegation against Brett Kavanaugh from a former college classmate, a Deborah Ramirez, who alleges someone waved a penis in her vicinity at a party some 35 years ago.  By her own admission, she was so drunk she didn’t know it happened–if it did–and had to be told by someone–no idea who–later.  Even The New York Times, which must have found a scrap of journalistic integrity holding up a leg of a wobbly newsroom table, wouldn’t touch the story, as National Review.com reports:

The Times had interviewed several dozen people over the past week in an attempt to corroborate her story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge. Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself.

The NYT used the excuse of the New Yorker’s story–the virtual definition of fake news–as an excuse to attack Judge Kavanaugh anew.  The NYT has since apparently crammed that scrap of integrity back under the table leg, as they published a story with that damning detail, and quickly erased it, but not before many preserved it.  The NYT, at last glance, remains incapable of shame or honesty.  Here’s NR’s summary:

Deborah Ramirez
credit: thenewyorker

Judge Kavanaugh labels The New Yorker’s report a ‘smear, plain and simple.’ He should be applauded for his restraint. I am struggling to remember reading a less responsible piece of ‘journalism’ in a major outlet.

The piece starts out not with a summary of the story, but with the news that Democrats in Washington are taking it seriously — a weaselly attempt to pass the buck if I ever saw one (‘People are saying!’). After that throat clearing, it is acknowledged that the person making the accusation around which the piece revolves had not mentioned it until Kavanaugh was nominated, ‘was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty,’ and agreed to make the charge on the record only after she had spent ‘six days [] carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney.

But surely, unlike Ms. Blasey Ford’s account, there are multiple witnesses that confirm Ramirez’s account?  No actual news organization would touch such a story otherwise, right?  No news organization would.  The Democrat propaganda arm?  Of course.

There are no corroborating witnesses. None. Of the ‘dozens’ of classmates The New Yorker contacted, all either failed ‘to respond to interview requests . . . declined to comment, or said they did not attend or remember the party.’ Indeed, we learn late in the piece that the authors could not establish that Kavanaugh was even there. ‘The New Yorker,’ the tenth paragraph begins, ‘has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party.’ The only ‘evidence’ provided comes from a ‘classmate’ who was not at the party, but is certain he heard about the incident, and from ‘another classmate’ who thinks he heard about an incident that could vaguely resemble the one alleged, but doesn’t know to whom it was done, or by whom. Or, as we would traditionally put it: The only proof provided is rumor.

So the only potential witness heard about some incident that maybe could have been the same incident if one really wants to believe and clicks the ruby slippers together, but heard about the possible incident from someone else they can’t identify, and has no idea if Ramirez’s drunken party ever occurred or if Kavanaugh was even in the same state at the time–whenever that might be. What is also missing, as in the case of Blasey Ford, is any certainty about time or place, though Ramirez might be able to put it in one, rather than multiple, years–if it ever happened. And remember please, gentle readers, the most compelling evidence: Ramirez was so drunk she wasn’t aware of the wagging wiener, and didn’t see Kavanaugh or place the wiener anywhere near–or on–him. That’s good enough for a conviction in any Democrat-run body, and if they get their way, in a near-future America, because women must be believed and men should shut up.

Paul Mirengoff at Powerline adds a bit more perspective:

First, Ramirez says she was completely inebriated when the misconduct supposedly occurred.

Second, she told the New Yorker she wasn’t certain what happened until ‘after six days of talking with her attorney’ a former elected Democrat. According to Farrow and Mayer, ‘in her initial conversations with The New Yorker, [Ramirez] was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty.’ But one can do plenty of brain washing in six days.

We’ve all heard of the ‘MeToo’ movement. Now we have the ‘MeToo, My Democrat Attorney Thinks’ movement.

Third, Ramirez doesn’t even claim she saw Kavanaugh do anything; only that someone yelled out that Brett had done something.

Fourth, none of the other dozen people the New Yorker contacted said that Kavanaugh was even at the party where the misconduct allegedly occurred, let alone that misconduct actually occurred.

Fifth, multiple other students went on the record disputing that this happened.

Ms. Ramirez also self-identifies as an activist working for “social justice” and “social change,” no doubt such as keeping off the Supreme Court anyone dedicated to using the Constitution as their guiding light.  That’s social change, isn’t it?

We learn only today that Ms. Blasey Ford is getting cold feet.  Her lawyers demand to know the name of a purported female sex crimes prosecutor apparently scheduled to question Ford. Such a savvy person cannot possibly question Ms. Ford, lest such a precious snowflake melt–or be exposed to criminal liability for lying.  The execrable Senator Feinstein now says she cannot guarantee Ms. Ford will show up for Thursday’s scheduled hearing.  But Ms. Ramirez must be anxious to tell her story before the Judiciary Committee, just as Ms. Ford is anxious?  The Washington Examiner explains:

Our [Senate] counsel repeatedly tried to reach him,’ [Sen. John] Kennedy said of Ramirez’s lawyer. ‘They finally did reach him, and he said we are not issuing a statement. He said if you want our statement, read the New Yorker.

The good folks at Legal Insurrection add a bit more detail:

In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved in the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and three other classmates, Dino Ewing, Louisa Garry, and Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez’s account of events: ‘We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale. He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale. We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not. The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett. In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett’s Supreme Court nomination was pending. Editors from the New Yorker contacted some of us because we are the people who would know the truth, and we told them that we never saw or heard about this.’

The former friend who was married to the male classmate alleged to be involved, and who signed the statement said of Ramirez, ‘This is a woman I was best friends with. We shared intimate details of our lives. And I was never told this story by her, or by anyone else. It never came up. I didn’t see it; I never heard of it happening.’ She said she hadn’t spoken with Ramirez for about ten years, but that the two women had been close all through college, and Kavanaugh had remained part of what she called their ‘larger social circle.’ In an initial conversation with The New Yorker, she suggested that Ramirez may have been politically motivated. Later, she said that she did not know if this was the case.

There is at least a little humor in this situation, something of which Democrats are entirely incapable.  Powerline relays:

Top Ten Other Things Brett Kavanaugh Has Done:

10) ‘Mr. Brett’ at McMartin Pre-School

9) Helped Jack Johnson violate the Mann Act

8) Shot a man in Reno, just to watch him die

7) Mocked Chuck Schumer by singing ‘The Name Game’ using Schumer moniker while at a Yale party

6) Allowed roscoe ‘Fatty’Arbuckle to take the rap for him

5) Physically abused his Sierra Club activist girlfriend

4) Left a woman to drown in an Oldsmobile

3) Shot President Reagan to impress Yale classmate Jodie Foster

2) Gave Sheldon Whitehouse the finger at the Giant Food in the Westwood Shopping Center in Bethesda

1) Had sex with Stormy Daniels while wearing a Donald Trump mask

Final Thoughts:

believe Ford!  I believe Kavanaugh!  This kind of belief is the stuff of religious conviction, not the foundation of human discourse.  In or out of court, one must believe evidence, fact, falsifiable proof. To do otherwise reduces civil discourse to the raw exercise of hatred, and political power.  Unfortunately, for Democrats, there is no distinction between these standards.  Their belief is a matter of religious conviction, based in the doctrine of power disconnected from the rule of law, honor, duty, decency, country and rationality.

Brett Kavanaugh is merely a highly qualified pawn.  Any judge that would confine their rulings to that allowed by the law and the Constitution would be facing the same ugly, lunatic attacks by the likes of Spartacus and his fellow Democrat gladiators. Lines have been crossed, and the consequences may be irreversible.  Democrats will never willingly retreat, having scorched the political earth to seize the ground they now hold.  They always fight the long war, while Republicans are still trying to pull up their pants in the Senate and House restrooms.

The current battle is about the future, and more than the future of Supreme Court nominees.  If Democrats succeed in destroying Brett Kavanaugh, due process, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the right of cross examination, the presumption of innocence will all be swept away and a new standard imposed.  Democrats are crying this isn’t a criminal case, so all of that doesn’t apply.  This is not respect for the law, but cynical manipulation to get what they want.  These protections are fundamental American principles based in fairness and humanity that seek to redeem the blood of innocent millions through the ages, millions denied such basic human rights.

Democrats seek to return us–particularly men–to those dark, bloody days.

If they win this battle, there will never again be a man or woman that recognizes the Constitution on the Supreme Court, and within a generation, no lower court.  But the damage will seep into every facet of life. Mere accusation will be sufficient to destroy the lives of any man, just as Democrats are arguing it must be to destroy the life and career of Brett Kavanaugh.

But Democrats must know if they succeed, the same standards will apply to them?  Quite the opposite.  They know they’re entirely safe.  It’s different when they do it because shut up.  They know no one expects them to behave decently, morally and ethically.  They’re expected to treat women abominably. Democrats know the media–their propaganda arm–will protect them.  Most of all, they know Republicans are too stupid and cowardly to stand up for themselves, and for normal Americans.  Republicans, they believe, will be content to scurry about the rubble, gratefully taking whatever handouts Democrats allow them, as long as they can keep their jobs and perks.  Democrats are looking more and more prescient every day.

They’ll keep believing this until they cross one line too many, and they discover–damned quickly–normal Americans aren’t afraid to fight for America, against all enemies domestic and foreign.

As for Republicans, they’re stupid party enough to think normal Americans will continue to vote for them because Democrats are worse.  With the Kavanaugh case, that difference is becoming much harder to detect.  House and Senate majorities are currently so small, failure to cowboy up and confirm Kavanaugh could very well cost them–and America–in a few short weeks, the House and the Senate, and not by small margins.  Disgusted normals may stay home in droves, and far more Republicans than anyone currently imagines will be fired by default.  If so, in the next election, primary challenges will reach unheard of numbers, but only if normals care enough to work within a system plainly rigged against American constitutionalism.  When they no longer see that as a viable path, Democrats will reap the whirlwind.

Republicans are going to pay for their cowardice, sooner or later.  The tragedy is America–what’s left of our constitutional republic–will pay the larger bill.