Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren in a May interview in Iowa Falls. (Daniel Acker/For The Washington Post)
I remember a conversation with a friend and colleague who appeared to be apoplectic about Donald Trump’s lies during the campaign and up to the aftermath of the inauguration (when the exchange ended). Wow, looking back on it, over-stating crowd sizes seems awfully pale when compared to the whoppers coming out of the mouths of Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, Lena Dunham, Jussie Smollett, and the adolescent Amari Allen at Immanuel Christian School. They have in common a desire to exploit ritual identity-victimhood, the central tenet of being “woke”.
Whew, let’s take ’em one at a time. Warren’s angle is to peddle a Native American heritage that doesn’t exist for professional advancement. She compounds the error by spreading a tale of losing a job for being pregnant, also fully debunked. At least the second tall tale takes advantage of something that she quite clearly is: a woman.
Former Vice President Joe Biden campaigns for president in Davenport, Iowa, on June 11, 2019. (Photo: Joshua Lott/Getty Images)
After Warren, we have Biden. This guy is famous for his whoppers. The one that should be most irritating is his rendition of the traffic accident that killed his wife and daughter. He bellows that they died at the hands of drunk driver. Sorry, Joe, not true. The authorities at the time said alcohol wasn’t involved and even more interestingly concluded that Mrs. Biden was the cause of the collision when she strayed into the truck’s path. What’s more galling is Biden’s sliming of the other driver as one who “drinks his lunch”. The man’s family demands a retraction. This is more than a mistake on Biden’s part; it’s evidence of a Biden character flaw.
If that’s not enough, along comes the mouth of the lefty celebrity community, Lena Dunham. She claims in her book that she was raped in college by, what else, a white College Republican. The only problem: it ain’t true. In fact, her publisher had to shell out a settlement to the innocent accused. Is there a congenital connection between being woke and lying? One wonders.
The fictions continue with the little Amari Allen at Immanuel Christian. It just so happens to be the place of part-time employment for Karen Pence, and, of course, being a place of traditional Christianity – the LGBTQ agenda is an awkward fit there.
Karen Pence at Immanuel Christian School. (Carolyn Kaster/Associated Press)
Well, anyway, the little girl came home with a story of abuse and physical assault by, what else, some white boys. The only problem – you guessed it – it ain’t true. At the time, for our woke press, it was a two-fer: racism, racism everywhere, and the VP’s wife is a functionary of the white racist machine.
Do you see a pattern here? I do. The woke folks are so enthusiastic about their lefty social engineering that they’ll defame anyone and anything to get there.
I can’t stop here. Does the slander of the Duke lacrosse team remind you of anything? How about the alleged rape culture at U. of Virginia, courtesy of Rolling Stone, and subsequently and fully discredited? The despicable and wild tales of Kavanaugh’s youth? Come on, let’s call them what they are: lies. Don’t be a bit surprised that more deceits lay in store after the completion of the investigation of the investigators of Russia-gate and whistleblower-gate.
I’ll ask once again: Is there something congenital between being woke and lying? One wonders.
RogerG
* You can read about many of these episodes in Kevin Williamson’s recent piece in National Review.
“Beto” O’Rourke at the scene of the El Paso shooting.
The two murderous rampages over the weekend are more than evil deeds. They have become, like most everything else, fuel to feed the unrelenting push to, in a modification of Eric Voegelin’s immortal phrase, immanentize progressivism’s eschaton – to bring to life the left’s dream of the better world. It’s like all that happens in the world is forever on the event horizon, ready to fall into the left’s interstellar black hole. Evil deeds can’t just exist to be fought against; they must be recruited for a partisan political agenda. The events’ magnitude and sorrow, therefore, is cheapened by a horde of demagogues.
El Paso after the August 3 shooting.Dayton after the August 4 shooting.
The airwaves are saturated with demagoguery. Fingers are pointing at Trump for super-charged rhetoric. Speaking of super-charged rhetoric, have you attended a Pelosi or Schumer presser, heard the bombast from AOC+3, seen “Beto” before a mike, or been verbally accosted by the rest of the herd running to seize the Democratic Party’s brass ring? If Trump is to blame for El Paso, then Bernie is to blame for the 2017 shooting of Republican congressmen; or the Sierra Club and Paul Ehrlich are responsible for the Unibomber. Anyone can play this game. And it is a game: something far removed from mature thinking.
The Unibomber, Theodore J. Kaczynski, after his arrest, 1996.The 2017 shooter, James T. Hodgkinson, a Bernie Sanders activist.
A favorite of the mob is, you guessed it, “gun control”. Large numbers – 300 million guns in private ownership for instance – are contorted to serve the desired end, which is to make gun ownership as difficult as it is in Maduro’s Venezuela. Their list of banalities includes “universal background checks”, bans on “military guns”, and various forms of gun confiscation. What any of this has to do with straightening out the crooked timber of humanity escapes me. What any of it has to do with addressing the causes of these incidents also escapes causal reasoning. They do, however, serve a political end while advancing certain political careers. In my book, it’s shameful.
The federal government’s powers could be expanded in the manner of Australia and New Zealand and initiate gun confiscation, but still completely miss the point. And the point is the mental isolation of some of today’s young men, typically in the 20-25 age cohort. Could our modern society be a breeding ground for alienated youth? Parental absenteeism in the pursuit of careerism and material wants, or as a consequence of marital breakup and casual amours, have disturbing developmental effects on children. In addition, the buffer of other civil institutions such as neighborhood associations and church aren’t what they used to be. These factors are the ignored elephants in the room as the media chases the demagogues and their rantings. The fact is, a very few of these young people – and some older adults – would be dangerous whether an AR-15, machete, or spoon is available.
Trump-hatred overwhelms all. Could we just stop the hokum and take an adult look at how we are raising the next generation? It could be that all we have to do is draw back the state in order to allow room for civil society to breathe. Yes, and that’s no doubt a tall order in today’s atmosphere of smothering hyperbole.
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn has Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) pegged. Yes he did, without ever laying eyes on the spirited millennial.
Solzhenitsyn in his 3-volume novel on Russia in the runup to the Bolshevik Revolution (August 1914, November 1916, and March 1917) sought to explain how Russia could turn into the 74-year nightmare called the Soviet Union. In so doing, he spends much time on the fashionable currents of thought among college students in the few years before the Revolution. His account is fascinating for its parallel with our own youth’s growing affection for socialism and a host of chic causes. In both generations, the enthusiasm for their infatuations is matched by an unwarranted confidence in their judgment.
Some might rightly use the word “arrogant” in describing the mental disposition of more than a few of our most hearty firebrands, then and now. Humility would require something other than an absolute faith in their youthful “answers” to life’s real or imaginary problems. Sounds like AOC. Combine the cock-suredness with a prescription that centers around the empowerment of the state and we have all the makings for disaster.
First, let’s take a look at an MSNBC townhall with AOC from April 1, 2019. Watch the whole thing to have a feel for the march of unexamined assumptions and faulty reasoning.
Now, compare the above with the book. In a scene from August 1914 (pp. 334-348), two university students on a Moscow holiday before they were to report to artillery school run into an elderly college acquaintance and professor on the street. The three agree to go to a pub for beer, food, and conversation. The back-and-forth is enlightening.
The two university students in the story are Sanya and Kotya and the elder sage is Varsonofiev. Here’s Varsonofiev making one of the young minds realize their affection for the state.
Varsonofiev: “But if you are a Hegelian you must take a positive view of the state.”
Kotya: “Well, I … I suppose I do.”
Kotya was unaware of this basic assumption in his thinking till the old guy brought it to his attention. He would have to embrace the state as savior for his reasoning to make any sense.
Does AOC show any evidence of a similar “Oh, I see” moment? Nowhere in her unchallenged comments on MSNBC does she say anything like, “We must give government more power”. Instead, it’s left unstated and abstract. Her favorite word is “mobilize” – a verb – as in mobilize everyone to the cause (her climate-change cure). Who’s doing the mobilizing? It won’t be AOC and her merry band of climate-change barkers who’ll convince the nation’s entire populace to voluntarily jump on board the train to the carbon-free utopia. If she’s relying on that, the growing number of dissenters will exercise an early-term abortion on the scheme. Clearly, she’s not telling the audience that an omni-competent state will have to be created to manage the people’s lives in the minutest detail. And, of course, AOC and kindred spirits will do the managing. It’s sooooo unstated.
What’s the historical experience of activists who created such all-powerful governments? The 20th century showed that the supposed failures of the marketplace were pale next to the ensuing government failures. Such a thought will never grace the mind of the youthful zealot. That would require the humility of recognizing the possibility of being wrong. Don’t expect it from AOC.
Another aspect of these conversations – whether in a Solzhenitsyn novel or AOC interview – is the prevalence of the procrustean fallacy. To be “procrustean” (adj.) is to enforce “uniformity or conformity without regard to natural variation or individuality”. For instance, activists frequently use “people” as if the people are an undifferentiated mass. The same would be true with the litany of ethnic, gender, and racial groups: all African-Americans, Hispanics, women, and evangelical white Christians think this or that. AOC does it with “all scientists”, along with the rest of the demography in tow. It’s how she tries to make her opinions incontestable.
Varsonofiev catches Kotya in the same falsehood. Here they are talking about the “people”.
Kotya: “What we need is a strict scientific definition of the people.”
Varsonofiev reminds him of the foolishness of attempting to know “the people” as a uniform whole: “Yes, we all like to look scientific, but nobody has ever defined what, precisely, is meant by the ‘the people’. In any case ‘the people’ don’t just comprise the peasant mass. For one thing, you can’t exclude the intelligentsia.”
Kotya responds by compounding the error: “The intelligentsia also has to be defined.”
Varsonofiev counters: “Nobody seems capable of that either. We would never think of the clergy, for instance, as part of the intelligentsia, would we?”
Trying to make Kotya understand the problematic nature of his thinking is doubly difficult when his answers are so obviously true … to him! Ditto AOC. Her responses to her self-defined prediction of environmental doom are festooned with “We’ve got to do ….” Our young congressional zealot gets away with it when MSNBC lines up on the stage (see the above video) fellow travelers in the climate-change apocalypse movement and create the false impression that all questions are settled and now all that’s left is building the omni-competent state … on the q.t. of course.
The scene wasn’t an exchange of views but more like the mutual reinforcement of the like-minded. The program had all the atmospherics of an evangelist’s tent-meeting revival.
More to the point on the arrogance of the young, in an exchange on the proper form of social organization, the old master set the record straight for our young interlocutors on our ability to make the best form of government.
Kotya: “So you don’t think that the rule of the people is the best form of government?”
Varsonofiev: “No, I do not.”
Kotya: “What form of government do you propose then?”
Varsonofiev: “Propose? I wouldn’t presume to do that. Who is so rash as to believe that he can invent ideal institutions? Only those who suppose that nothing valuable existed until the present generation came along, who imagined that whatever matters is only just beginning, that the truth is known only to our idols and ourselves, and that anyone who doesn’t agree with us is a fool or a scoundrel.”
I’ll get to the direct reference of youthful arrogance in a moment. It’s coming. But here Sozhenitsyn goes after another favorite gambit of people like AOC. It’s the “right side of history” thing. AOC is symptomatic of a kind of person who sees that their views are especially ordained since history, in their adolescent reasoning, leads to the present moment and their opinions. They are therefore justified in dismissing and silencing opposing views. Now that’s arrogance!
Varsonofiev continues: “Still, we mustn’t blame our Russian youngsters in particular, it’s a universal law: arrogance is the main symptom of immaturity. The immature are arrogant, the fully mature become humble.”
Pow! The eight-ball is sunk in the corner pocket. In AOC’s mind, the answers are so simple, and she won’t hesitate to bull rush her solutions down the throats of any who disagree. She has all the arrogance of the immature.
The presence of AOC on the national stage gives us a chance to peel back the scab on the festering wound that is the intellectual bankruptcy generated by our failed schools. AOC throws out terms from a textbook as if their presence in a textbook is all one needs to know of their veracity. She uses “market failure”, “externalities”, and “social cost” as if their use is ipso facto proof of any claim that utilizes them. Her understanding is that of a textbook and not the workings of a critical mind. She throws out the terms to impress her audience. It’s another form of arrogance recognizable to Solzhenitsyn.
A truly thoughtful mind would be more skeptical. Completely absent from her thought process was a limiting principle, the simple idea that there are other concerns to limit their application. If “market failure” condemns free markets, then its replacement, government, also elicits “government failure”. If “externalities” (effects on those not a party to an action) condemns capitalism, then what of government’s “externalities” of illegitimacy and crime stemming from the Great Society programs? If “social costs” (the costs that befall society as a whole) condemns free markets, do such negatives accrue to government actions, and are the alleged social costs a sufficient excuse to ignore the benefits of the action in question? For AOC, she appears to be ignorant.
Maybe Varsonofiev’s maxim should be altered. Instead of limiting the adage to the factors of maturity and arrogance, we need to add ignorance. Thus, immaturity leads to arrogance because it is based on ignorance.
The making of the omni-competent state democratic can’t paper over the hot mess. There are certain things that shouldn’t be a matter of democracy. Democracy can’t make the immoral moral. Democracy oughtn’t willy-nilly confiscate my property or invade my freedom of conscience. Democracy isn’t a license to trample on my God-given rights. Indeed, they come from God (or Nature according to Locke and Jefferson) and not the state.
If all this is true, we’ve just laid the foundation for free markets. Are you listening AOC?
Did you hear what the governor (Washington State) and Dem presidential aspirant, Jay Inslee, had to say on Monday about the “deplorables”, aka Trump supporters? He called them people from “non-enlightened area[s]”. What are they “non-enlightened” about? Why of course, it’s the chic hobby horses of the beautiful people: something called “implicit bias”, the climate-change apocalypse, and Green New Deal Stalinism. More directly, he connected the word to the hidden bigotry of “implicit bias”, a form only perceived by mystics on the Left, like him. Interesting.
Bigotry exists in America. Dah! And it exists in many places, including the heads of Washington State governors. A bigot can have “non-enlightened” thoughts about more than skin color and mosques. Sometimes, it can be directed at people who like a good macro-brew, NASCAR, pickup trucks, and live in farm country. My guess about Inslee is that his blue-collar familiarity is limited to SNL skits – or at least he became that way.
Inslee and company don’t hesitate in slamming folks who don’t accept their poorly-thought-out ideas. If he can’t find racist actions in an opponent’s behavior, then he’ll do a whirlybird incantation on their opinions with the magical words “implicit bias”. Thus, any view that runs counter to three-quarters of the ladies on The View is contorted into the Left’s long list of isms and phobias.
Bigotry reigns supreme, and it is abundant in our cultural “commanding heights”, to borrow from Lenin (which the Dems are fond of doing anyway).
What’s the difference between Ilhan Omar’s (IO) comments about the Jews and the slurs of more famous vintage? Not much that I can tell. As a historian, she draws from the same scurrilous anti-Jewish tropes that would reach a crescendo of hate in National Socialism.
Here she is in comments before a microphone and in tweets:
“I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.”
“It’s all about the Benjamins baby” – IO tweet, 2/10/2019.
“Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel. #Gaza#Palestine#Israel.” – IO tweet in 2012.
Take a look for yourself. The Nazi posters below were typical of the disgusting genre, and are emblematic of a growing sentiment in the Democratic Party.
However, Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie would find objectionable the negative aspersions directed at the USSR in one of the posters.
Best of buds: Ocasio-Cortez and Omar.
For these rising stars in the Dem firmament, they might agree with Lincoln Steffens’s assessment in a visit to the USSR (1921?), “I have seen the future, and it works”. The USSR is probably the “shining city on a hill” in the Bernie/AOC/Omar wing of the party.
Candidate Obama in 2008 came out with this zinger of condescension about folks in the hinterlands: “They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations”. It’s as if the blue-collar dwellers outside the east and west coast soirees of the well-off are wallowing in falsehoods. Really, the urban fashionistas believe this drivel. Though, the pot-and-kettle thing keeps passing through my head. The self-proclaimed haute couture in look and thought have their own bigoted, ignorant fictions bouncing in their craniums. Legends abound in Appalachia and among the coastal with-it.
Pres. Obama with Spielberg and Bruce Springsteen at a 2014 fundraiser.
Widespread oppression of the “marginalized” – a special designation awarded to any group organized and loud enough – is gospel among the beautiful people. These people haven’t left the world of the “Mississippi Burning” script. To them, the “oppressed” are abused up and down the US interstate system. Big journalism acts as the modern Hesiod of these urban legends. Mythology isn’t an ancient phenomenon. It’s alive and well among attendees at Dem Party fundraisers.
But wiping egg off the faces of urban America’s “better” people is developing into a habit. Jussie Smollet is one among many rotten egg producers. Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Maxine Waters, the functionaries at MSNBC, the networks, Hollywood, WaPo (The Washington post), NYT, et al – the list is getting too long – can’t wait to jump at the bait. They w-a-n-t to believe the myth is true. The only problem is that the playing field is littered with lies.
Let me count the ways. Be prepared, the list is long.
(1) In November 2016, a Muslim woman at U. of Michigan caterwauled that a 20-something white male threatened to burn her if she didn’t remove her hijab. The WaPo was hoaxed. Hoax #1.
(2) Taylor Volk, a bisexual student at North Park U., said she was targeted with hateful notes and emails shortly after Trump’s election victory. Hoax #2.
(3) In, once again, Nov. 2016, Ashley Boyer of Philadelphia blamed that staple of these fibs – white/male/Trump supporter – for harassing her with a gun and getting rid of the “n’s”. The charge went viral only to be debunked by police. Hoax #3.
(4) An 18-year-old Muslim woman in Louisiana in Nov. 2016 (Getting the idea?) charged white men for robbing her and yelling racial slurs. The only problem: it wasn’t true because she said so. Hoax #4.
(5) In May of 2017, racial slurs, anti-gay insults, and Nazi references were spray painted on a church by, as it turned out, the church’s own organist. The WaPo ended up cleaning its face of egg. Hoax #5.
(6) An 18-year-old Muslim woman, Yasmin Seweid, of NYC in Dec. 2016 declared that she was assaulted by drunken white Trump supporters in the subway. She confessed. Hoax #6.
(7) Dec. 2016: David Williams of Denton, Texas, torched his own car and spray painted “n’ lovers” on his garage. A police investigation exposed the scheme as a hoax, but not before David and his wife garnered $5,000 from a GoFundMe page. Hoax #9.
(8) A Muslim student at Beliot College in Feb. 2017 found anti-Muslim smears on his dorm room door. He did it according to the Beliot police chief. Hoax #8.
(9) Synagogues and Jewish schools were the subject of bomb threats in March 2017. Surprise, the peril was linked to Trump. Well, a US-Israeli man was arrested. Wait, the story gets richer. An ex-reporter with The Intercept, Juan Thompson, kept the pot boiling with new threats to Jewish community centers. He would be indicted shortly thereafter. Hoax #9.
(10) In May 2017, racist, anti-black notes appeared at St. Olaf College. The WaPo had to walk back their story after a black student was identified as responsible for the slurs. Hoax #10.
(11) Racist messages – “Go home n***er” – were discovered at the Air Force Academy’s prep school. Sadly for the hate-crime posse, one of the targeted black students was the author. Hoax #11.
(12) A Kansas State University student reported to police racist graffiti on his car in November 2017. Later he admitted to doing it himself. Hoax #12.
(13) Racist graffiti is all the rage with hoaxers. In Nov. 2017, racist graffiti was discovered on the mirror in a Missouri high school. He prank was conducted by a “non-white” enrollee. Hoax #13.
(14) A Texas waiter at an Odessa steak house Facebooked in Dec. 2018 a racist slur on a napkin, and it went viral … of course. The only problem: The waiter admitted to faking it. Hoax #14.
(15) The Covington Catholic High School episode of Jan. 2019 was a disgrace. The WaPo and the Detroit Free Press were all over the story with an account of an elderly Native American being abused by prep-school white boys in MAGA hats. The story as it ran in the media – to put it mildly – was misleading. The Black Hebrew Israelites taunted the kids with vile insults and Nathan Philips (the Native American activist) provoked them by incessantly chanting and pounding his drum in their faces. Hoax #15.
(16) A spate of anti-Semitic vandalism hit NYC in Nov. 2018. It turned out that the culprit was a Democratic party activist and former City Hall intern, not a follower of Alex Jones. Hoax #16.
(17) Donald Trump was blamed for the arson of a black church in Greenville, Miss., back in Nov. 2016. The WaPo must have been embarrassed when a fellow black congregant was fingered as responsible. Hoax #17.
The Greenville, Miss., episode of a false hate crime.
(Thanks to the Daily Caller for the list.)
Why the mad rush to believe the unbelievable? The answer might be found in the need to validate a pre-recorded fable of the world. Traditional journalistic skepticism be damned. It’s full-speed-ahead toward a much too deeply rooted folklore in our commercial and media centers, aka big cities. Big media has been caught in too many falsehoods. Their credibility is shot. If they can’t deliver reliable news and information, what can they serve up?
A void exists to be filled by the rhetorical burps of Twitter and Facebook and the retinue of “fact checkers”, and they are linked in a miasma of interrelationships. Facebook, for instance, uses Snopes.com to filter “fake news” and hate speech. Snopes is a mess, if court documents in the divorce of the married co-founders is any indication. Former candidates for political office (on a “dump Bush” platform), prostitutes, vixens with a “dome” complex on pot, and no functioning standards of objectivity are rampant (reported by Forbes and The Daily Mail). A fact-checking degree is offered at some colleges but that’s no guarantee. Naïve and left-leaning 21-year-olds aren’t about to produce the gospel.
What we are left with is each one of us running to our corners with our personal “truth”, emotional explosions when faced with pushback, no deliberation, and a mountain of urban legends that are held in a death grip like a Bible in a foxhole.
This is my planned (emphasis on “planned”) final thought on the Kavanaugh fracas since Justice Kavanaugh is now safely on the Court. The Blasey-Ford story was truly the perfect false allegation. She weaved a tale without a place and time, leaving aside the complete lack of witnesses. Thus, how could it be refuted? Any statement missing these details cannot be empirically examined. A defense based on alibis is almost impossible. It’s the perfect charge for igniting the mob for a political lynching.
Blasey-Ford’s tale should be treated no different from a clearly proven false allegation, with the exception of fitting a new pair of handcuffs on the perjurer. The story can’t elicit any action by anyone with adult reasoning, and needs to be handled with discretion and not in a public forum under the glare of partisan predators and their street mob. If it were otherwise, we’re back to political vengeance meted out by the Paris mob of the French Revolution.
A Parisian mob storms the Hotel de Ville in 1789.Deja vu all over again.
Sad that the Democratic Party has become the leading advocate of mob rule.
I plan no further comments, barring the elevation of Jerry Nadler (D, NY) to the chairmanship of the House Judiciary Committee. He promises impeachment-mania to satisfy the bloodlust of the lefty street mobs.
Illustration showing a woman executed by hanging, for the practice of witchcraft, 1692. Published in ‘A Pictorial History of the United States’, 1845. (Photo by Interim Archives/Getty Images)
In the Salem Witch Trials of the 1690’s, the judge admitted “spectral evidence” (dreams and visions) into court, something criticized by Cotton Mather. The boosters for the Kavanaugh accusers are demanding the return of “spectral evidence” when they demand the accusers’ stories be accepted despite the evidence, lack thereof, or counter-evidence. They circumvent simple reason with the wrong question: Why would she (the accuser) lie? The proper question is, Did she lie?
Blasey-Ford testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sept. 27, 2018.
The “why” query solely relies upon a window into the accuser’s mind – the “spectral evidence” of 1692 Salem. Rather, the latter question moves us in a fact-based direction, even though the matter still may have no quick and easy resolution.
Did Blasey-Ford lie? I don’t know. That requires some evidence of intent. Though, it must be admitted that her testimony was riddled with an absence of critical facts and the presence of probable untruths. Her role in the saga is increasingly looking like a willing participant in a smear campaign. Her story isn’t aging well.
As for the others (Ramirez, Swetnick), their’s are fictions that belong in the “lie” category. The scorecard: 2 lies and 1 highly questionable tale.
RogerG
*Thanks to Kevin D. Williamson for raising the topic.
The new lynch mob: Senate Judiciary Committee member Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., joined by from left, Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas.
Decency requires much more from an accuser than a ballistic and life-changing charge against another person. Try proof. Instead, we are getting a claim of preference for a person with the preferred genitalia. Lacking any evidence – and as the evidence mounts contradicting the veracity of the accusers – we are asked to jettison the requirement of simple proof and accept the story solely based on the gender of the accuser and nothing else – indeed, in spite of everything else. In the meantime, the accused’s life and name are left hanging in the balance for all time.
Making perjury acceptable? Christine Blasey-Ford, Deborah Ramirez, Julie Swetnick (l-r).
Please, don’t come to the defense of Blasey-Ford’s unsupported story by citing other unsupported stories. That’s just lining up the attention-seeking partisans willing to take one for the partisan team. Their stories are dissolving like salt in boiling water.
Blasey-Ford’s story is taken as “compelling” only because she performed in a sincere manner. It’s a performance-based judgment. If you support her, I hope that you don’t face an accuser who only performs well.
Well, her whole story is teetering like a drunk after the Super Bowl. The fear of flying, ha! (See the transcripts – see my previous post for the reference) The second door installed in her house due to claustrophobia, ha! (See the contractor’s notes) The unfamiliarity with polygraph tests, ha! (Her ex-boyfriend’s letter) The claim of supportive witnesses, ha! (3 denials and 1 “can’t remember”) The claim of ignorance about the Judiciary Committee’s willingness to come to her, ha! (Grassley submitted 4 documents asking to interview her in California)
All she’s got is her performance before the committee … and the zealousness of the looney-Left and their blue-bubble followers in the media. Maybe that’s the crux of the matter. Stories like this can only gain traction among people who lack self-awareness of their social isolation in the Malibu-SF and Acela corridors.
The lefty smear-merchants of today are actually making a case for the white female accuser of Emmett Till back in 1955. He was falsely accused and murdered. Always believe the woman, right? I only present the picture below to drive home the consequences of gender-based “justice”. It ain’t pretty.
Christine Blasey-Ford as she appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sept. 27, 2018.
In their perpetual-motion fabrication of accusations against Kavanaugh, stories stripped of even elementary proof are enlisted in defamation for partisan political purposes. The one labeled “compelling” – Blasey-Ford’s (B-F) – is no more credible than the other Bigfoot-type sightings.
In an effort to legitimize the illegitimate, B-F’s press advocates – meaning most of the press – parrot her best friend’s lawyers in denying their client’s denial of knowing Kavanaugh and the infamous party. Got it?
Yeah, her bff (Leland Ingham Keyser) didn’t contradict B-F; she just wouldn’t confirm the story, nor could she since she wasn’t there and doesn’t know Kavanaugh, according to bff Keyser. Come to think of it, for investigatory purposes, bff clearly contradicts B-F’s tale.
Leland Ingham Keyser (l) and Christine Blasey-Ford.
Judge for yourself. Bff Keyser’s lawyer, speaking for his client, said, “Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford.” Simply put, how does that sound to you (besides too many b’s and f’s)?
Oh, but bff Keyser believes B-F … but won’t confirm. I think that we’ve entered one of Dali’s surreal paintings.
At Thursday’s kangaroo court, when confronted with her bff’s non-confirmation [translation: “denial”], B-F answered with a loopy, cobbled-together non-response. Judge for yourself:
* Rachel Mitchell, special counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee, reminded B-F of the denials of the 4 people mentioned in her written account, including bff Keyser.
* B-F’s response: “Leland has significant health challenges, and I’m happy that she’s focusing on herself and getting the health treatment that she needs, and she let me know that she needed her lawyer to take care of this for her, and she texted me right afterward with an apology and good wishes, and et cetera. So I’m glad that she’s taking care of herself.”
Go ahead, parse that. Bottom line: B-F’s story is one that won’t add up. The best-friend-forever doesn’t appear willing to commit perjury, but the Dem goon squad on the committee and the lefty hive are at the ready to swarm.
This isn’t the stuff that makes for “compelling”. It is good enough for demagoguery.
Read the hearing transcript here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/…/kavanaugh-hearing-transc…/…
