To Deal with Leftists, Imagine You’re Confronting Satan

If you’re a conned-servative who gets sand thrown in your eyes, your kneecaps kicked off and slashed with a broken bottle and then still fights the next time by Queensberry rules, this article isn’t for you. But if you’re disturbed by the Left’s behavior these last years and want to know how to handle these people whose “mask has been dropping,” understand this: Behind that mask is the Devil.

If you’re not a person of faith, view this as a thought exercise. But it’s one connedservatives — those nice guys who always finish last — had better embrace fast. Because the behavior of what we call today’s “Left” and what Satan would prescribe are virtually identical.

Truth means nothing to leftists. The ends justify the means and they will literally say or do anything to achieve their aims. They’ll use violence — Antifa, BLM, rioting and attacking Trump supporters — and intimidation (doxxing public officials and confronting them in various public places) while calling conservatives fascists and blaming them for the unrest. They’ll rail against “racism” one moment and then excoriate a race (whites) the next. They’ll preach equality while practicing inequality and discrimination, as with quotas and affirmative action. They’ll claim to care about women victims (Kavanaugh/Ford affair) and then smear women victims (Rep. Keith Ellison case). They’ll say “Do it for the children,” using kids as human props, while abetting the brutal killing of children in the womb. They’ll preach tolerance but then insist this means “safe spaces” excluding conservatives and whites and that opposing views must be squelched. They’ll say it’s un-American to question election outcomes — as H. Clinton did prior to Nov. 8, 2016 — but upon losing scream how an election was “stolen,” as leftists did after Nov. 8, 2016. Theirs is the ideology of Anything Goes.

In fact, leftists will swear that Truth (properly understood as objective) itself doesn’t even exist, that everything is shades of gray — but then turn about and sing blatant black-white tunes portraying their political opponents as evil. This is similar to Satan, who knows that God’s rules exist but doesn’t believe they should be considered “Truth.” Leftists will superciliously scoff at traditionalists’ moral positions and insist everything is relative. But they really want to play God and have everything be relative to themselves — like the Devil.

One difference between leftists and Satan is that the latter knows God exists. That’s where the differences end. Leftists hate everything great and good: God, family, country and even the idea of countries (attacks on sovereignty). They hate religion, especially Christianity; the Church; marriage; sexual propriety; and anything else reflecting God’s plan. Thus, they not only hated the Boy Scouts before they became the Gender Fluid Scouts, but hate the idea that “boys” and “girls” even exist in any pure sense; they reject the message that “male and female He made them.” They hate virtues (good moral habits) and do violence — directly or indirectly — to every single one, be it faith, charity, chastity, honesty, diligence, temperance, kindness, humility, fortitude, justice or something else. They are the very negation of Norman Rockwell.

Leftists hate the Constitution, though they’ll use and misuse (twist) it to serve their ends. Of course, like Leon Trotsky, the Kronstadt sailors and so many other useful idiots, it will be discarded once leftists have enough power and its utility is no more. (Christine Blasey Ford, take note.) In fact, they would destroy civilization itself — and are currently doing so — to achieve power. They’d rather reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.

While leftists will usually deny the above, at certain times they obliquely acknowledge it. Consider how Democrat operative Scott Foval, caught in a 2016 sting operation stealing votes and inciting violence at Trump rallies, essentially admitted Republicans are more honest. “There is a level of adherence to rules on the other side that only when you’re at the very highest level, do you get over,” he said. Many leftists know they’re scum — and they’re content being scum.

They don’t put it in those terms, of course. But they live in an inverted (im)moral universe. They crave the con, love the lie, delight in deceit. They respect fellow travelers who can most effectively destroy their adversaries with artifice — or vanquish them with violence.

What does this mean for conservatives? First, stop being connedservatives. Know thy enemy. Oh, I know, connedservatives reject the idea of viewing “fellow Americans” as enemies. But that’s what Barack Obama called you, what the alt-Left leftists consider you and that’s what they are. Denying it only makes us sheep being led to the slaughter.

Second, know that you have to fight dirty — just like the other side. This doesn’t mean being immoral, but it does mean fighting fire with fire and playing for keeps. I’ll provide some examples.

I’ve long advocated nullification, which Thomas Jefferson called the “rightful remedy” for all federal overreach. For instance, the unconstitutional Obergefell v. Hodges marriage ruling in 2015 should simply have been ignored by the states. Connedservatives consider this radical and wrong, but what has the Left been doing for ages? What do you think “sanctuary” (lawless, actually) cities and resistance to federal drug law are? Nullification. California currently embodies this. The difference is that liberals don’t call it nullification. They just do it — and win.

Then there’s the matter of reclaiming the Supreme Court for constitutionalism. We should attempt this, and are. But when the leftists regain control over the legislative and executive branches, as they will one day, will they let “opinions” by unelected, black-robed lawyers impede them? They’re already talking about impeaching Justice Kavanaugh and one day packing the court.

Moreover, judicial supremacy is not in the Constitution, which is why I’ve long advocated the ignoring of unconstitutional rulings. Future leftists controlling Uncle Sam’s executive branch absolutely will do this, embracing Jefferson’s warning that accepting judicial supremacy makes our Constitution a felo de se — an “act of suicide.” The difference is that they’ll ignore even constitutional rulings contrary to their agenda.

In fact, it’s no surprise leftists hate the Founding Fathers: The former aren’t American in any real sense and aren’t suited to proper constitutional government. As President John Adams warned in 1798, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly in adequate to the government of any other.” However “moral and religious” we are today — and we are thus lacking — leftists assuredly are the “other.”

Additionally, a contract can only work if those subject to it abide by it. If one party consistently violates it to advantage itself and oppress the other party, however, the contract is rendered null and void. That is, at least until the violators are eliminated from the equation.

The other thing connedservatives must do is stop conserving yesterday’s leftists’ social and political victories. Connedservatives, for example, accept the Left’s immigration regime, which guarantees leftist-empowering demographic change. But demographics is destiny, and over the long term you can’t win elections while continuously importing the other side’s voters.

Connedservatives also too often accept elements of leftists’ isms (e.g., feminism), use their language — not just politically correct speech but also the vulgarity liberals have normalized — hew to yesterday’s leftists’ sexual mores, imbibe their entertainment and support their propaganda mills (i.e., universities). But since politics is downstream of culture, we ultimately can’t win the government if we embrace the Left’s abnormal social norms.

Lastly, don’t bend to their intimidation. If they call you a “racist,” respond with the truth: “You’re the ‘racist,’ as you only level that accusation because I’m white.” React correspondingly to “sexism” charges, remembering that the best defense is a good offense. Take the fight to them, give no quarter and take no prisoners.

So, connedservatives, stop being conned. One of the Left’s tactics, outlined in its devilish “bible” Rules for Radicals (dedicated to Lucifer), is to get the other side (us) to live up to its own rules. And fighting by Queensberry rules only guarantees a knock-out because the Devil knows no limits. The Left has one guiding “principle,” articulated many years ago by occultist Aleister Crowley: “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

EDITORS NOTE: The edited featured photo is by Mark Koellmann on Unsplash.

VIDEO: Andrew Gillum – Job Interview – Florida Election 2018

The United West team “creates” Comrade Andrew Gillum’s Job interview for CEO of 80 billion dollar company.

Clearly, no one in their right mind would hire Gillum to run their candy store, but the crazy socialists will vote for him to run the state of Florida!

SHARE THIS to your friends and VOTE INTELLIGENTLY on November 6, 2018!

Andrew Gillum Endorses Antisemites – MUST WATCH!

Democrat candidate for Florida Governor, Andrew Gillum says he’s pro-Israel, but he just says that to get Jewish money for his campaign.

He endorses, and is endorsed by, a radical, anti-Israel movement.

VIDEO: Choose Wisely — Next Governor of Florida Will Appoint Three Supreme Court Justices

If radical socialist Andrew Gillum is elected governor of Florida on November 6, 2018, he will most likely appoint three Florida Supreme Court Justices who agree with his “progressive” agenda.

The Gillum Agenda includes massive governmental bureaucracy, increased taxes, decreased law enforcement, legalized recreational marijuana, open borders making Florida a sanctuary state! Make no mistake about it, Andrew Gillum’s political philosophy is based upon the core ideological beliefs of Marxists, like Stalin, Lenin and Marx himself!

Floridians, get out and vote intelligently on November 6, 2018!

RELATED ARTICLES:

Anti-Capitalism Group: Andrew Gillum ‘By Far’ Best Candidate ‘In Pushing Our Revolutionary Vision’

Hillary Clinton Backs Harassment of Conservatives, Says “You Can’t be Civil With” Republicans

Pro-Abortion Professor Who Said White Republican Men Should Be Castrated Placed on “Research” Leave

Ocasio-Cortez: The Electoral College is a Shadow of Slavery!

The Democratic Candidate for New York’s 14th Congressional District, Ms. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, continued to display her less than superior intelligence on Saturday when she tweeted that the Electoral College was a “shadow of slavery’s power on America today that undermines our nation as a democratic republic.”

There are many reasons one could validly employ in arguing that the Electoral College ought not be used in selecting the President. Those arguments include the underrepresentation of urban areas and the apparent inconsistency of a victorious president who fails to win the popular vote.  I understand these arguments and am willing to debate against them.  But claiming that the Electoral College represents some outcrop of slavery is not merely an immensely unsubstantiated charge, its promotion serves only to reveal its proponent’s complete ignorance.

The Electoral College is a method by which the President of the United States is elected that employs electoral votes instead of popular votes.  Those electoral votes are loosely proportional to each state’s population and serve to grant slightly greater weight to those less populous states; states that tend to be more agrarian in nature.

The Electoral College is an outcrop of the tension between those larger, more commercial states and those smaller, more agrarian states at the time of our nation’s founding.  Although those states were largely separated by latitudes back then, today the battle lines are more properly drawn between the urban coastal centers and the nation’s agrarian midsection, erasing whatever shadows Ms. Ocasio-Cortez may be divining.

Moreover, the selection of the Electoral College as the system by which the President is chosen springs from the philosophical presumption that the President of the United States answers to the states.  It is because he or she is subservient to the states that the states ought to be given the responsibility of electing the President.  This concept was a foundational precept for the nation’s creation.

But if her wildly erroneous comment about the Electoral College and slavery’s power were insufficient to demonstrate her ignorance, her charge that it “undermines our nation as a democratic republic” does.

The Electoral College is the centerpiece of our republican system of government because it places an extra tier of representation within the democratic process.  Not only is each state a republican system of government, but also by making sure that the states elect the President, we have essentially created a second republic.  This concept of multiple republics under the auspices of a larger one is the essence of federalism and provides an extra layer of protection for the minority.

For Ocasio-Cortez not to recognize these concepts as the Democratic candidate in a general election defies belief.  Quite frankly, the notion that any district within this great Republic would ever cast its vote for her is even more inexplicable.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Poll: Almost a Third of Millennials Identify as Socialists

The History Russians and Communists Want Us to Forget

RELATED VIDEO: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez calls to abolish Electoral College

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Federalist Pages. The featured photo is by Anthony Garand on Unsplash.

For Kagan, Only The Illusion Of Impartiality Is Important

Let’s be clear. The Supreme Court is no more impartial or neutral a body than Congress itself.

I have heard it said so many times that the Supreme Court’s opinion is the final word on a legal issue. The contention is that because justices are neutral arbiters of the law and draw up their conclusions based on legal tenants equally applicable to all, then the answers they give us must be the “correct” position on a matter.

In reality that supposition is erroneous. If the judicial process is truly driven by such neutrally applicable and neutrally applied principles, then why so many 5-4 opinions on politically charged questions? As a matter of fact, why even have an appellate court?

In school, we were taught that appellate courts existed to see whether a judge made an error in law during a trial. That contention may be true, but in the really important cases, the ones touching our fundamental relationships with government, the appellate judge is not being asked to review whether the trial judge forgot to consider a certain statute or whether he or she was correct in ruling a piece of evidence inadmissible. The question before the appellate court is whether the lower judge was wrong in believing a law or action to be constitutional. This question is not so much a legal one as it is a political one.

In reality, there are no immutable legal principles. They are all subject to the taint of judicial interpretation and application subject to the philosophical slant of the presiding judge or judges.  Think of legal jurisprudence not as black versus white but as containing every shade of color imaginable and then arguing about the particular shade employed in a certain case. That’s politics. That’s the Supreme Court.

Indeed, the whole reason the nation has been subjected to the traumatic Kavanaugh confirmation process is because liberals know the Court is inherently political. As a matter of fact, if the Court were not political, then what difference does it make who sits on the bench?

The fact is that the inhabitants of the Court and their political views are quintessentially important to those who wish to use the Courts to fashion the laws of the land. And therein lies the motivation for all the nonsense we have recently seen.

In a women’s conference at Princeton University last week, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan said,

“It’s an incredibly important thing for the court to guard this reputation of being impartial, being neutral and not simply an extension of a terribly polarizing process.”

Important to whom?

Notice that Justice Kagan did not say that it was important for the Court to guard its impartiality or neutrality. Rather, it was the reputation of impartiality about which she worried. Indeed, when it comes to the promise of impartiality and the Court, the only thing there is for liberals to worry about is the illusion of impartiality. That’s because the Court is in fact not impartial.

And why is it so important for liberals to preserve the reputation of impartiality in the Court?  Because as long as the Court is viewed as a pillar of impartiality and neutral legal assessment, it will be able to keep its chokehold over the other branches of government — a chokehold that was never given to it by the Constitution, but rather acquired by fiat through the legal opinions of Chief Justice John Marshall.

In his letter to William Charles Jarvis regarding Jarvis’s book, Thomas Jefferson derailed the idea of the Court being a neutral arbiter of laws. “You seem, in pages 84 and 148, to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions,” he said. “A very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is ‘boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem,’ and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.” (emphasis added)

The Kavanaugh confirmation process has demonstrated that every judge is tainted with his or her own personal political philosophy and that his or her politics colors every opinion and ruling he or she makes. Now that we can acknowledge this fundamental fact, it is time to enact a correction to the Constitution that places a check on this inherently political body. It’s time to allow the Court’s opinions to come under the scrutiny of those who are actually elected into office. It’s time to fashion a supermajority legislative override of Supreme Court opinions. And Jefferson would agree.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Revolutionary Act. The featured photo is by Escape Artiste on Unsplash.

Fellow Alum of Andrew Gillum’s running mate: “[Chris] King is an anti-Semite, plain and simple.”

Florida State Representative Randy Fine went to Harvard College with Chris King. King was named by Socialist Andrew Gillum to be his running mate for governor of the Sunshine State.

In a Sun Sentinel op-ed titled “Why Chris King’s comments matter and why as a fellow Harvard alum I know” Representative Fine wrote:

In 1998, while a student at Harvard College, Chris King ran for president of the Harvard student government, the Undergraduate Council. He lost. In reflecting on his campaign the following year in a Newhouse News Service article, King blamed the Harvard Student newspaper, the Crimson, for his loss. “I was nailed to the cross,” said King, in referring to the coverage of his race by the Crimson. “And most of the editorial staff that was so hard on me, the vast majority were Jewish.”

After the comment surfaced earlier this year during his ill-fated race for governor, King did not deny making the statement, apologized and claimed it was “at odds with [his] beliefs.”

Baloney. King is an anti-Semite, plain and simple. I’ll tell you how I know. I was a Harvard undergraduate around the same time as King. I graduated in 1996; two years before King’s ill-fated election. I was involved in the Undergraduate Council as well, and I even had my own run-ins with the Crimson. Oh, and I’m Jewish.

Read more.

Representative Fine states:

So why would Andrew Gillum select someone with King’s record, when there were so many other options? Because he either shares those views or is willing to tolerate people with those views. You don’t cavort with CAIR — an unindicted co-conspirator in financing terrorism — or work with the Dream Defenders, modern day anti-Semites who openly glorify terrorists, if you don’t subscribe to it.

If Andrew Gillum and Chris King are elected, how will they treat our large Jewish population here in Florida? No one can question Ron DeSantis’ record on supporting Israel and fighting anti-Semitism.

Read more.

In a FrontPage Magazine article titled “Who Is Andrew Gillum?” Discover The Networks reports on the school and political background of King’s running mate Gillum stating:

A few days ago, 39-year-old Andrew Gillum – the Tallahassee, Florida mayor who proudly embraces the socialist political and economic agenda of Bernie Sanders – won his party’s gubernatorial primary race in that state. This sets the stage for November, when Gillum will face Republican Ron DeSantis in the election for governor. Gillum’s campaign has been endorsed not only by Sanders, but also by Our Revolution, an activist organization that explicitly promotes the Vermont senator’s agenda.

Gillum has a long history of political activism that stretches back to his school days. When he was enrolled at Florida A&M University, for instance, he was very active in the Student Government Association. In early 2000, Gillum helped organize a large “March on Tallahassee” to protest Governor Jeb Bush’s 1999 executive order abolishing affirmative action in state university admissions and state contracting. To reward Gillum’s activism vis-a-vis this and other matters, the Center for Policy Alternatives recognized him as the nation’s top student leader in 2001.

In 2002, Gillum became the Florida Field Organizer with the People For the American Way Foundation (PFAWF), spearheading its “Arrive With 5” initiative – a pro-Democrat voter-mobilization campaign whereby young people pledged to bring five additional voters with them to the polls on Election Day.

Read more.

Discover the Networks lists Gillum’s positions on a variety of key political issues:

  • strongly favors the expansion of Obamacare as a step toward a government-run, single-payer, “Medicare-for-all” healthcare system;
  • strongly favors government-enforced affirmative action policies designed to compensate nonwhites and women for the effects of past and present discrimination;
  • strongly favors a steeply progressive income-tax structure where high earners pay disproportionately high rates, and where corporate taxes are increased significantly;
  • strongly favors the implementation of a pathway-to-citizenship for illegal aliens;
  • strongly favors the enactment of carbon taxes, higher CAFE standards for automobiles, and federal funding for the research-and-development of wind and solar power technology;
  • strongly opposes Voter ID laws as racist schemes that are designed to suppress minority voting;
  • believes that the enactment of voucher programs through which low-income parents can take their children out of substandard public schools and send them instead to superior private schools, constitutes bad public policy;
  • believes that the availability of guns should be severely restricted, even for law-abiding citizens who have never been convicted of a crime, and that the 2nd Amendment does not guarantee Americans the right to possess a firearm;
  • supports a complete ban on so-called “assault weapons”;
  • believes that the federal government should inject large amounts of funding – in the form of cash as well as federal job-creation programs – to help the U.S. economy recover from downturns that it may experience;
  • believes that the nationalization of banks and corporations is more appropriate than government bailouts of those entities when they fail economically;
  • calls for a national $15-per-hour minimum wage requirement for all workers; and
  • advocates the repeal of Florida’s “stand-your-ground” gun laws which permit people to use deadly force if they feel that their lives are threatened by an aggressor or assailant.

“Gillum also has released a video demanding that President Trump be impeached because he allegedly “obstructed justice” by firing former FBI Director James Comey.” notes Discover The Networks.

Anti-Semitic Chris King teams up with Socialist Andrew Gillum. You just can’t make this stuff up.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Andrew Gillum’s ‘Maoist’ Support Network

FL GOP Gives 10 Reasons Andrew Gillum is Too Radical/Corrupt for Governor but Misses Number 11

Who is Steve Phillips and why is he backing Andrew Gillum for Governor of Florida?

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is from Democrat running mate Chris King’s Facebook page.

The Secret’s Out: Corporate America Is Standing With Soros & Steyer Against American Values

George Soros and Tom Steyer are two of conservative America’s biggest boogeyman. Each has donated untold millions to various liberal groups — including election efforts — to turn America against its core values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

But corporate America is just as bad. For just one example, Levi Strauss — the iconic designer of jeans for blue-collar, hard-working Americans — launched a Get Out The Vote ad. It was bad enough that their 2ndVote rank is “1” in the five areas where they engage in politics. It was worse when they put $1 million to push gun control. Now they’re outright telling Americans to vote for Levi’s liberal agenda.

The ACLU has likewise become part of the Democratic Party/left-wing smear machine. Rather than stick to their historically left-leaning civil rights principles, they put $1 million into an ad accusing Brett Kavanaugh of being a sexual predator like Bill Clinton, Bill Cosby, and Harvey Weinstein. That ad went into five states to target five Senators the ACLU believes could be persuaded to vote against Kavanaugh for the U.S. Supreme Court.

There is only one solution to stopping the Soros-Steyer-Corporate left-wing charge, and that’s to create a culture of informed 2ndVoters. Tell your family, friends, and neighbors how their shopping habits have real economic and political power. Urge them to use that power by backing good companies and abandoning bad ones.

Corporate America and allegedly “non-partisan” non-profits like the ACLU think they’re pulling a fast one on the American people. Let them know they’re wrong today, tomorrow, and after election day with your network’s 2ndVote power.


Help us continue holding corporations and non-profits accountable for their activism by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!


The Political Pasts of the Lawyers Representing Kavanaugh Accusers

The lawyers for the three women accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct all have been on the legal battlefields of either celebrity or politics.

One ran for office multiple times as a Democrat. Another was a federal appointee of both Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. Still another defended the alleged misconduct of Democrat politicians.

Kavanaugh has denied allegations made by each woman.

Here’s a look at the political pasts of the lawyers representing the accusers in one of the most politically charged Supreme Court confirmation processes in recent times.

From Iran Contra Prosecutor to McCabe Advocate

Michael Bromwich is one of the lawyers for Christine Blasey Ford. Bromwich and another lawyer, Debra Katz, sat on either side of Ford during the Sept. 27 hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Ford claims that in the early 1980s, during a small gathering of teens, a drunken Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed and forcefully tried to remove her clothing.

Before going into private practice, Bromwich was a prominent federal prosecutor.

In the 1980s, he served as associate counsel for the Office of Independent Counsel during its investigation of the Iran-contra affair.

He was one of three courtroom lawyers leading the prosecution against Lt. Col. Oliver North, then a National Security Council aide. North’s conviction was overturned on appeal in 1990.

In 1994, Clinton nominated Bromwich and the Senate confirmed him as inspector general for the Justice Department. The Office of Inspector General acts as the internal watchdog to investigate waste, fraud, and abuse, and in some cases, make a criminal referral.

A little over a decade later, Obama tapped Bromwich to lead an effort to reform the Minerals Management Service in response to the Deepwater Horizon explosion in 2010 off the Gulf of Mexico.

Bromwich oversaw reorganization of the agency to eliminate conflicts among its different missions, which included establishing safety standards, regulating industry compliance, and collecting royalties, according to the Obama White House.

Starting this year, Bromwich began representing Andrew McCabe, who had been deputy FBI director under James Comey since 2016 and, for a short time after President Donald Trump fired Comey, was the acting FBI director.

McCabe’s wife, Jill McCabe, ran an unsuccessful campaign for state Senate in Virginia, receiving about $500,000 from a political action committee run by then-Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a political ally of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Bromwich, the Justice Department’s former inspector general, represented McCabe as he was under a probe by the current Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General that determined he was not honest with investigators.

The FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility recommended that McCabe be fired. Attorney General Jeff Sessions followed up by firing him.

Bromwich consistently has contributed to Democrats, including Obama’s 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns, John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign, and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. He also has made donations to the Democratic National Committee.

Bromwich did not respond to email and phone inquiries.

Defender of Al Franken and Bill Clinton

Debra Katz has hit the talk show circuit, speaking up for Ford’s allegations more than Bromwich has. And she is no stranger to commenting for the media.

Last year, Katz provided commentary defending Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., before he resigned in disgrace after multiple reports of groping women.

“Context is relevant,” Katz said about Franken. “He did not do this as a member of the U.S. Senate. He did this in his capacity of someone who was still functioning as an entertainer.”

In the 1990s, Katz was also a strong defender of Bill Clinton amid charges of sexual harassment made by Paula Jones.

In April 1999, Katz said on “CBS Evening News”:

Clearly a one-time incident that took place in 10 to 12 minutes, she was not forced to have sex, she left on her own volition, the courts increasingly are finding that that is not enough to create a sexually hostile work environment claim.

Katz also talked about the Jones case to The New York Times in March 1998.

“If a woman came to me with a similar fact pattern, that is someone in the company above her propositioned her but only once and she suffered no tangible job detriment, I would probably tell her that I’m sorry, it’s unfair, but you don’t have a case,” Katz told the Times.

Clinton eventually settled his case with Jones, and was found in contempt of federal court.

In a follow up point in the Times, Katz continued: “If it’s one time, it has to be severe, almost a sexual assault, not just a touching of somebody’s breast or buttocks or even forceful kissing.”

Katz is a donor to Obama’s presidential campaigns and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign, and to numerous Democratic congressional candidates across the country.

In a Facebook post in March 2017, Katz, referring to a Hillary Clinton line during the campaign, said of advisers to President Donald Trump: “These people are all miscreants. The term ‘basket of deplorables’ is far too generous a description for these people who are now Senior Trump advisors.”

Katz did not respond to phone and email inquiries.

He Has an Eye on 2020

While most of the lawyers involved in the Kavanaugh accusations have a past in politics, Michael Avenatti hints at a significant political future.

Avenatti already has asserted that he is considering running for president in 2020.

Over the past year, he has built a high-profile legal resume to raise his name recognition, making well more than 100 TV appearances.

One of his clients, Julie Swetnick, made the most serious accusation against Kavanaugh—one that the nominee and current D.C. Circuit Court judge called a farce.

Swetnick claims in an affidavit that when she was a young adult, she was present at multiple parties where Kavanaugh, as a high school student, participated in gang rapes.

She said that she eventually was gang-raped at one of the parties she attended. She said she couldn’t remember whether Kavanaugh was one of her attackers—only that he was present at that party.

Avenatti also represents porn star Stormy Daniels, a stage name for Stephanie Clifford, who has said she had a consensual one-night stand with Trump in 2006. Daniels was trying to get out of a nondisclosure agreement that she signed shortly before the 2016 election.

While in college and later in law school, Avenatti worked for Rahm Emanuel’s Democratic-affiliated opposition research firm the Research Group. Emanuel is now mayor of Chicago.

However, most of Avenatti’s career has been with the entertainment industry in Los Angeles, where he once sued businessman Trump.

Avenatti wasn’t a major political donor, but contributed to the presidential campaign of former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, Kerry’s presidential campaign, and at least one of Sen. Barbara Boxer’s campaigns.

Democratic Candidate

Deborah Ramirez claims that as a college freshman Kavanaugh exposed himself to her during a party when they were both students at Yale.

The two lawyers representing her, according to reports, are Stan Garnett and John Clune, both of Colorado.

Garnett is a former district attorney for Colorado’s 20th Judicial District in Boulder County, an elected office he held for about a decade, according to an online biography.

In 2010, Garnett was the Democratic nominee for Colorado attorney general. He lost the race to Republican John Suthers.

In private practice during 2003, Garnett represented Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., in his capacity as an individual in the case of Salazar v. Davidson, which led to a court’s striking down a redistricting plan approved by a Republican-led state legislature.

He contributed to Democratic congressional candidates across the country, and also to Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign.

High-Profile Cases

Clune, also an attorney for Ramirez, hasn’t been as transparently political as most of the other lawyers involved in the allegations against Kavanaugh.

Many of his high-profile cases involve sexual assault, however.

Clune has represented students and families on campus rape and Title IX matters.

Clune represented clients alleging sexual assault in civil litigation against pro basketball’s Kobe Bryant, as well as in a civil lawsuit against pro baseball’s Johan Santana and several actions against schools alleging Title IX violations.

In 2009, Clune co-founded and served as the first legal director for Rocky Mountain Victim Law Center, a pro-bono nonprofit organization dedicated to enforcing the rights of crime victims, according to an online biography.

COLUMN BY

Portrait of Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas

Fred Lucas is the White House correspondent for The Daily Signal and co-host of “The Right Side of History” podcast. Send an email to Fred. Twitter: @FredLucasWH.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Sen. Flake, I Was Assaulted by a Stranger. Here’s Why I Want Kavanaugh Confirmed.

I Was a Crime Reporter in Maryland in the Early ’80s. I Never Heard of Teen Gang-Rape Parties

The Daily Signal Podcast: The Media’s Shameful Handling of Kavanaugh Accusations

Harvard Students Want Kavanaugh Banned From Public Life, Because of #MeToo


The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now.


EDITORS NOTE: This column with all images was republished with permission. The featured image of Christine Blasey Ford is joined by her lawyers, Debra Katz, left, and Michael Bromwich as she testified Sept. 27 before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Katz and Bromwich both have partisan pasts. (Photo: Win McNamee/Zuma Press/Newscom)

Will Hyatt actually comply with Sharia law by banning groups that criticize Islam?

Muslim groups have won their first major victory in censoring Judeo-Christian and patriotic groups that hold meetings in hotels.  Hyatt plans to ban certain “hate groups” after Muslim Advocates pressed hotels to stop doing business with them.   Such a ban follows the Sharia tenet which calls for strong punishment of anyone who criticizes Islam or Muhammad.  Sharia law, which is a combination of the Quran and fatwas, calls for punitive treatment of people who insult Islam.

Latimes.com published an article titled Hyatt hotels won’t rent to hate groups, CEO says; Muslim group claims a victory.  The article states in part:  Hyatt Hotels Corp., one of the nation’s largest hotel companies, announced it will no longer host hate groups at its nearly 800 properties, a move that was praised by a Muslim advocacy group.   Act for America, a strong advocate for preserving America’s constitutional republic, was the subject of heavy Muslim contention reported in the LA Times article.  Act for America opposes the infiltration of Sharia law into America public policy and law.

DCist.com reports in part that CAIR wants Corporate America to ban associations with groups that openly criticize Islam.  DCist.com reports in part:

Derrick Morrow, Hyatt’s area vice president and general manager of the Hyatt Crystal City, implied to HuffPost that it would be illegal for the hotel to discriminate against the group by declining to hold their conference.

Robert McCaw, government affairs director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, tells DCist that isn’t true. He points to Airbnb’s decision to boot white supremacists from their platform before “Unite the Right 2.” And last year, white supremacist Richard Spencer had so much trouble booking a hotel for his conference that he had to hold it in his office in Alexandria.

McCaw argues that the Hyatt, and other hotels and event spaces, should treat this group the way they would any other hate group.  “I wouldn’t see the Hyatt providing rooms to the Ku Klux Klan,” McCaw says. “So why are they providing it to these guys?”

Latimes.com further reported:  It was not clear from Hyatt’s statement how the hotel company planned to determine which groups promote hate, but it added:

“This is a complex and emotional issue, but what we’ve concluded is that we need to commit to a higher level of vetting such that groups using hate speech, primarily seeking to disparage or demean a particular group, are not welcome in our hotels.”

The Council on American Islamic Relations has hundreds of articles posted on its news release web page that openly and aggressively attack government officials, companies, teachers, professors, candidates for office and individuals who dare say anything negative about Islam, Sharia law or Muhammad.

Where is Hyatt’s concern about the people CAIR attacks?

CAIR pushes an Islamist agenda which includes forcing Corporate America and Government Agencies to recognize various tenets of Sharia law.   Many tenets of Sharia law are antithetical to the rights afforded all Americans under the United States Constitution.

Reverend Franklin Graham

There are dozens of organizations and thousands of churches across American that openly express concerns about the Islamist political agenda and Islamic terrorism.

Muslim activists recently called on the United Kingdom Parliament to ban Reverend Franklin Graham entrance into Great Britain because he called Islam “evil” and “wicked.”

Will Hyatt ban groups led by Reverend Franklin Graham?

Given CAIR’s radical history, links to terrorism and hostility towards opponents of Islam it is outrageous that Hyatt has adopted such an anti-First Amendment, anti-America public policy.  Will Hyatt actually enforce its ban against groups that criticize Islam, oppose Sharia law and counter the Islamist political agenda?

Florida Family Association has prepared an email for you to send to express concern to Hyatt officers and directors about its policy to ban groups that criticize Islam, oppose Sharia law and counter the Islamist political agenda.  Please feel free to change the Subject line and Email Content.

Click here to send your email to express concern to Hyatt officers and directors about its policy to ban groups that criticize Islam, oppose Sharia law and counter the Islamist political agenda.

For contact information click here.

Trump Proves To Be The Greatest Weapon For The American Worker

President Trump’s first and most enduring promise has been kept, and the American worker can rejoice.

A deal experts said was dead in the water materialized last weekend when Canada announced it had reached an agreement with the United States to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The deal came about as a frustrated Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called a late night meeting with his cabinet. Indeed, the materialization of an agreement serving to improve America’s trade position in North America would not have occurred were it not for the negotiating prowess and vision of President Donald Trump.

The workings of the trade deal date back to before President Trump’s election; actually from before he even started his campaign. For years, Trump voiced his frustration at the United States’ involvement in deals that were hurting the American worker. Calling them “bad deals,” Trump expressed his befuddlement at how politicians could agree to such catastrophic trade deals. NAFTA quickly became a centerpiece of Trump’s campaign for president and the object of his ridicule. But it should be remembered it was also a centerpiece of his speeches long before he came down the elevator.

Upon assuming power, President Trump wasted no time threatening the stability of NAFTA by announcing his intention to pull the United States out of it. Predictably, the naysayers took to the airwaves, arguing that NAFTA was a creator of jobs. Investor Dennis Gartman called such a move, “egregiously stupid,” and CNBC proudly published his opinion. Meanwhile at Forbes Magazine, Professor J. Bradford DeLong called the prospect of leaving NAFTA, “a disaster” while Stuart Anderson, the author of the article, mocked Trump by stating that visual aids were needed to teach the President why leaving NAFTA was a bad idea. Anderson held nothing back when he concluded, “Donald Trump does not know much about the trade agreement he has so frequently criticized.”

Undeterred, President Trump continued to place his disapproval of NAFTA at the center of public discourse. Recognizing his greater advantage over Mexico, he then pealed America’s southern neighbor into a separate agreement that did not include Canada calling it a “terrific agreement for everybody.”

With the Mexican trade deal solidified, Trump turned his attention to Canada, this time suggesting that he might leave Canada out of the deal if it did not negotiate.

Canada remained defiant. “We will only sign a new NAFTA that is good for Canada and good for the middle class,” said a spokesman for Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland. For Canada, there were a number of sticking points to a new deal. First the NAFTA dispute resolution process that protected the cultural exemptions was “fundamental.” This “exemption” protected Canadian artistic products, including media outlets. Understandably, Canadians feel threatened that American networks might buy Canadian media affiliates and essentially control their media coverage. Further, the abandonment of Canada’s tariffs on American dairy products was considered too great a threat to be acceptable.

But President Trump remained undeterred. He imposed an Oct. 1 deadline upon Canada, insisting that if it did not provide the text for a new trade deal to the United States Congress by that time he would move ahead with the deal with Mexico and exclude Canada.

Trudeau did the only thing he could and called for “common sense to prevail.” He appealed to Canada’s partners, including the European Union, to ramp up their pressure on the United States. But the reality was that Canada could ill afford to be kept out of a new North American trade agreement. The Canadian dollar was weakening, and the prospect of Canada continuing without a treaty seemed like a doomsday scenario for its economy; and for Trudeau’s impending reelection.

With negotiations seemingly hopelessly stalled as recently as late September, Canadian negotiators went to work. And by Sunday, Sept. 30, the two countries agreed to terms.

The new agreement, known as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) is nothing short of revolutionary. Among other provisions, the USMCA curbs Canada’s high tariffs and low quotas on American dairy product; drops the percentage of a car needing to be manufactured in China that would still allow it to be considered “North American;” includes provisions that help NFL advertising; and forces Canada and Mexico to respect American drug patents for 10 years. And Canada gets to keep its cultural resolution process exemption.

In a very real sense, the trade deal vindicates President Trump — and the wisdom of the American worker supporting him. He identified a palpable problem in North American trade and placed his political capital on the line to see it terminated. As a result, Trump emerged much stronger, an important perception at a time when he is knee deep in trade negotiations with China. But more importantly, President Trump’s priority of protecting the American worker and improving the environment for American businesses prevailed.

There is also the glaring realization that these new agreements would have never come to fruition without President Trump. The events leading to Sunday’s breakthrough would never have been possible without Trump’s aggressive, even bombastic style. Most importantly, when President Trump said he would walk away from the deal, he was believable, forcing all players to look hard at the possibility of having no deal at all.

Say what you want about President Trump, but he has become America’s greatest weapon in international negotiations, much to the joy of the American worker.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act. The featured photo is by Malte Wingen on Unsplash.

GOP Picks Cotton to Lead Justice Fight

The only bars liberals seem preoccupied with are the ones Brett Kavanaugh visited in college. But Senate Democrats may want to focus on a bar of another kind: the Washington, D.C. Bar. According to Senator Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), that’s the investigation Americans should be watching. Because, unlike the FBI’s seventh trip through Brett Kavanaugh’s past, the Bar Association could prove who’s actually lying. And as far as he’s concerned, it’s not who the media thinks it is.

“Just look at the timeline that came to light during the hearing last week,” Senator Cotton told me on Monday’s “Washington Watch.” “Shortly after Miss Ford went to Dianne Feinstein, what happened? They recommended that she hire a left-wing attorney from Washington, D.C. to represent her. Attorneys who then went on to lie to Ms. Ford, apparently — because she testified last week that she didn’t know the Judiciary Committee had offered to fly to California to interview her. And that if she had known that, she would have accepted the offer, rather than go through the circus the Democrats put her through.” Dr. Ford has been just as abused and exploited by the Left as Kavanaugh, he insists. “They betrayed her.” Remember, he points out, “Ms. Ford said all along that she didn’t want her allegations to be made public.”

Like a lot of Republicans, Cotton was shocked to find out that Dr. Ford hadn’t been told about the Judiciary Committee’s offer to meet with her privately in California. “If you were gonna come out to see me, I would have happily hosted you and would have been happy to speak to you out there. It wasn’t clear to me that that was the case.” If Dr. Ford’s attorneys lied to her, hoping to turn this into a public spectacle that hurt Kavanaugh, that’s a violation of the D.C. Bar.

And that’s not the only time Democrats took advantage of Dr. Ford, Cotton insisted. What most people don’t understand is that there’s a well-established procedure for allegations like hers. The two senior members of the committee — in this case, Republican Chuck Grassley (Iowa) and Democrat Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) — work with the FBI to review the matter quietly. “I can tell you, Tony, it happens all the time — hundreds of times for all of the nominees that are vetted. And it’s not uncommon for the FBI to discover something in a nominee’s background like abuse or a drinking problem or a gambling problem. And the nominee will frequently withdraw — and do so discreetly…”

“Let’s just remember what happened here,” Senator Cotton went on. “Ms. Ford sent a letter, confidentially, to Dianne Feinstein in late July raising these allegations… Dianne Feinstein hid it from Chuck Grassley, she hid it from the FBI. She and Chuck Schumer kept it in their back pocket until after Judge Kavanaugh’s hearing, until after they had a private session to ask about any sensitive matters, and then linked it to the media right before the vote — solely to try to torpedo his nomination. The media got it, and only Dianne Feinstein and the Democratic congresswoman from California and their staffs had it, so it had to come from them somehow. And I think Congress needs to get to the bottom of it.”

In the meantime, voters in battleground states aren’t going easy on Democrats. At the West Virginia Pumpkin Festival on Sunday, Senator Joe Manchin (D) got an earful from locals, who made it clear: “If you don’t vote for him, I won’t vote for you.” “I get that a lot,” Manchin said. Another yelled, “Vote Kavanaugh!” and Manchin insisted, “I hear you.” If he doesn’t, he’ll almost certainly hear the polls, which showed just how potent the issue is. West Virginia voters are solidly in Kavanaugh’s camp, supporting his confirmation by a 30-point margin (58 percent to 28). Out in North Dakota, Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D) is feeling the heat of the Kavanaugh nomination, as Republican challenger Kevin Cramer continues to surge ahead, now with as much as a 10-percent lead.

The numbers follow the trend in Missouri, where red-state Democrat Claire McCaskill is watching her advantage melt away in the firestorm of the Kavanaugh hearings. Like a lot of Americans, they understand what the debate about the courts is all about. That’s why the issue topped the social conservatives’ list of concerns in 2016. They know the Left will use the court as a hammer to beat the country into submission on views that are too radical and unpopular to survive democratically.

Most voters agree with Senator Cotton, who knows what the Left is interested in — and it isn’t the truth. “They don’t want to get to the facts, they don’t want to reach a reasonable conclusion. They want to destroy Brett Kavanaugh and keep the president from filling this vacancy on the Supreme Court.”


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


RELATED ARTICLES:

Kavanaugh critics don’t even meet lowest standards for evidence

State Dept. Charges ahead with Visa Policy

Pray. Vote. Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Tony Perkins Washington Update. It is republished with permission.

The Vortex — White, Conservative, Straight, Christian Male. Search him out and destroy.

TRANSCRIPT

For those who have been politically or culturally asleep for the past 40 years, the Left — which is to say, godless communists disguised as do-good social justice socialists — have been hacking away at a number of categories that must be destroyed in order for them to prevail and impose their tyranny on the nation.

One category is race — if you are white, you are bad. You enjoy white privilege. You belong to a class that is horrid by nature and must be overthrown.

It’s interesting and telling that in almost every assessment of the Brett Kavanaugh controversy that media have singled out that all eleven senate judiciary republicans are white. Race has nothing to do with this story. Every single person involved is Caucasian, yet there it is: old white men.

Then we, of course, get the charge of being conservative, which means right-wing, alt-right, extremist. And we all know extremism is bad. Being labeled an extremist is the worst possible thing, but only if you are a conservative extremist.

Planned Parenthood extremism is perfectly acceptable because, well, it’s not conservative. In all of this, we need to make sure and lump in being straight — or heterosexual — because, again, that’s bad. Heterosexuals are unfeeling, non-compassionate by nature, and heterosexuality being opposed to homosexuality by nature makes it automatically bad.

Christian — or in the case of Brett Kavanaugh, specifically Catholic — is tantamount to complete unacceptability by the Left. It is, after all, Catholicism which built Western civilization — that heterosexual, patriarchal, politically conservative, Caucasian empire of evil that must be dismantled however possible.

And the coup de grace of the entire war — Kavanaugh is a male — which means he must shut up and sit down and not talk, and likewise with any men who defend him or even question Blasey Ford’s claims that with each passing day become less and less believable.

Damn the facts — he’s a man, a male, and he is, therefore, wrong and must be disbelieved and belittled. And when you add in that he’s a white, conservative, straight, Catholic male, well this is simply intolerable. He must be destroyed.

This must not be allowed to continue. All that is male is bad — it’s toxic. Every male should simply be content to sit back with his juvenile video games and self-indulgent porn habit and let women run the world.

In today’s political and social climate — created and helped along by the diabolical — whatever is masculine is evil. Men must be reduced to sniveling mama’s boys who have been socially castrated. It is a case of toxic masculinity to confront.

Truth cannot be asserted if someone’s feelings are upset. The entire world exists so that the feelings of radical feminism can be affirmed. When you take this template and lay it across what’s going on in the Church, it causes much to come into sharp focus.

Why has the Catholic priesthood been so devastated? Precisely because truth has been replaced for feelings, and this has been pushed by the homosexualist crowd so they don’t have to face the truth of their own sexual depravity. It cannot be and should not be surprising that what is happening in the culture is happening.

What evil happens in the culture first happens in the Church because the Church is the only body on Earth with the supernatural mission to fight and destroy evil. All man-made institutions and bodies will fail sooner or later because they were not established by God — only the Catholic Church was.

So this rejection of heterosexuality and masculinity, of conservatism and faith, that we see so evidently on display in the Kavanaugh case, has been able to reach this point exactly because it has already been happening in the Church for decades.

Too many Catholic leaders have acquiesced, have given into the shrieks of radical feminism simply because they have become more feminine than masculine themselves. They no longer have a touchstone to that which is masculine, so they flounder about, grasping and groping for something to seize to stem the tide of destruction of the Faith.

Many of them are massively effeminate; most have been emasculated; all of them practically speaking are at a loss to do anything to restore the Church. This is why we see the victory of radical feminism’s tyranny because too many men have refused to accept the mantle of suffering and sacrifice which is part and parcel of being a man.

If this all sounds familiar — just look at what happened in the Garden of Eden: A radical feminist bullied a cowardly man, and here we are today.

Satan hates — absolutely hates with a burning passion — authentic masculinity. It was authentic masculinity that was assumed by the eternal Logos which destroyed his kingdom and opened the possibility of salvation.

Men, especially white, conservative, straight, Christian men, need to pick up your heads and realize how you are being demonized — just turn on a TV and watch.

RELATED ARTICLE: Trump defends Kavanaugh: ‘Very scary time for young men in America’

EDITORS NOTE: This video originally appeared on The Church Militant. The edited featured photo is by Leio McLaren (@leiomclaren) on Unsplash.

Blasey Ford’s Curious Omission

There was something curiously missing from Professor Christine Blasey Ford’s Thursday Senate testimony, something quite relevant to her basic claims. Please consider the following segment from her testimony about the alleged (circa) 1982 sexual assault by SCOTUS nominee Brett Kavanaugh:

Both Brett and Mark [Judge] were drunkenly laughing during the attack. …During this assault, Mark came over and jumped on the bed twice while Brett was on top of me. And the last time that he did this, we toppled over and Brett was no longer on top of me. I was able to get up and run out of the room.

Now please read the corresponding segment from her original letter, sent months ago to Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.):

Kavanaugh was on top of me while laughing with Judge. …At one point when Judge jumped onto the bed, the weight on me was substantial. The pile toppled, and the two scrapped with each other.

After a few attempts to get away, I was able to take this opportune moment to get up and run across to a hallway bathroom.

What jumps out at you? “[T]he two scrapped with each other.” “Scrapped.”

I related this aspect of Ford’s story to a woman close to me at a Saturday affair and asked, “What does that tell you?”

She responded, “That they weren’t that interested in her.”

Now, don’t misunderstand me. The incident Ford describes would be sexual misconduct and surely morally wrong. But assuming it happened — and let’s for argument’s sake say that Ford was assaulted by a boy (whether Kavanaugh or someone else) in the manner she describes — it’s quite understandable why she omitted mention of the scrapping from her Senate testimony.

It severely weakens her case.

Question: Would a boy intent upon raping a girl begin scrapping with a friend in the midst of passionate attack?

Were I to take Ford’s Senate testimony at face value, I’d have to say that, yes, probability dictates it very well could have been an attempted rape. But reading her original letter, I’d say that the incident sounds like something else: drunken high-school hijinks where two guys did, admittedly, cross a serious line — but not one on whose far side lies rape. That’s how significant the “scrapping” omission is.

To reiterate, the boys’ alleged actions would be wrong regardless. The point, however, is that there’s a lot of moral real estate between inappropriate, alcohol-fueled, sexually aggressive physicality and the heinous crime of rape.

Based on Ford’s original letter, a very logical interpretation of the alleged incident is that it did in fact involve drunken horseplay gone wrong. Note that boys are very physical (which is why they wrestle with each other so much); even more so when they’re inebriated. So the boys in question, inhibitions released by booze, slip into testosterone-goofing mode. This is evidenced by their hysterical laughter. One of them then gets inappropriately physical with Ford before they get physical with each other — they were getting physical, period.

The only difference is that since Ford was a girl and teen boys have sky-high libidos, the drunken horseplay with her assumed a sexual tone.

Of course, again, this is just an interpretation. But it’s one strongly suggested by the boys’ laughing and scrapping.

Ford and her handlers surely agree, too, more or less. Why else would they have omitted mention of the scrapping from the Senate testimony? After all, the professor doesn’t remember much from that allegedly known incident in that unknown house in that unknown neighborhood in that uncertain year. But that the boys “scrapped” is something that, her original letter informs, she did recall.

It’s entirely implausible that the omission could have been a mere oversight. Remember that Ford’s testimony was written out, and she, her lawyer and perhaps even some handlers undoubtedly scoured it with a fine-tooth comb. They wanted to maximize its impact and ensure she didn’t perjure herself. The only reasonable explanation is that they purposely, tactically omitted part of the story.

There would only be a strong case that Kavanaugh (again, assuming it happened and he was the perpetrator) was attempting rape if the scrapping were the result of white-knight intervention by Judge. But Ford never even implied that this was a possibility. Rather, she painted a horseplay scenario, where Judge twice jumped on the bed, with the second leap resulting in a toppling of all three.

Of course, Ford could also claim that, on second thought, she wasn’t sure if the boys actually did scrap. But then we’d have to ask: If she imagined that, what else did she imagine?

Ford’s Senate omission was strikingly significant, and Arizona prosecutor Rachel Mitchell, who questioned both the professor and Kavanaugh, should have asked about it. After all, attempting to commit the heinous crime of rape, even as an older minor, would certainly reflect damningly upon a person’s character. But it would be completely unfair to epitomize a man’s whole life based on one incident of lewd, aggressive, drunken high-school horseplay.

So Professor Christine Ford didn’t reveal anything new in her Thursday testimony — except, perhaps, in what she failed to say.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

RELATED ARTICLE: Why This Victim of Attempted Rape, Physical Assault Supports Kavanaugh

EDITORS NOTE: The edited featured photo is by Steve Johnson on Unsplash.

With Senators Like These, No Wonder America’s In Trouble

As the smear campaign against Judge Brett Kavanaugh continues, it is clear that the anti-Trump resistance has brought out the worst in many Democratic Party Senators. Senators Chris Coons of Delaware and Mazie Hirono of Hawaii are Exhibit A in the cutthroat, gutter-class attacks to which Republicans must put a halt.

First, it was Hirono who told CNN’s Jake Tapper that Kavanaugh’s pro-life beliefs make sexual assault accusations against him believable. The block quote below highlights just one of the at least three times she mentioned Kavanaugh’s pro-life beliefs in a discussion about sexual assault:

TAPPER: Doesn’t Kavanaugh have the same presumption of innocence as anyone else in America?

HIRONO: I put his denial in the context of everything that I know about him in terms of how he approaches his cases.

As I said, his credibility is already very questionable in my mind and in the minds of a lot of my fellow Judiciary Committee members, the Democrats.

So he comes, and — when I say that he’s very outcome-driven, he has an ideological agenda, is very outcome-driven. And I can sit here and talk to you about some of the cases that exemplifies his, in my view, inability to be fair in the cases that come before him.

This is a person that is going to be sitting on our Supreme Court, making decisions that will impact women’s reproductive choice. He has a — he very much is against women’s reproductive choice.

TAPPER: Mm-hmm.

HIRONO: And I can tell you two very important cases in which he applied the same standard, but came to totally different results to make it much harder for women to get this kind of coverage.

So there’s — there are so many indications of his own lack of credibility. And I put that in a context.

TAPPER: It sounds to me like you’re saying, because you don’t trust him on policy and because you don’t believe him when he says, for instance, that he does not have an opinion on Roe v. Wade, you don’t believe him about this allegation about what happened at this party in 1982? Is that fair?:

Coons’ comments were, if possible, actually worse than Hirono’s. At least she’s just being a party hack, albeit on a critical issue. (Though she’s also a hypocrite — Hirono is a supporter of Planned Parenthood despite the abortion company’s complicity in hiding sex abuse.) Coons is a Yale Law graduate, which means he knows better than to say that Kavanaugh has the burden of proof regarding innocence.

Yet that’s exactly what he did on MSNBC:

Mr. Coons said that Christine Blasey Ford and Deborah Ramirez “have nothing to gain” and have put themselves “at legal risk” by accusing Mr. Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct in his teen years.

“It is Judge Kavanaugh who is seeking a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court and who I think now bears the burden of disproving these allegations,” said Mr. Coons in a Monday interview on MSNBC, “rather than Dr. Ford and Deborah Ramirez who should be dismissed with slanderous accusations.”

This pathetic effort at #Resistance to President Donald Trump’s excellent nominee would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious. It’s past time for the hackery to stop and for Kavanaugh to be approved to the U.S. Supreme Court.


Help us continue holding corporations and non-profits accountable for their activism by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!


EDITORS NOTE: This column is republished with permission.

United Way’s Planned Parenthood Donations Fund the Left’s Campaign against Kavanaugh — Follow the Money

Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest abortion company. It also has a massively influential political machine that has led the Democratic Party to support taxpayer-funded abortions anytime, anywhere, for any reason. They say jump and Democrats don’t bother asking how high, as we saw with the Kavanaugh debacle where at least one Democrat said she believes uncorroborated and unproven claims of sexual assault because Kavanaugh is pro-life.

2ndVote shoppers can help stop this by forcing United Way chapters to stop funding Planned Parenthood. $2.7 million might not be a lot of money compared to Planned Parenthood’s billion-plus annual revenues, but such a drop in funding would be a strong sign that the times are changing for the abortion industry. And those dollars fund thousands of abortions.

Why target United Way over Planned Parenthood’s corporate donors? First, target them all! Second, though, United Way is clearly unnerved at the attention they are getting. They not only dodged the issue in a statement, but they also stealth-edited out of the statement the fact that “a small number” of chapters donate to Planned Parenthood.

The fact is that United Way is scared to be associated with Planned Parenthood. 2ndVote activists can take advantage of this and really put the pressure on United Way. If United Way chapters stop donating, we could see other groups — non-profit and corporate — realize that they should stop funding Planned Parenthood if they want support from grassroots Americans.

See 2ndVote’s Pro-Life Guide to United Way here.

See all of Planned Parenthood’s corporate supporters here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

With Senators Like These, No Wonder America’s In Trouble

The Kavanaugh Smears Are All About Abortion — Time To Take Action


Help us continue holding corporations and non-profits accountable for their activism by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!


EDITORS NOTE: This column is republished with permission. The featured image is from Shutterstock.