Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

Back when I was growing up, things were a lot simpler. Men were men, women were men, and everybody was really confused. We understood the difference between truth and lies and learned honesty. Today, thanks to our friends on the Left, we no longer have a sense of truth…and it may even have a gender!

One of the favorite lines Leftists used to defend Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is that she told “her truth.” First off, how do we know the truth is female? And what if the truth self-identifies as male? Beyond the simple absurdity I’ve outlined, there is a more complex absurdity at work, one that will shake the foundation of the concept of truth.

her truth

What the Left thinks it means – when a woman includes her personal experiences and perceptions when recounting facts

What it really means – the Left’s attempt to make the truth subject to personal opinion

Imagine going through life knowing you could shape reality just by believing in a certain set of variables that you alone control and no one can ever question. Wouldn’t that be cool? Thanks to the Left, you can have that ability! All you have to do is…be a Leftist!

Yeah, still too high a price for that power.

The Left isn’t on speaking terms with the truth, as can be seen by reviewing their economic policies. But when it comes to matters like allegations of sexual assault, this disdain for the truth is no joking matter. When you bring in the concept of “her truth” in lieu of the truth, you’re creating an environment where men are guilty until proven guilty. I know Lady Justice is blindfolded, but damn!

But this, like many other Leftist schemes, is by design. By establishing the idea men and women have different concepts of truth, it creates a duality that coincides with…the Left’s belief there are two different types of justice: one for the powerful (in this case men) and one for the weak (in this case women). Which comes in direct conflict with the Left’s idea women are as strong and capable as men, but hey…

Where this duality becomes truly dangerous is in situations where young men are still developing and, thus, vulnerable to pressure. I’m looking at you, high schools and college campuses. While the former is not immune to sexual assault allegations, the latter has become Ground Zero in the gender wars, due in part to President Barack Obama’s interpretation of Title IX. If you thought the Star Chamber was unfair, college inquiries into sexual assault and rape allegations have more kangaroos than Australia. Imagine being 20 years old and having the prospect of your academic and occupational futures stripped from you without a chance to defend yourself, with or without an attorney. Compounding that is an institution that has no interest in what you have to say and believes every word your accuser says, regardless of whether is resembles the truth, and has pretty much convicted you before you can respond. Only the brave or the foolish would fight back.

And that’s what the Left is counting on.

For the Left to win, they need their opponents to put themselves into a no-win situation. With “her truth,” it combines the emotional appeal of wanting to protect women and the insistence not to judge others. If you doubt a woman’s account of a sexual assault, you are automatically assumed to hate women and/or pass judgment, which in turn makes you defensive most likely. So, either you accept “her truth” as the truth or you stay silent, which to the Left is no different than consent.

That’s why it’s important we don’t succumb to the concept of her truth. Last time I checked, women were human, too. And that comes with all of the baggage men have, including the ability and motivation to lie under certain circumstances. In other words, there is always a possibility her truth may be a lie.

That brings us back to the concept of the truth. No matter how we try to justify ourselves and our actions, the truth isn’t subject to our fee-fees. It is always grounded in facts and reality, as painful or uncomfortable as it may be. Pretending reality isn’t so doesn’t change it, and giving it a gender component doesn’t make it any less deceitful.

If it’s all the same, I’ll stick with the truth. Not her truth, not his truth, not his/her truth, not my truth. The truth.

An Unpopular Opinion

Now that the drama from the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett “the Hitman” Kavanaugh has died down (except on the Left), it’s time for me to finally weigh in.

I didn’t believe him completely. And I didn’t believe Dr. Christine Blasey Ford completely.

Instead of following the circus…I mean hearing on television, I listened to it online, and it was an enlightening experience. For one, Senate egos translate quite well with just sound. And for another, you catch more. Little turns of a phrase, white lies, and other verbal cues you might not notice if you’re paying attention to the visual elements. What I found was Kavanaugh and Ford both avoided questions that were central to the other side’s case. To me, that signals they both had something to hide, which raised more red flags than the most violent soccer match ever.

When faced with a situation where there is no clear truth, I like to focus on other factors. What do the parties have to gain by being dishonest? Who seems to be hiding more? What kind of tree would they be if they had a choice? You know, the hard-hitting stuff! In the Kavanaugh-Ford situation, I saw a clear motivation from both sides to be dishonest. For Kavanaugh, it was the possibility of being a Supreme Court Justice. For Ford, it was what I call the “Anita Hill Package.” To date, Ford received over $1 million on a GoFundMe, the adoration of modern feminists, a rejuvenation of the failing #MeToo movement, and the most important thing: an automatic pass on any lies she told because she did it for the right cause. Both sides had something to gain and a lot to lose, so they hid or distorted details as needed.

What ultimately turned the tide for me wasn’t who benefited more, but what both sides were willing to let slide to win. For the Right, they risked losing the female vote for decades by throwing in their lot with Kavanaugh. This was a political risk, and one that had to be executed without much room for error. Secondary to this was the risk of appearing to be anti-woman (even moreso than the Left makes Republicans look like now) right before the midterm elections. A disheartened base would spell disaster for the GOP at a time when President Donald Trump needs as much support as he can get congressionally.

On the other hand, the Left was (and still is) willing to overlook the presumption of innocence, the rules of evidence, privacy, and even basic decency to win. Yes, yes, I know it wasn’t a trial but a “job interview”, but presumption of innocence extends beyond the court of law, and it needed to be considered here given the severity of the charges and the implications of the decision of who to believe. The Left (and the Right, to a lesser extent) hasn’t shown a desire to ensure both parties in this matter were held to the same standard. For people like me, that’s inexcusable.

So, let me apply that consistent standard here. Kavanaugh and Ford both distorted the truth and hid key details more times than I like, meaning there were no white hats yet again. I’m not willing to overlook this for the sake of a Supreme Court Justice, nor am I willing to overlook the implications. Regardless of where you come down, Brett Kavanaugh will have the stench of corruption, valid or otherwise, all over him for the rest of his life because the Left can’t let it go. To them, he will always be in the same category as Brock Turner. Meanwhile, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is getting out of this matter relatively unscathed (and a great deal richer), but her reputation has been sullied by everyone not in the Leftist bubble, and the potential damage to rape and sexual assault victims and to women in general has yet to be determined

This remains a no-win situation with only potential short term gains considered. We deserve better.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

One of the most intriguing (and admittedly frustrating) elements of the confirmation hearings of Brett “the Hitman” Kavanaugh is the use of names for people who question the testimony of Dr. Christine “Not Cool Enough for a Nickname” Blasey Ford. After all, we’re supposed to believe women, even when their stories are more bogus than a CNN fact check. People who take the “believe all women” stance have a particularly offensive term for those of us doubters: rape apologists.

And it’s a term that keeps getting thrown about whenever a woman comes forward with claims of sexual assault and/or rape. If you don’t believe a woman, you obviously condone rape according to the Left. If you defend a man against sexual assault and/or rape charges, you condone rape. In fact, I’m pretty sure being a man who insists upon breathing in a woman’s presence is grounds for being a rape apologist.

So, let’s put on our hip waders and take a walk on the slimy side.

rape apologist

What the Left thinks it means – a group of people, predominantly male, who will excuse sexual assault and rape under any and all circumstances

What it really means – a term that is used to try to protect women who have questionable allegations in an attempt to legitimize all questionable allegations against men

Even though I’ve been out of the dating pool for a few years, I understand the pressures of being a single man in today’s society. The manbun alone has been a pox on the houses (or at least the condos or apartments) of single men everywhere. But add the possibility of being accused of rape, and it makes the manbun look like…well, a manbun.

Accusations of rape and sexual assault are serious business because they have significant emotional and legal import. Just ask Brock Turner and his dad. That’s why it’s important we treat every allegation seriously and commit to finding out the truth. It’s also important we call out those who make false allegations.

To the Left, that makes me a rape apologist. To everyone else, that makes me a sensible human being. Guess which side I’m taking.

Leftists are quick to point out women really don’t have a reason to lie about rape and sexual assault, and they point to statistics (that they’ve invented) to point out how rampant rape is in our society. This is done to justify the idea of women as being helpless victims subject to the whims of evil men. And this turns into campaign contributions and votes for Leftists, who claim to be the champions of women and front line fighters against the rape culture. And these are the same people who throw out the rape apologist label whenever they think they shame people into bending the knee to their ideology.

Consider my knee unbent. Oh, and you Leftists can get bent.

It’s not that I don’t believe Dr. Ford so much as it is we’ve been down this road before with other accusations that haven’t panned out and have been whitewashed by Leftists. Remember Emma “Mattress Girl” Sulkowicz? She was the darling of the Left when she alleged she was a rape victim. Senator Kirsten “Hillary 2.0” Gillibrand invited her to one of President Barack Obama’s State of the Union Addresses, where she was featured prominently. She was praised for her lame stunt…I mean “art project” and was believed without so much as a thought.

Guess what? She lied. Her “rape” was actually consensual sex. But that’s just one example, right? There can’t be more! Well, you might want to ask Rolling Stone about that.

This is not to say Dr. Ford is a liar. It’s to introduce a concept that isn’t often considered when discussing rape and sexual assault allegations: due process. Betsy DeVos caught a lot of flak for trying to update Title IX to bring college campuses closer to the due process standard, but it was the right thing to do because prior to her intervention, those accused of rape were guilty even after being proven innocent. For that, DeVos was called a rape apologist (among other things).

If you’ve been paying attention, you see a couple of patterns. One, Leftists are really unhinged. Two, the people being called rape apologists are calling for men and women to be on equal footing legally when it comes to rape allegations. And three, not one of the people accused of being rape apologists…have literally apologized or tried to delegitimize rape.

That’s because throwing out the “rape apologist” label isn’t about rape so much as it is about maintaining the status quo where women have the power to ruin men’s lives with none of the consequences that come from false allegations. The problem with this approach, however, is that it runs in direct conflict with their claims of a “rape culture.” If there really is a culture that condones and promotes rape (spoiler alert: it doesn’t exist), why would the Left want to make it harder for actual rape victims to come forward and be believed?

Let’s just say the Left doesn’t have a problem with actual rape when it suits their needs. See Bill Clinton. And as long as they can get enough people to believe they care about women while making it easier for people to disregard actual rape and sexual assault, they will continue to use women, just like…well, Bill Clinton.

Congratulations Judge Kavanaugh

I watched the Senate vote on the confirmation of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Throughout the vote Leftists in the gallery violated Senate rules and interrupted the proceedings several times causing the sergeant-at-arms to restore order.

I think these people should be federally charged, face prosecution with jail time and be forever barred from entering the Senate gallery for life. There is a time and place for such actions but it is not in the Senate gallery.

The outcome of the vote was 50 in favor of confirming the nomination and 48 opposing the nomination. Per the Senate rules, which in this case requires a simple majority, the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States was approved.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

During this past week’s drama…I mean circus…I mean confirmation hearing for Brett “the Hitman” Kavanaugh, Senate Democrats on the Judiciary Committee made it a point to underscore how brave Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was for appearing before the committee and telling her side of the story. And I literally mean “story.” I haven’t been so unconvinced at what I saw since I watched the actors in “The Blair Witch Project” trying to convince me the movie was scary.

The standard for bravery is different for everyone. For some, it’s the soldier who lays down his or her life for her country. For others, it’s police officers and firefighters running towards danger. For Leftists, it’s…a privileged white female professor who flies across country. Granted, if she flew on United, they might have a point.

And because of this disparity, we have a point to discuss in the Leftist Lexicon.

bravery

What the Left thinks it means – courage in facing adversity, often imposed upon people by conservatives

What it really means – a term the Left has really watered down

One of the hardest parts of defining bravery is in nailing down what constitutes it. Everybody’s going to have a different perspective due to their individual experiences. Having said that, I would like to think there is common ground on the definition.

Then, the Left get involved and any common ground turns into the Dust Belt.

As with public education, school lunch menus under Michelle Obama, and personal ethics, the Left sets the standard for bravery lower than Congress’ approval ratings. That’s not to say they don’t have standards, mind you. It’s just their standards are more ideological than anything else. (Surprise, surprise.) Anyone who could conceivably or actually represent Leftists get the fast track to hero status. That’s why AIDS victims are lionized while police officers are cursed (and cursed at, for that matter). It’s also why soldiers get called baby-killers while women who had or support abortion get positive press.

But it misses the point. You aren’t brave if you stick with the prevailing idea, no matter how many Leftists call you brave. If anything, conformity is the opposite of bravery because all you’re doing is following what the crowd tells you is good and right. And that’s how “Two and a Half Men” got into syndication.

The truly brave people are ones who ignore the majority and seek a better solution on their own. Our country might still be English colonies if the Founding Fathers listened to majority opinion at the time, which clearly sided with continuing to be colonists. Maybe they were afraid to change or maybe they had a thing for guys in white powdered wigs, but the point is the Founding Fathers took on great risk and the possibility of failure to take a chance at something great.

And it’s not just here and in the past, kids. People like Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Harvey Milk, Susan B. Anthony, and countless others (including more than a few idols on the Left, I might add) bucked the existing system and brought about the societal change they wanted to make. I may not agree with them or what they stood for, but I cannot deny they were brave.

At this point, you may be asking yourself, “What does Thomas wear around the house?” Or “What does Thomas consider brave?” You know, whichever.

To answer the latter question, bravery is when you swallow today’s fears so others won’t have to be afraid tomorrow. That means a lot of people the Left call heroes don’t make the cut, including Dr. Ford. She wasn’t courageous for coming forward; she merely did what was expected she’d do and was treated like a Faberge egg in a pillow factory. Had she come forward in the 80s and faced down a hostile legal team who cared nothing about her or her feelings, that would have made her brave. As it stands, Dr. Ford’s bravery was more watered down than Michael Phelps’ Speedo.

As for the former question, I’m saving that answer for another blog post.

Bravery in any form comes with an element of risk. The higher the risk, the greater the reward for success or penalty for failure. And with Leftists wanting to take the risk out of everything so everyone can be equally mediocre, that means being brave gets a lot easier if you subscribe to the Left’s mindset. The problem is if everyone can be called brave, then no one gets to be brave. Bravery becomes the norm.

Let me put it another way. Being an outspoken Leftist at UC Berkeley requires little bravery. Being an outspoken conservative at UC Berkeley requires much more bravery because a) you will always be outnumbered, and b) the outspoken Leftists at UC Berkeley may physically hurt you for being an outspoken conservative.

Former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart used a now-famous test for obscenity: “I know it when I see it.” Bravery works a little bit differently. You’ll know it when you don’t see it.

Lunacy over Kavanaugh

It is absolute lunacy. The Marxists in Congress continue to assault the dignity and reputation of Mr. Kavanaugh. 1st it was an attempted sexual assault in high school. The 2nd allegation was exposing himself at college, and a woman accidentally touching his exposed penis. And now, Mr. Kavanaugh is accused of participating in giving high school girls drugs at parties and gang-rapping them. Come on. Really?

Each of these tales get wilder than the one before it. Of course the Leftist loonies believe that a man who is accused of any sexual misconduct is automatically guilty and must prove his innocence if they want to give him that opportunity. But usually he is guilty and should be removed from society without due process.

But that rule doesn’t apply to those men who are Leftists themselves. Like Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and many members of the Democratic Party in Congress who have settled out of court with their victims and never proclaimed their innocence at all.

Of course come Mr. Kavanaugh’s confirmation vote in the Senate on Friday. There will probably be another allegation brought up against him. Maybe the Leftists will report that Mr. Kavanaugh really is someone else who has done all these things that we thought was in prison or even never caught. Thus making his whole life a lie.

Funny though that in the SIX FBI background investigations that have happened during Mr. Kavanaugh’s political career that NONE of these things have ever been discovered.

A Tale of Two Catastrophies

When you really think about it (and I do because I really have no life), the confirmation hearings for potential Supreme Court Justice Brett “the Hitman” Kavanaugh are shaping up to be much bigger than whether Kavanaugh gets fitted for a robe before Christmas and whether he’ll carpool with Ruth Bader Ginsburg. There are high stakes here for both sides, and eventually there will be winners and losers. Oddly enough, the Left seems to be full of losers, both in the confirmation hearings and in general, but there’s one loss they haven’t considered yet, and given how much time they’ve spent on it, I’m surprised (well, not really) they have overlooked it.

Over the past several months, Leftists have loudly defended the FBI against attacks from President Donald Trump. According to them, it is traitorous to question the loyalty and competency of the men and women who work for the FBI (Lisa Page, Peter Strzok and James Comey, notwithstanding). You couldn’t swing a dead cat and not hit a Leftist voicing support for the FBI or without getting in trouble with PETA.

For some reason, though, the loud Leftist voices have gone silent. Is it because the issue is dead? Not really. President Trump still has concerns, at least some of them valid, at how the FBI conducts itself. Although the frequency of his Tweets on the matter have decreased somewhat, the animosity is still there. But something else is going on that has to do with the FBI: Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing and the controversy surrounding it.

To put it mildly, Leftists have jumped on the allegations against Kavanaugh like Rosie O’Donnell on an all-you-can-eat buffet line. Now, here’s where the plot thickens like the aforementioned O’Donnell’s blood after said buffet. Kavanaugh has had six, count ‘em, six background checks done up to and including the Supreme Court. Who conducted these checks?

If you guessed the FBI, you would be correct. If you guessed anything else, you don’t get to move on to the lightning round, you don’t get a year’s supply of Rice A Roni or Turtle Wax, and you don’t even get a lousy edition of the home game. However, you do get a trip around the world as Regis Philbin’s travel buddy.

Six FBI background checks, and not a single shred of evidence linking Kavanaugh to the sexual assaults he’s been accused of. This leads to two possible conclusions. One, there is nothing there that would support the allegations, and two, the FBI missed the same signs six times. Both have the potential to rock the Left to its core, but the latter makes it harder to operate in my opinion because of the remedy they’ve suggested to address the allegations against Kavanaugh: have the FBI open an investigation on whether he sexually assaulted women.

To put it another way, the Left wants the same people who conceivably overlooked the same issues multiple times to look into a situation they conceivably overlooked multiple times. That’s like trusting Hans Blix to find WMDs in Iraq…oh, wait.

The Left is forced into a Kobiashi Maru of their own making. Either they trust the FBI to investigate Kavanaugh while ignoring the six previous times they did just that, or they have to admit the FBI was right all along, thus negating the need for another investigation.

But let’s not tell them just yet. I want to see the looks on their faces when they watch their pro-FBI rhetoric explode in their faces.

Round Two of the Fight

Another accuser has come forward. Just in time to prolong the nomination hearing in the Senate Committee or again to stop it in it’s tracks. This is the Left’s goal.

They would rather have the Supreme Court empty than have one more of President Trump’s nominees on it. They will push this issue with Mr. Kavanaugh until he or the White House withdraws the nomination. And the Left will then viciously attack the next nominee put forth by President Trump as well. Pushing these strings of nominees and hearings all the way to the 2020 presidential election.

Then they will entrap Senator Grassley with his own words from 2016. “Let the next president decide.” Of course hoping that the next president is one of their own and not a re-elected President Trump. Make no mistake at all, that is the plan of the Left.

As for this 2nd accuser of sexual misconduct against Mr. Kavanaugh. It allegedly took place only a year or so later than the 1st alleged incident. When the alleged victim and perpetrator were both Freshmen in college. And this too happened at a party. No originality to the Left’s made up stories and I’m sensing a theme here too.

We are seeing a pattern of alleged behavior that is in close proximity to one other in time. This makes gives the illusion that Mr. Kavanaugh is a serial offender. Under-aged drinking is involved at wild parties. Again another painting of Mr. Kavanaugh wrongfully being presented as a heavy drinker and very irresponsible. And then the very alleged acts that take place leaves people to believe that Mr. Kavanaugh looses all self-control when he is drunk. All of these things paint the picture of someone not worthy to sit on the High Court.

And all of these things are a lie too. Carefully constructed by the Left to make it near impossible to dispute.

But since this alleged event took place at a college frat house. I’m sure there are plenty of witnesses that will come forward. And that a report was filed with the college at least. The name of the fraternity should be available. The date of the party should be also available. And it should be on record if Mr. Kavanaugh was even a member of the fraternity as a Freshman.

One should remind all parties that lying under oath at a Senate Hearing is a federal crime. This warning goes to the accusers, to Mr. Kavanaugh, and members of the Senate Committee as well.

We are in for a long fight against the Leftists.

Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week

It’s been a week and we are still no closer to confirming Brett “the Hitman” Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. This is mainly because Senate Democrats are insisting upon further investigation into accusations of sexual assault raised by Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, who alleges Kavanaugh did something at some time involving something else at someplace. Leftists state it’s only fair we delve into these accusations so we know whether Kavanaugh is a sexual predator.

Although there are a lot of subjects that can come from this situation, there is one word that the Left constantly uses whenever it wants to bend the will of the people to their causes: fair. Leftists want fair trade, fairness to address the wage gap between men and women, the rich to pay their fair share, to campaign at state fairs, and so on. (Okay, that last one was a reach, but you get the idea.) So, what does the Left consider fair?

Let’s find out!

fair

What the Left thinks it means – equal consideration to all possible points of view

What it really means – a concept the Left loves to use, but only when it favors them

Four little letters causing a lot of confusion, mostly self-induced by the Left. Americans have a strong attachment to fairness in part because our country was build on the idea. When the Pilgrims got a raw deal from the English monarchy, they left and landed on Plymouth Rock where they proceeded to die off due to the failures of socialism. (Read up on the Mayflower Compact if you doubt this.) When the colonists got another raw deal from the English monarchy, they fought back and started a revolution, if you’ll pardon the pun. Granted, we haven’t always been motivated by fairness (just ask Native Americans), but it is still one of the cornerstone ideals we’ve maintained throughout our history.

Which means the Left just has to manipulate it for its own ends.

Leftists play in the world of emotions, and fairness is a concept that invokes a lot of them. We want a level playing field for all and get angry when that doesn’t happen. What better way to whip the public into a lather than to claim something isn’t fair? And what better way to get people to vote for you than to tell them you’re all about fairness? It’s almost too good to be true!

Well, that’s because it is. When the Left brings up fairness, it’s always when they feel they have the most to gain. That’s why Senate Democrats want there to be an investigation. Not only do they look like defenders of sexual assault victims (unless the assaulter is a Leftist, of course), but they do so by claiming the fairness high ground, which can lead to votes, which Democrats desperately need in the midterm elections. To put it mildly, a room full of monkeys with a room full of typewriters could come up with a better campaign strategy than the DNC has so far.

Meanwhile, the Left doesn’t give one tenth of one damn about fairness when they hold the power. Try getting Ben Shapiro booked at UC Berkeley if you doubt me. You’ll find it’s easier to land a 747 on the first floor of a parking garage than getting any conservative speaker on a campus run by Leftists. Then, there’s the flat tax, also called the fair tax, where taxpayers would pay the same percentage. Leftists hate that because their idea of fairness in taxes is the rich paying a higher percentage since they make more.

So, let me get this straight. Instead of paying the same amount, which by definition is fair to everyone, the Left believes the rich should pay more taxes to make things fair. Brilliant!

Bringing everything back to the Kavanaugh hearing, the Left wants us to believe similar logic applies. A fair hearing to them means Kavanaugh testifies first while Dr. Ford gets a chance to present her testimony after the fact. Also, the Left believes a fair investigation requires the FBI to get involved as ordered by President Donald Trump and Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court would have to be delayed until the FBI did its job. Oh, and Dr. Ford would have to travel from California to Washington by car because she doesn’t want to fly, so to be fair we have to allow her time to get there. And even if the Senate Judiciary Committee was to go to her, Dr. Ford might make other demands in the name of fairness.

Meanwhile, the one person who isn’t getting a fair shake in all of this is Brett Kavanaugh. Like him or hate him, the circumstances behind his nomination process have opened his family and him up to death threats, all sorts of vicious rumors about him and his past, aggressive attacks by Senate Democrats looking to grandstand and jockey for position to be the party’s 2020 Presidential candidate, and, worst of all, having to endure questions from people who wouldn’t know habeas corpus from a hole in the ground. And after all of that, he has to deal with Dr. Ford’s allegations, which are thinner than the plot of a mystery novel written by kindergarteners…or Democrat members of the Senate Judiciary Committee for that matter.

And who is it who tells us justice delayed is justice denied? Why, it’s the Left, who feel it’s perfectly fine to delay confirmation of an actual Justice under the guise of a fair hearing.

I’ll take Concepts Too Complex for Leftists for $200, Alex.

Burden of Proof

The alleged event took place 36 years ago. It was not a Federal Crime and therefore the FBI has rightly refused to investigate the matter further. Additionally it may have taken place in the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia. Even wrongfully assuming the alleged event was the highest felony sexual based crime. It has a statute of limitations of 15 years. So any charges or accusations should have been made at least 18 years ago it not before to be legally valid.

The Left insists that men who are accused of any sexually based crime are guilty until proven innocent. However, our Constitution and laws decree that the burden of proof is on the accuser and prosecution. And that all citizens are innocent until proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, guilty. The Left’s mindset is an abomination against Liberty and freedom within this Republic.

However we will look at the accusation to see if it has any merit what so ever, even though the accused cannot be charged or tried for the event due to the statute of limitations within the District of Columbia. According to Ms. Ford this is what happened 3 and a half decades ago.

When she was 15 years of age, she was at a high school party. This was a co-ed party with girls and boys attending. There was underage drinking going on and she admits that she had been drinking and was in fact drunk during this party.

Two boys, one being now identified as Supreme Court Nominee Mr. Kavanaugh, were also present. These 2 boys and herself were drunk and ended up alone in a bedroom at the house were the party was being held.

One of the boys covered Ms. Ford’s mouth to prevent her from screaming. The other boy, now identified as Mr. Kavanaugh, was on top of Ms. Ford.

However, since both boys had been heavily drinking they had fallen off the bed onto one another during their struggle with Ms. Ford. At this point Ms. Ford escapes from the two entangled boys.

What happened after that is not yet known. Did Ms. Ford leave the party or did she remain there? Where there any adults present at this party? These and more are questions that need to asked.

What is known is that the incident was never reported to an adult, a teacher, the police, or Ms. Ford’s parents. Had it been there would have been an entire chain of events that simply did not happen. It is believed that Ms. Ford did tell a few close friends about it but it was kept silent after that.

From my own experience, I too was 15 years of age at the same time. Back in 1982 when this event allegedly took place. I cannot remember a single thing in detail of what I did during that year. I can make some guesses of course but the accuracy would be in doubt. Add a drunken party to the mix and the odds go way down at recalling anything with any real accuracy about it.

Given that Ms. Ford admits to being drunk at this teenage party calls her entire accusation into question. Especially 36 years later. Did it happen as she said, did any of it happen at all? Or is it all a fabrication of lies?

Ms. Ford and her fellow Democratic Leftists call this alleged event “attempted rape”. That is very strong language to use on an event that was just “remembered” so recently from so long ago. At best, if was still chargeable, it would be assault.

Now I will admit that a teenage male has a lot of sexual tension, drive, and desires. That is indisputable, but not proof of attempted rape. And being drunk can lower ones inhibitions as well. This can happen with any drunk individual, teenager and adult. But it is still not proof of attempted rape. And no where in Ms. Ford’s telling of this event does it mention that either boy was without clothing or even had partial clothing. This does cast doubt on the attempted rape accusation.

On the accused side of this story is Mr. Kavanaugh. He states simply that the alleged event did not take place. But here, I do have to say that IF it did happen as Ms. Ford states, it is possible that Mr. Kavanaugh’s memory of the event is long gone and may not remember that it happened at all.

Also being drunk and being a minor does not excuse such behavior. It was assault if nothing more serious. But we will never know the true intent, if the event actually did take place. And as I stated at the beginning, this happened too long ago to be a legal issue.

In our political arena and climate this kind of accusation sets a dangerous president. To be able to accuse a member of an opposition party of sexual misconduct from an unprovable vantage point decades in the past in order to prevent that person from seeking and obtaining political office is evil. It destroys liberty and it undermines our Republic. It can ruin lives and careers both public and private. All from an accusation that is unprovable and in some cases maybe completely false.

The burden of proof is on the accuser or prosecution within our Republic. And this includes testimony before a Senate hearing.

Ms. Ford also does not state when and where exactly this party was located either. Casting further doubt on the event. Give this information and we can find where Mr. Kavanaugh was located then.

Ms. Ford has offered no proof and Mr. Kavanaugh denies the event. The 2nd boy is unknown. So there are no other witnesses to bring forth new information. There is also no DNA or other evidence at all. Nothing.

We only have the word of a Democratic Party member and donor. One who has been involved in protests against the current Administration. One who believes that the President is not her president. Ms. Ford’s own actions would indicate that she would be against any nomination made by the current Administration to the High Court, no matter the person’s character, qualifications, or even gender.

Ms. Ford has not protested or brought up accusations against Mr. Kavanaugh in his past appointments to the Federal Court system. He has been before the Senate Judicial Committee before and was confirmed by the Senate. No word of any sexual misconduct. Only now, when he is being nominated to sit on the High Court does she come forward with this accusation.

What Ms. Ford did do was to send a letter to Senator Feinstein, a Democratic Senator on the Judicial Committee. Senator Feinstein is a well known Leftist and her public statements show a strong bias against the male gender. Within Ms. Ford’s letter, she demanded that the FBI investigate the alleged event. Thankfully the FBI has refused this unauthorized demand on their time and funds. It accusation does not fall under FBI jurisdiction. Ms. Ford, if you want a private investigation, hire a private investigator to do it, the FBI is not at your disposal.

Senator Feinstein did exactly what the Democratic Senators accused Senator Grassely of doing on the 1st day of the hearing. Not giving out documents in time for them to be read. Senator Feinstein received Ms. Ford’s letter on July 30th. And sat on it until the 11th hour, only then revealing its existence in an attempt to stall the vote or deny the nomination in committee.

At the time of this writing, Ms. Ford has agreed to testify but not yet agreed to do so by the Monday deadline. She demands protections from the Republican Senators. Unless she is going into a witness relocation program, she isn’t entitled to any extra protections. She is not a witnesses but the accuser. Every citizen has the right to face their accuser.

She has been given a deadline, she either meets such deadline or doesn’t. She is then either subpoenaed and brought before the Senate Judicial Committee or is found in contempt if she does not appear and goes to jail. If she elects not to testify, then the Senate moves forward with their confirmation and the accusation is stricken from the record.

I personally would like her to come and testify. If the alleged event actually took place there are unanswered questions about it that need answers that only she can give. Yes it will be hard. That happens anytime someone in an other’s accuser. And I know there is a negative stigma attached to victims of sexual assault. That is unfortunate, but she needs to be strong.

I have already written about how I don’t think Mr. Kavanaugh should be on the bench at any level in our courts. He is part of the problem of black robed tyrants based on some of his testimony and other statements prior to his hearing. However, he is the best available candidate that can be put on the High Court bench at this time and place in our history.

And if such testimony of Ms. Ford removes all doubt to her accusation, then I will join those in stating Mr. Kavanaugh should not be confirmed. But that burden of proof is on Ms. Ford and Ms. Ford alone.