Courting hypocrisy: Where does the truth lie?



Facts don’t matter anymore.  We have a new standard of truth as it applies to judicial nominees.   The real victims are the women who are being sexually molested, harassed and abused by predatory men.   If there is no political advantage for Democrats, the women are ignored. 

When a woman’s allegations of sexual misconduct against a man have more significance than evidence given, you are no longer talking about progressives.   You are going back in time.

In a Wall Street Journal article, “What Democrats Have Become,” Daniel Henninger calls the Democrats a party of resistance and that Judge Brett Kavanaugh is “not much more than a casualty of war.”   Mr. Henninger astutely compares Senate Democrats to the ancient pagan Romans with their barbaric rituals and the Democrats in one way come out worse:  

“Consider the spectacle:  Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court, the embodiment of a modern rule of law, is being decided in the Senate by the medieval practice of trial by ordeal, such as surviving immersion in fire or ice.  Trial by ordeal was outlawed by the Lateran Council in 1215.”

 “Or worse, the standards of the mob in the Roman Colosseum, turning thumbs up or down on the combatants.   Though unlike the Senate Democrats, the Roman mob at least had an open mind.”

Where do we stand in the political arena?  All pro-life Republicans are sexual predators, and all pro-abortion Democrats are squeaky clean and never commit acts of sexual misconduct.   And as for accusations of domestic abuse and violence against Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) who is running for attorney general?  Bah, that’s just fake news.

Our backward slide into regressivism began with Judge Robert Bork’s hearings in 1987 setting a new low standard for slime.   Sen. Ted Kennedy, a man without morals who left Mary Jo Kopechne to drown at Chappaquiddick, successfully tarnished Judge Bork’s character.   This was followed by the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings in 1991, which Justice Thomas correctly called a “high tech lynching.”  

Then in 2012, pro-life candidate Herman Cain ran for president as a tea party favorite.   His campaign was going well when suddenly, a couple of women appeared accusing Cain of sexual misconduct, casting aspersions on his character.   His position in the polls dropped like a stone.   Not surprisingly, as soon as Herman Cain stepped down the charges all went away.

So how do you get to the truth?   In a “he said/she said” situation, you examine what evidence is available and study the pattern of behavior on both sides.   Sen. Feinstein’s behavior is indefensible.   She sat on Christine Blasey Ford’s letter for two months but did not hesitate to ask numerous questions about Roe v. Wade during Judge Kavanaugh’s hearings.  

You look at Christine Blasey Ford, who can’t get her facts straight about who was present at the time she claims she was assaulted.    She only seems to remember what year it happened.   As stated in The Political Insider:

“In notes she provided to a therapist in 2012 about the incident, numerous discrepancies were found. One was that Kavanaugh was never named in her original allegation. The other is that the therapist noted there were four boys present for the incident, and not just one other.”

David Catron writes in The American Spectator, asking strong questions as to why Ford also contacted the Washington Post if she wanted the shield of anonymity?  

“But, as the Washington Post admitted yesterday, Christine Blasey Ford contacted them at the same time she reached out to Feinstein. Did she collude with the Post and the Democrats to ambush Kavanaugh?   Did Ford make a deal with the Democrats and the Post to hide behind the shield of anonymity until it was too late for the Trump administration to replace Judge Kavanaugh with another nominee who could be confirmed before the midterms?”

Good questions.   Moreover, Christine Blasey Ford’s name appears (as “Christine Blasey Ph.D. Psychologist”) on a letter with five thousand other signatures in which she criticizes President Trump’s border security policy.

Late Saturday, the attorney for Ford’s lifelong friend Leland Ingham Keyser, and the last of four witnesses, issued the following statement:

"Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford," lawyer Howard J. Walsh said in a statement sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee.” 

Ford’s attorney Debra Katz is a Democratic activist who, as Townhall reports, “has a long history of dismissing sexual assault allegations against liberal politicians, donating to left-wing causes, and even publicly demonizing all Trump advisors as “miscreants” who are worse than deplorables.” 

 A Breitbart.com article exposes Debra Katz as a big time Democrat donor:

“At an event to raise money for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign in 2015, Katz is credited with raising $29,000.”

“She also has ties to George Soros, according to the Washington Times, through her involvement with the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), an organization that has been directly funded by Soros’s Open Society Foundation.”            

The timing of the letter’s release, right before the midterm elections and the vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh, is also suspect.  The more facts you link together, the more Christine Blasey Ford’s story appears to be a sham.

In contrast, how have the Republican Senators responded?   Sen. Grassley has bent over backwards to accommodate Ms. Ford.   He agreed to move the hearing up within reasonable limits.   At every turn, there is a “condition” that must be met by the Republicans.

Judge Kavanaugh was ready to move forward immediately and hold the hearing so that he can defend his reputation.   After delays by her lawyer, Christine Blasey Ford will be heard this week.   But Democrats have made it clear that Judge Kavanaugh does not deserve the presumption of innocence even though it is Ford whose credibility is in question.

The reason the Democrats brought these charges forward at the 11th hour is not because they care about Ford.  They have a more sinister objective in mind.

The allegations against Judge Kavanaugh mirror those against Justice Clarence Thomas.   There was no evidence of wrongdoing by Justice Thomas.   But his hearings left an indelible stain on the confirmation process and steamed the radical left, because all they care about is maintaining a woman’s right to commit abortions.   Abortion is the left’s litmus test.  

We don’t know how Judge Kavanaugh will rule on abortion.   Hopefully, if confirmed he will reverse Roe v. Wade, which has so far resulted in the deaths of 60 million unborn children.   Judge Kavanaugh can also turn out to be the next Anthony Kennedy.   For Democrats, it is enough if a candidate or judicial nominee is perceived to be pro-life.   That person is slated for destruction.

These smear tactics used by the Democratic Party and their billionaire funders have one goal, and that is to create a paradigm shift for all future potential judicial nominees.   The message is clear:  Support abortion or we will destroy your life.

Future nominees may not be willing to risk having their reputations damaged by the bullies in the Democratic Party.    There is a dangerous double standard in which only religious pro-lifers are being deprived of civil rights.   The objective is not to destroy Judge Kavanaugh.   Rather, the Democratic Party’s goal is to create chill and dread among qualified pro-life candidates so that going forward, those who want to protect unborn children will decline opportunities to run for office or accept judicial nominations.  That’s the game.   It’s time the GOP wake up to the scheme by reacting boldly and decisively to the opposition.  And if they don’t, then it’s time the American people do.