Softpanorama

Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Bigger doesn't imply better. Bigger often is a sign of obesity, of lost control, of overcomplexity, of cancerous cells

Two Party System as Polyarchy and anti-Democratic mechanisms of "first past the post" elections

Version 2.4 (Nov  21, 2016)

The USA is a single party state -- it is governed by the Neoliberal party with two factions "soft neoliberals" (Democratic Party) and "hard neoliberals" (Republican Party). Existence of  "Pepsi" and "Coca-Cola" parties in the USA is just a sophisticated variant of "divide and conquer" strategy and could have been used by the USSR leadership  instead of one party system. 

News American Polyarchy is not Democracy Recommended Books Recommended Links Do the US intelligence agencies attempt to influence the US Presidential elections ? Steele dossier Donald Trump -- a former (for the duration of elections) fighter against excesses of neoliberal globalization Russiagate -- a color revolution against Trump The Iron Law of Oligarchy
Understanding Hillary Clinton email scandal Crisis of legitimacy of neoliberal elite Neocons foreign policy is a disaster for the USA Amorality and criminality of neoliberal elite Superdelegates at Democratic National Convention Bernie Sanders The Deep State Anti Trump Hysteria Demexit
Neocons Obama: a yet another Neocon Resurgence of neo-fascism as reaction on neoliberalism Media-Military-Industrial Complex  New American Militarism Neoliberalism as Trotskyism for the rich Neocolonialism as Financial Imperialism Pope Francis on danger of neoliberalism Democratic Party Neoliberals Monday morning quarterbacking
Predator state Anti-Russian hysteria in connection emailgate and DNC leak DNC emails leak: switfboating Bernie Sanders and blaming Vladimir Putin National Security State  American Exceptionalism Libertarian Philosophy Nation under attack meme  Audacious Oligarchy and "Democracy for Winners" Pluralism as a myth
Neoliberal Brainwashing -- Journalism in the Service of the Powerful Few Corporatist Corruption Paleoconservatism Corporatism Ethno-linguistic Nationalism Hillary Clinton email scandal: Timeline and summary "Clinton Cash" Scandal: Hillary Clinton links to foreign donors and financial industry  Hillary role in Syria bloodbath Hillary Clinton and Obama created ISIS
Myth about intelligent voter Electoral College Non-Interventionism US Presidential Elections of 2012  Mayberry Machiavellians Politically Incorrect Humor Skeptic Quotations Humor Etc
"There is one political party in this country, and that is the party of money. It has two branches, the Republicans and the Democrats, the chief difference between which is that the Democrats are better at concealing their scorn for the average man."

-- Gore Vidal

“The Democrats are the foxes, and the Republicans are the wolves – and they both want to devour you.” So what does that make Libertarians? Avian flu viruses?”

-- Leonard Pinkney

The race is no contest when you own both horses. That is why no matter which political party is in power nothing really changes other than the packaging. The puppets who drink at the champagne fountains of the powerful do the bidding of their masters. The people are superfluous to the process.

-- Daniel Estulin

“The only people truly bound by campaign promises are the voters who believe them.”

Christopher Hitchens, The Quotable Hitchens from Alcohol to Zionism: The Very Best of Christopher Hitchens  

 

Due to the side an introduction was moved to the separate page Polyarchy, Authoritarianism and Deep State

Summary

I subscribe to Kantian idea of the dignity in human, the idea that everyone is entitled to survival as well as thriving beyond survival. But does everybody is entitled to equal participation in ruling of the state ?  Or  in election of state leaders? Which is what democracy means. Is the democracy possible if three letter agencies like CIA exist?  Probably not as "deep state" sooner or later (usually sooner)  makes surface state just an instrument for providing legitimacy of deep state rule.

Presedent Truman probably did not suspect that by sighing  the National Security Act of 1947  he signed a death sentence tothe form of democracy that the USA was having up to 1950th.

As part of the U.S. Cold War strategy, Truman signed the National Security Act of 1947 and reorganized military forces by merging the Department of War and the Department of the Navy into the National Military Establishment (later the Department of Defense) and creating the U.S. Air Force. The act also created the CIA and the National Security Council.[135] In 1952, Truman secretly consolidated and empowered the cryptologic elements of the United States by creating the National Security Agency (NSA).

Since JFK assassination we can talk about "inverted totalitarism" (The term introduced by late Professor Sheldon Wolin)  as the form on government which  become entrenched on on federal level (the related term if the "deep state"), while remnants of democracy are delegated to state and local levels.  Growth of power of intelligence agencies inevitably makes them political players. Nowhere it was more clear then in 2016 Presendential electio, when by derailing Sanders FBI essenatially ensure Trump win and then in cooperation of other againces (and first of all CIA Brennan) lauched a color regoluation againast Trump trying to deposer him vi Special Procecutor mechnism.

Does  the "the first after the post" rule along with enforcing two party system on the population also is instrumental with establishing slightly camouflaged one party state with two "Pepsi" vs. "Coca Cola"  parties which serve as a spoilers for those to the left or the right of the center, subverting and emasculating new social movements into their (currently neoliberal) stagnant and elite oriented framework. The effect is so profound that it created the impression that "first after the post" can't be used in any country pretending to be a democracy? 

There are also addition questions:

  1. Is existence  of military-industrial complex, and, especially, such part of MIC as huge and essentially uncontrolled intelligence agencies compatible with democracy? Ever since the inception of the Central Intelligence Agency America has been battling a force that exists with a written charter to undermine and undo ever single fundamental principle of representational democracy in America and elsewhere replacing it with an ugly cold-skinned changeling covertly overseen by its CIA creators and their sponsors.
  2. Does absence of limits of the term of senators subvert democracy ?  If so what should be the maximum term. Is "gerontocracy" in the US congress  represents positive, or highly negative. Is role of money in elections forces senators to serve effectively as representatives of corporations which reside in the states, not the states themselves  ? 
  3. Is official lobbing including lobbying by organization which are clearly supported by foright  state such as AIPAC ?
  4. Is "money as a free speech" principle compatible with democracy?  Or does it mean "one dollar-one vote" regime?

The fact that parties represent interests radically different from interests of their voters is not new.  As George Washinton put it:

 "However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion." President George Washington Farewell Address | Saturday, September 17, 1796

Later the same idea was later coined as the "iron law of oligarchy". So on federal level neither republic, not democracy exists. We level in empire with no participatory democracy (unless voting to the lesser  evil of two preselected by the elite candidate can be viewed as a democracy).  In latest Presidential election it was intelligence agencies who were kingmakers, derailing Sanders. But it still exists on local level below the level of state, although even there financial oligarchy managed to spoil the broth -- on municipal level it is bankers who control the politics as they are interested in loans for public projects.

In other word decomicatinc elements in the neoliberal political system are just facade for the  dictatorship of financial oligarchy. And pretty brutal one (The Saker - The Unz Review, Feb 23, 2018):

But first, full disclosure: I don’t have much faith in the so-called “democratic process”. Just look at the EU and tell me: do you really believe that the people in power represent the will and interests of the people who, supposedly, elected them? There are exceptions, of course, Switzerland is probably one of the comparatively most democratic countries out there, but mostly what we see is that western democracies are run by gangs of oligarchs and bureaucrats who have almost nothing in common with the people they are supposed to represent. As for the US, for decades now every time the people voted for “A” they always got “non-A” as a result. It is almost comical.

So here is my personal conclusion: democracies are political systems in which the real ruling elites hide behind an utterly fake appearance of people power. Putting it differently, the “democratic process” is the device by which the real and hidden rulers of the world (or “worldwide behind the scenes powers“, to use the expression of Ivan Il’in), legitimize their power and prevent their overthrow. This is the same technique followed by used car dealerships when they place tens, sometimes, hundreds of US flags on their lots before a car sale: it’s just a basic trick to induce the ‘correct’, patriotic, state of mind.

This is also the reason why there are elections every 4 years in the US: the more illegitimate and despotic any putatively “democratic” regime is, the more often it will organize elections to, so to speak, “increase the dose” of patriotically-induced stupor in its people and give them the illusion that the regime is legitimate, their opinion matters and all is well.

Finally, when needed, slogans such as “democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others” are used to put to sleep those who might have doubts. In terms of real people power “democracies” are probably the least truly democratic regimes imaginable simply because they are by far the most capable of hiding who really runs the country and where their real centers of power are. Do I really need to add that the worst kind of “democracy” is the capitalist one? You disagree? Then why do you think that Mayer Amschel Rothschild allegedly declared “Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws!“? Nowhere is the concentration of capital easier to achieve than in a society which makes it possible for the real ruling class to hide its power behind a screen of electoral farces.

As Sheldon  Wolin put it, all we have under neoliberalism is inverted totalitarism and a nationally security state with modem equivalent of STASI level of total surveillance  instead of democracy.  The neoliberal elite firmly guar the levers of power and  try to eliminate any challenger before it represent a real political threat to the neoliberal social system. Even minor  threats are mercilessly squashed. Look at what  happened to Trump.

Democracy for whom?

Another important question is "democracy for whom?". There is always a large part of society (say bottom 80% or even 90%)  living under the dictatorship (for lower 50% this is even worse -- neo-slavery as  "debt slaves" or "wage slaves"), struggling to meet ends and thus excluded from the democratic process. Moreover,  most of the US population spend their life under authoritarian rule: those who are parts of the military, who work in large corporation, or government. How they can behave in a democratic way if they are conditioned and adapted to the strict authoritarian rule at work ?  

Another large question: can  a typical American understand whom he/she is voting for in the environment of pretty sophisticated propaganda and systematic betrayal of election promises (in this repect Trump is not different  from Barak Obama) as a political norm ("change we can believe in" )? 

Add to this completely brainwashed population ready to vote against their economic interests and  for indefinite and costly wars for the expansion of the global neoliberal empire led by the USA. For example,  despicable warmonger, war criminal(with destruction of Libya and  Syria under  the belt), staunch neoliberal Hillary Clinton was so detached from reality that it hurts. Despite clear signs of the deep systemic crisis of neoliberalism in the USA and closely related process of de-legitimization of neoliberal elite (look what percentage of the Americans trust Congress)  all she wanted is to kick the neoliberal can down the road. And still almost half of the country voted for her.

Also there is no rules that the candidate can not betray all his election time promises. Any level of betrayal is OK, as parties in reality do not control the  behaviour of their leaders as long as they remain on neoliberal platform,  and they and stay in office. Recent example of Clinton, Bush II, Obama and Trump are clear demonstration of the gap between election platform and actual governance.

In case of Trump and Obama this was a complete betrayal. In a way Trump is Republican Obama -- a person with almost zero political experience  who due to the lack of personal political history during elections was able to pretend to be the politician, while he clearly is not -- he is a marionette of MIC (much like Barak was marionette of CIA; just look at "very close" and pretty unusual relations  between him and Brennan) as well as Brannan role in color revolution against  Trump

What is the level of interest  of average middle class American in real information about Washington  political machinery and neoliberal social system

Poor people are automatically excluded from politics. most of their energy needs to be  spend on task related to mere survival and desperate attempt to spread their meager paycheck to the next without falling into the laps of loan sharks.

Middle class can afford attempts to analyze the political situation and personal efforts to understand the political system in which they live. And because of that can  have informed political opinion. Theoretically. In reality there also many obstacles here.  One  fundamental obstacle is so called The iron law of oligarchy.  The second, related, is the existence of the deep state.

First of all let me ask a simple question: What is the level of interest  in governance of an average middle class American (lower class with McJobs most of the time is too preoccupied with survival to be able to particulate in political activity), if they are brainwashed 24 x 7 by neoliberal propaganda  which tries to distract them from discussing and understanding any serious issue facing the USA. 

Also  the middle class in not uniform. There is substantial caste of Americans deeply connected with the imperial state (servants of the empire so to speak) and they also represent  a political force with interests different form the average middle class American. There are roughly three contractors (28,626) for every U.S. army member (9,800) in Afghanistan. On April 5, Adm. Michael Rogers, commander of the U.S. Cyber Command, declared during a Senate hearing that contractors made up 25 percent of his workforce (Foreign Policy). They have their own opinion and interest in such issues as permanent war for permanent peace.  And without draft this issue does not touch too deeply ordinary middle class American, who do not need to fight and die for the empire.

The second  factor is constant brainwashing be neoliberal MSM. Unless a person make a conscious effort to exclude them and rely of alternative media he/she can't form any informed political opinion.  You will almost never even her the  term "neoliberalism" in neoliberal MSM like NYT or WaPo or CNN or MSNBC. This is a taboo.  But you will hear a lot about "evil Russians" or "evil Chinese" which is a perfect distraction, a smoke screen, designed to hide the real problems facing the US society after 40 years of dominance of neoliberalism as a social system.

My impression is that the Communist Party of the USSR made a grave mistake by not adopting "the first after the post" election system. In reality it would just legitimize the permanent Communist Party rule, as two factions of the CPSU competing for power (let's call them "Democratic Communists" and "Republican Communists") would exclude any real challenge for the one party rule that was practiced in the USSR even more efficiently that so called "one party" system. Which, while providing the same results,  looks more undemocratic then "first after the post" system, and thus  less safe for the rule of oligarchy as it generates resentment of the population.  

The "first after the post" system "by design" provides a very effective suppression of any third party, preventing any chance of maturing such a political force.  Emerging parties are cooped iether under Democratic or Republic umbrella and then emasculated.  This mechanism is no less effective the Soviet one party rule, but more subtle, requires less violence and suppression of dissidents, and more acceptable to the population. Which is all what is needed to continuation of the rule of the oligarchy.  The same is true for the parties themselves. Iron law of oligarchy was actually discovered by observing the evolution of the political party leadership.

Revolutionary situation after 2008 is connected with discreditation of neoliberal ideology

The situation when the current (neoliberal) ruling elite (or in less politically correct term oligarchy) experienced difficulties with the continuation of its rule and the existing methods of suppression and indoctrination of the lower part population stop working is called  "revolutionary situation".  In 2008 the protest was squashed by electing "Trojan horse" Obama, who proved to be the king of "bait and switch" maneuver. Some signs of this situation were observable in the USA in 2016 which led to the election of what  a person who like Obama pretended  essentially to be an independent candidate slightly (at least formally) opposing the most negative effects of neoliberalism on population (anti-globalization stance, accent of creation jobs within the USA, etc) -- Donald Trump.  Who later proved to be Republican version of Obama. Not without help of "deep state" which launched unprotected and well coordinated company of leaks and 24 x 7 negative news to discredit his personality and administration. Going as far as in a very elegant really Machiavellian way  using fake accusations ("Russiagate) appointing a special prosecutor using Obama/Hillary supporters in the Judicial department (effectively coup d'état as special procedure is big burden which effectively paralyses any administration and Clinton presidency had shown). And when it did not work, they tried to accuse him of being racist (using  1 Charlottesville events) or even insane person. Looks like for Trump, even if he has some intention to implement anti-neoliberal measures -- the resistance proved to be way too strong and such intension did not last even half a year.  Bombing Syria army air field with Tomahawks was an early signal of surrender.  Removing Bannon, and adding troops to Afghan war make this turn around and betrayal of Trump voters in best Obama style virtual certainty.

It was clear that there is a widespread feeling among the majority of the US population now that the current neoliberal system of governance, installed by victorious neoliberals after 1980, is wrong and unjust. And when the people do not wouldn't like to live under the current system, and the ruling oligarchy can't continue to rule using the same methods and its brainwashing/propaganda does not work anymore " a revolutionary situation, a rare moment when "the change we can believe in" becomes possible arise. Not the con that the king of "bait and switch" maneuver Obama sold to the US lemmings in 2008 and then in 2012, but the "real" change; which can be for the good or bad. Stability of the society also has its great value. As Chinese curse state it succinctly "May you live in interesting times".

 In such cases, the ruling elite typically decides to unleash a foreign war and use "rally around the flag" effect  to suppress dissent and to restore the control (that's the real meaning of Samuel Johnson quote "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel"). But in this particular case the USA already is in engaged in several wars (or occupations), so the nostalgia for good time what the USSR existed proved to be irresistible. And the pitch level of anti-Russian propaganda in 2016-2017 in neoliberal MSM suggest that a large part of the US elite decided to "waive a dead chicken" (actually Hillary made Russophobia a part of her election campaign, effectively unleashing a new neo-McCarthyism campaign in the USA).  As John Kenneth Galbraith noted “People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage.

People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage.” --  John Kenneth Galbraith

In 2016 we saw an attempt by oligarchy to rig the elections despite growing populism, at all cost. Throwing  Sanders under the bus represented exactly this maneuver.  The were not stopped even by the fact that they are promoting a deeply criminal and candidate with serious health problems ("We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality") The level of propaganda displayed in 2015-2016 election cycle by neoliberal MSM might well outdo the levels achieved by communist propagandists in during best days of the USSR.  And that happened because this time there is a slight chance that the election are not about choosing "soft neoliberal" vs. "hard neoliberal" but "soft neoliberal"  vs. (at least partially) "paleoconservative" (or "bustard neoliberal" ;-) who during election campaign rejects the idea of neoliberal globalization and by extension the necessity of fighting constant wars for the expansion of the US led global neoliberal empire.   But later quickly recognized that this heresy is not acceptable in the corridors of Washington deep state and can be harmful for his health ;-). The hissy fit in neoliberal media and the emergence of certain figures from the intelligence agencies on an "avanscena" as the leaders of "color revolution" against Trump (so called "Purple revolution") were to be expected but  caught Trump absolutely unprepared.

There is also an interesting question what kind of democracy the competition  of "Democratic Neoliberals" ("soft neoliberal/closet neocons) and "Republican Neoliberals: ("hard core" neoliberal/open neocons) in the USA demonstrates. And not only "democracy for whom" -- it is clear that this is the democracy for the top 1% or, at best, top 20% of population. a more interesting observation is that  as Trump election has shown, neoliberals like Bolsheviks in the past are ready to go to extreme methods including coup d'état to preserve their power, the democracy be damned.  

Also interesting were the methods of indoctrination of population which were borrowed by the USA neoliberals from the Soviet experience, which  were practiced from 1980th.  They use university course in economics in the same (or more correctly slightly more subtle; using mathematics as smoke screen for indoctrination into neoliberal ideology)  way Soviet universities use the course of philosophy. In the USSR the courses of philosophy and political economy were obligatory for all university students and people did read both Marx and Lenin; but there were problem with indoctrination as Soviet society did not correspond to Marx expectations  -- as Marx famously said he was not a Marxist.  The same to a certain extent is true for Lenin, who was essentially a bridge between Marxism and national socialism.  This problem was solved by carefully pre-selecting "classics" works to only a small "legitimate" emasculated subset that was in like with Bolshevism.  Neoclassical economy in the USA plays exactly the same role and is even worse. At least with some effort Soviet  student can get all the  works of Marx and Lenin. Here, in the USA, chances to read Keynes and other "deviant" economists for university students are virtually zero. They are completely distracted from fundamental issues by high doze of mathematics (misused and abused -- called mathiness). Which  is used as smoke  screen which hide the poverty of ideas of neo-classical economy.

But deteriorating economy and stagnation does make neoliberal propaganda less effective.  Like people of the USSR were listening to BBC and Voice of America at night, despite jamming, thinking people in the  USA are resort of alternative sources of news or even, God forbid, visit "naked capitalism", RT, or other "disapproved" by  neoliberal propagandists sites. Even thoroughly brainwashed the USA population, who like member of high demand cult now internalized postulates of neoliberalism like dogmas of some civil religion (displacing Christianity, so much about fake myth the USA is Christian nation; it is not) , started to have doubts.  Alternative sources of information in 2016-2017 started to play such and outside role that the company about "fake news" was launched to suppress them. They did not stop people from reading, say, Guardian, RT, unz.com, American conservative, Asia Times, to name a few.

But still the general level  political education of US votes leave much to be desired and is probably as low if not lower that it was in the USSR (due to obsessive emphasis on the works of Marx and Lenin soviet voters with university education usually have strong doubt about soviet system ). Let's honestly ask yourselves  what percentage of US voters can list key proposition of paleoconservative political platform vs. neoliberal platform. Or define what the term "neoliberal" means. It is difficult also because the terms "neoliberalism" and "Paleoconservatism" are expunged from MSM. Like Trotsky writings were in the USSR. Assuming that this might well be the key difference between two frontrunner in the last Presidential race, this is really unfortunate.

The myth about intelligent voters

That means the hypothesis that majority of voters under "popular democracy" regime (where all citizens have a right to vote) understand what they are voting for ("informed voters" hypothesis)  is open to review (see Myth about intelligent voter).  Otherwise identity politics would not be so successful in the USA, despite being a primitive variation of classic "divide and conquer" strategy. In any democracy, how can voters make an important decision unless they are well informed?  But what percentage of US votes can be considered well informed?  And taking into account popularity of Fox News what percentage is brainwashed or do not what to think about the issues involved and operate based on emotions and prejudices? And when serious discussion of issues that nation faces are deliberately and systematically replaced by "infotainment" voters became just pawns in the game of factions of elite, which sometimes leaks information to sway public opinion, but do it very selectively. All MSM represent the views of large corporations which own them. No exception are allowed. Important information is suppressed or swiped under the carpet to fifth page in NYT to prevent any meaningful discussion. For example, ask several of your friends if they ever heard about Damascus, AR.

In any case one amazing fact happened during this election: republican voters abandoned Republican brass and flocked to Trump, while Democratic voters abandoned Democratic neoliberals and flocked to Sanders (although DNC managed to fix primaries, and then engaged in anti-Russian hysteria to hide this criminal fact).  See Trump vs. The REAL Nuts for an informed discussion of this phenomenon.

Mr. Trump’s great historical role was to reveal to the Republican Party what half of its own base really thinks about the big issues. The party’s leaders didn’t know! They were shocked, so much that they indulged in sheer denial and made believe it wasn’t happening.

The party’s leaders accept more or less open borders and like big trade deals. Half the base does not! It is longtime GOP doctrine to cut entitlement spending. Half the base doesn’t want to, not right now! Republican leaders have what might be called assertive foreign-policy impulses. When Mr. Trump insulted George W. Bush and nation-building and said he’d opposed the Iraq invasion, the crowds, taking him at his word, cheered. He was, as they say, declaring that he didn’t want to invade the world and invite the world. Not only did half the base cheer him, at least half the remaining half joined in when the primaries ended.

But at the same time the struggle for political equality which is often associative with the word "democracy" is a vital human struggle, even if democracy itself is an unachievable and unrealistic ideal (see The Iron Law of Oligarchy).  In some sense too much talk about Democracy is very suspect and just characterize the speaker as a hypocrite with probably evil intentions, who probably is trying to mask some pretty insidious plans with "democracy promotion" smokescreen.

The same is true for countries.  Especially for those which use  "export of democracy" efforts to mask their imperial ambitions. As in the efforts to expand and sustain the global neoliberal empire led by the USA.  See color revolutions for details.  Actually that makes the USA very similar the USSR with its leaders dream about global Communist empire led from Moscow. Both in the USA and the USSR there was too much talk about democracy, while actually practice was decidedly undemocratic. It was oligarchic rule in both cases. In the USA the situation is further complicated by amazing level of brainwashing of population via MSM, which definitely exceed the level achieved by nomenklatura in Soviet Union outside of "Stalinism" period.  Can you imagine the situation in the USSR when members of the ruling communist party were prohibited to show their affiliation with the Communist Party and the words "communist" and "communism" was "discouraged" and their usage is suppressed  in MSM including leading newspapers Pravda and Izvestia (roughly analogical to WaPo and NYT).   That's the situation we have in the USA now.

The term "neoliberalism" is effectively prohibited from usage in major US MSM and all political discussion is forcefully turned into "infotainment" -- the clash of  personalizes. In other words discussion of key issues facing the country (politics in real sense of this word)  was replaced under neoliberal regime by "infotainment" with slick and often psychically beautiful "presstitutes" instead of political analysts.   But like was the case in the USSR neoliberal brainwashing gradually lost its effectiveness because it contradicts the reality. and neoliberalism failed to deliver promises of "rising tide lifting all board", or trickle down economy which justified tremendous enrichment of top 0.1%.

Neoliberalism divides the society in  two classes like in old, good Marxism

Politically neoliberalism. like Marxism in the past, operates with the same two classes: "entrepreneurs" (modern name for capitalists and financial oligarchy) and debt slaves (proletarians under Marxism) who work for them. Under neoliberalism only former considered first class citizens ("one dollar -- one vote"). Debt slaves are second class of citizens and are prevented from political self-organization, which by-and-large deprives them of any form of political participation. In best Roman tradition it is substituted with the participation in political shows ("Bread and circuses") See Empire of Illusion The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle by Chris Hedges.  In this sense the role of the election is not election of the candidate of people want but legitimizing the candidate the oligarchy pre-selected. . They  helps to provide legitimacy for the ruling elite. 

The two party system invented by the elite of Great Britain proved to be perfect for neoliberal regimes, which practice what Sheldon Wolin called inverted totalitarism. The latter is the regime in which all political power belongs to the financial oligarchy which rules via the deep state mechanisms, and where traditional political institutions including POTUS are downgraded to instruments of providing political legitimacy of the ruling elite. Population is discouraged from political activity. "Go shopping" as famously recommended Bush II to US citizens after 9/11.

But at the same time the struggle for political equality which is often associative with the word "democracy" is a vital human struggle, even if democracy itself is an unachievable and unrealistic ideal (see The Iron Law of Oligarchy).  In some sense too much talk about Democracy is very suspect and just characterize the speaker as a hypocrite with probably evil intentions, who probably is trying to mask some pretty insidious plans with "democracy promotion" smokescreen. The same is true for countries.  Especially for those which use  "export of democracy" efforts to mask their pretty much imperial ambitions. The efforts to expand and sustain the global neoliberal empire led by the USA.  See color revolutions for details.  Actually that makes the USA very similar the USSR with its leaders dream about global Communist empire led from Moscow. Both in the USA and the USSR there was too much talk about democracy, while actually practice was decidedly undemocratic. It was oligarchic rule in both cases. In the USA the situation is further complicated by amazing level of brainwashing of population via MSM, which definitely exceed the level achieve by nomenklatura in Soviet Union. Can you imagine the situation in the USSR when members of the ruling communist party were prohibited to show their affiliation and the words "communist" and "communism" was "discouraged" and their usage is suppressed  in MSM including leading newspapers Pravda and Izvestia (roughly analogical to WaPo and NYT).   That's the situation we have in the USA now.

Corporation as the role model for government under neoliberalism excludes the possibility of democracy

Everything should be organized like corporation under neoliberalism, including government, medicine, education, even military. And everybody is not a citizen but a shareholder  (or more correctly stakeholder), so any conflict should be resolved via discussion of the main stakeholders. Naturally lower 99% are not among them.

The great propaganda mantra of neoliberal governance is "wealth maximization". Which proved to be very seductive for society as a whole in reality is applied very selectively and never to the bottom 60% or 80%, or eve 99% of population.  In essence, it means a form of welfare economics for financial oligarchy while at the same time a useful smokescreen for keeping debt-slaves obedient by removing any remnants of job security mechanisms that were instituted during the New Deal. As the great American jurist and Supreme Court associate justice Louis Brandeis once said: “We can have huge wealth in the hands of a relatively few people or we can have a democracy. But we can’t have both.”

As under neoliberalism extreme wealth is the goal of the social system, there can be no democracy under neoliberalism. And this mean that pretentions of the USA elite that the USA is a bastion of democracy is plain vanilla British ruling elite style hypocrisy.  Brutal suppression of any move to challenge dominance of financial oligarchy (even such feeble as Occupy movement)  shows that all too well.

Like in case of communist regimes before, under neoliberalism we now face a regime completely opposite to democracy: we have complete, forceful atomization of public, acute suppression of any countervailing political forces (similar to the suppression of dissidents in the USSR in its effectiveness and brutality, but done in "velvet gloves" without resort to physical violence). That includes decimation of  labor unions and other forms of self-organization for the lower 80%, or even 99% of population.  Neoliberalism tries to present any individual, any citizen, as a market actor within some abstract market (everything is the market under neoliberalism). Instead of fight for political  and economic equality neoliberalism provides a slick slogan of "wealth maximization" which is in essence a "bait and switch" for redistribution of wealth up to the top 1% (which is the stated goal of neoliberalism aka "casino capitalism"). It was working in tandem with "shareholder value" mantra which is a disguise of looting of the corporations to enrich its top brass via outsize bonuses (IBM is a nice example where such an approach leads) and sending thousands of white-collar workers to the street. Previously it was mainly blue-collar workers that were affected. Times changed. 

The difference between democrats and republicans as (at least partially) the difference in the level of authoritarianism of two factions of the same "Grand neoliberal Party of the USA"

Both Democratic Party and Republican arty in the USA are neoliberal parties. So effectively we have one-party system skillfully masked as duopoly ;-). Communists could use the same trick, by having the part Socialist internationalists worker-peasants party of the USSR and Democratic internationalists peasant-worker party of the USSR, with leaders wet kissing each other behind the curtain as is the case in the USA. In the USA we have Cola/Pepsi duopoly that is sold as the shining example of democracy, although just the rule "the first after the post" prevents democracy from functioning as it eliminates minorities from governance. 

Political atmosphere at the USA since Reagan, when Republican drifted right and Democrats were bought by Wall Street really reminds me the USSR.  But still those parties reflect two different strata of the US population, which according to Marc J. Hetherington and Jonathan D. Weiler book Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics in the level of authoritarianism (for example, as measured by F-scale.). Many Republican politicians can be classified as Double High Authoritarians.

If we assume that this is true, the large part of "verge issues" that so skillfully played in each election, and using which allow the elite to avoid addressing any fundamental issues facing the nation, such as race, gay marriage, illegal immigration, and the use of force to resolve security problems -- reflect differences in individuals' levels of authoritarianism. This makes authoritarianism an especially compelling explanation of contemporary American politics.

Events and strategic political decisions have conspired to make all these considerations more salient. While the authors acknowledge that authoritarianism is not the only factor determining how people vote, it does offer a an important perspective : a large part (at least white Americans) flock to the particular party based on proximity to their own level authoritarianism and corresponding worldview of the party.  In other words  the percentage of authoritarian/non-authoritarian personality in the population allow to predict, at least in part,  voting behavior of the USA "white block" electorate.

Can the republic survive under Trump ?

Mu impression is that it too late to worry about the survival of the republic under Trump. Republic was lost long ago. According to Sheldon Wolin we live in a neoliberal empire at least since Bush II administration and even since  Reagan.  Essentially the collapse of the USSR was the death  sentence to the republic and at this point transformation of it into empire was quick and irreversible as there were no longer countervailing forces to slow down  this process.  Which is not a completely bad thing for citizens in the USA, unless it collapses like all empires. Which might happen when gas reaches $11 per gallon (in way this is petro-empire) or some other calamity. Sheldon Wolin (which book I strongly recommend to re-read) called this imperial social system that  emerged "inverted totalitarism". So Trump was elected way too late to participate in the destruction of the American republic. At best Trump put the final nail in the coffin of the American republic. Kind of parody on Julius Caesar:
During his early career, Caesar had seen how chaotic and dysfunctional the Roman Republic had become. The republican machinery had broken down under the weight of imperialism, the central government had become powerless, the provinces had been transformed into independent principalities under the absolute control of their governors, and the army had replaced the constitution as the means of accomplishing political goals. With a weak central government, political corruption had spiraled out of control, and the status quo had been maintained by a corrupt aristocracy, which saw no need to change a system that had made its members rich...
But the deep state was in ascendance since Truman (who can be viewed as the father of national security state). So dismounting of the republic was a long continues process with temporary reversal after Church commission, when the power of intelligence agencies were temporary curtailed and they were put under more close control of Senate and House. But later a new "neoliberal" deep state  emerged under Reagan and those gains were reversed.  I personally view Trump as a Bush III.  But resilience of US political system might prevent  the worst outcome -- a war with Russia or China. 

I would prefer if Sanders were elected. But FBI pushed him under the bus by exonerating Hillary. I think the USA now badly need a "New New Deal", biot some crazr "chrstria capitalism that Bannon professed (see Bannonism).  But the question is: "What social forces will support it ?" I see no strong social forces able to take on entrenched "corporatism" -- a merger of  Wall Street and MIC interests and corresponding economic power.  Add to this Silicon valley and unprecedented capability of surveillance.  In the absence of alternatives, the crisis of neoliberalism became  a chronic one.

Russiagate as a sign of the crisis of neoliberal empire

In this sense the "Russiagate" campaign might be interpreted as an attempt of the neoliberal elite to rally people around the flag and hide Hillary political fiasco due to the crisis of neoliberalism. The later led to the surprise victory of Trump, because the voters rejected establishment candidate.  Also as for the level of warmongering Hillary probably is close or surpass Trump.   So in a way  the US voters were put by FBI between Scylla and Charybdis.   Of course,  Russians are not saints and they are an obstacle on the path to global US led neoliberal empire, but still I think that the whole thing is overdone.

A  good (IMHO) overview of our current political can be found in London review of books. See What We Don t Talk about When We Talk about Russian Hacking by Jackson Lears

American politics have rarely presented a more disheartening spectacle. The repellent and dangerous antics of Donald Trump are troubling enough, but so is the Democratic Party leadership’s failure to take in the significance of the 2016 election campaign. Bernie Sanders’s challenge to Hillary Clinton, combined with Trump’s triumph, revealed the breadth of popular anger at politics as usual – the blend of neoliberal domestic policy and interventionist foreign policy that constitutes consensus in Washington. Neoliberals celebrate market utility as the sole criterion of worth; interventionists exalt military adventure abroad as a means of fighting evil in order to secure global progress. Both agendas have proved calamitous for most Americans. Many registered their disaffection in 2016. Sanders is a social democrat and Trump a demagogic mountebank, but their campaigns underscored a widespread repudiation of the Washington consensus.
Of course,  for correct framework we need to refer to classic Sheldon Wolin book. As he pointed out merge of corporate power with the ascendance of the "deep state" and technological progress proved to be an unstoppable factor that doomed the New Deal. Also defeated financial sector borrowed Bolsheviks methods and created "professional counter-revolutionaries" via think tanks, subservient press, etc. Milton Friedman Chicago school and Monte Perelin society were probably the most famous promoters of neoliberalism.  See also The Quiet Coup - Simon Johnson - The Atlantic
Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

Poliarchy Bulletin, 2015 Poliarchy Bulletin, 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010

[Oct 16, 2018] Social Justice Warriors Aren't Funny

Notable quotes:
"... The Green Room with Paul Provenza ..."
Oct 16, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

There's an older episode of The Green Room with Paul Provenza when the late Patrice O'Neal, arguably one of the best stand-up comics in recent history, gets serious for a moment, saying: "I love being able to say anything I want. I had to learn how to stop caring about people not laughing. Because the idea of comedy, really, is not everybody should be laughing. It should be about 50 people laughing and 50 people horrified. There should be people who get it and people who don't get it."

O'Neal gets right to the chaotic, trickster heart of comedy with that statement. Comedy at its best balances humor against shock–not necessarily vulgarity, mind you, but a sort of unsettling surprise. It's a topsy-turvy glimpse at an uncanny, upside-down world, which, if the joke lands, provides a bulwark against torpor and complacency. Great comedy inhabits the absurdity of the world. It makes itself into a vantage point from which everything seems delightfully ridiculous, including (often especially) the comedians themselves. We wouldn't need comedy in a world that wasn't absurd. Perhaps that's why Dante only included humor in his Inferno . There is no absurdity in paradise.

Unfortunately, Hannah Gadsby's Nanette , a comedy special recently released on Netflix, only embraces the non-laughter half of O'Neal's dictum. It's the very epitome of self-serious, brittle, didactic, SJW "comedy." It's not funny. And worse, it's not meant to be.

Gadsby, a queer Australian comedian, uses her "stand-up special" as a way to destroy the very medium she pretends to be professionally engaged in. Her basic argument is that, since comedy is by its very nature self-deprecating (true), people who define themselves as members of an oppressed minority shouldn't engage in comedy because they're only participating in the violence already being done to them by society at large.


Arthur Sido October 16, 2018 at 8:21 am

We have allowed "social justice" types, a tiny fringe minority of unhappy and often unstable people, rewrite the rules of our entire civilization and culture.
David J. White , says: October 16, 2018 at 10:19 am
All the way back to Aristophanes comedy has often included a political component or an effort to "educate" audiences or at least make them think about things. But the actual comedy part is essential. Otherwise it's just a lecture.
JimDandy , says: October 16, 2018 at 2:23 pm
We might just be witnessing the death of Art. As the SJW furies brutally and effectively enforce The Narrative in literary fiction, film, TV, comedy, etc. they destroy the potential for creative genius in these mediums and kill off most of the audience. It was already hard enough for those arts to compete with new media forms. The SJW's hostile takeover of Art just makes the triumph of Real Life As Entertainment all the more complete.

Whereas twenty years ago I might be spending my free time reading a novel and attempting to write a short story, today I'm reading articles on The American Conservative and posting this comment.

[Oct 16, 2018] The "Grievance Studies" hoax exposes postmodernist charlatans by Eric London

Notable quotes:
"... Gender, Place and Culture ..."
"... the implications of the study are deadly serious. Pluckrose, Lindsay and Boghossian have confirmed the right-wing political essence of identity politics and postmodernist thought, based on anti-Marxism, irrationalism and the rejection of the Enlightenment and objective truth. ..."
"... 'It's a very scary time for young men,' Trump told reporters on the very day that Pluckrose, Lindsay, and Boghossian went public with their hoax. Both express a fear of false attacks on men, whether levied by regretful sluts, lefty liberals, radical academics, or whoever else." ..."
"... World Socialist Web Site ..."
Oct 13, 2018 | www.wsws.org

On October 2, Helen Pluckrose, James A. Lindsay and Peter Boghossian published an article titled "Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship," incorporating the results of a year-long effort to publish hoax articles, deliberately comprised of bunk facts and irrational and reactionary conclusions, in academic journals associated with gender, racial and identity studies.

The results expose the intellectual bankruptcy of identity politics and postmodernist philosophy. Their proponents, who dominate university humanities departments worldwide, are charlatans who have published or given favorable "revise and resubmit" comments to the most absurd and vulgar pseudo-scientific arguments.

These include: a purported 1,000-hour study of dog "humping" patterns at dog parks that concludes by calling for human males to be "trained" like dogs to prevent rape culture; a long-form poem produced through a teenage angst poetry generator about women holding spiritual-sexual "moon meetings" in a secret "womb room" and praying to a "vulva shrine;" a proposal to develop feminist robots, trained to think irrationally, to control humanity and subjugate white men; and additional articles relating to male masturbation. Another proposal, which was praised by reviewers in a paper that was ultimately rejected, encouraged teachers to place white students in chains to be shamed for their "white privilege."

There is an element of humor in the fact that such drivel could win accolades from academics and journals. The "dog park" article was even selected as one of the most influential contributions in the history of the Gender, Place and Culture journal!

But the implications of the study are deadly serious. Pluckrose, Lindsay and Boghossian have confirmed the right-wing political essence of identity politics and postmodernist thought, based on anti-Marxism, irrationalism and the rejection of the Enlightenment and objective truth.

Most chillingly, the authors also submitted a re-write of a chapter from Hitler's Mein Kampf , with language altered to reference female identity and feminism. The paper, titled "Our struggle is my struggle: solidarity feminism as an intersectional reply to neoliberal and choice feminism," was accepted for publication and greeted with favorable reviews.

"I am extremely sympathetic to this article's argument and its political positioning," one academic wrote. Another said, "I am very sympathetic to the core arguments of the paper."

In the wake of their public disclosure, Pluckrose, Lindsay and Boghossian have come under attack by the proponents of postmodernism and identity politics, who claim the hoax is a right-wing attack on "social justice" disciplines.

Typical is the argument of Daniel Engber, who wrote in Slate : "How timely, too, that this secret project should be published in the midst of the Kavanaugh imbroglio -- a time when the anger and the horror of male anxiety is so resplendent in the news. 'It's a very scary time for young men,' Trump told reporters on the very day that Pluckrose, Lindsay, and Boghossian went public with their hoax. Both express a fear of false attacks on men, whether levied by regretful sluts, lefty liberals, radical academics, or whoever else."

In reality, the hoax has exposed the fact that it is the proponents of identity politics who are advancing views parallel to the far right. While they are enraged with those who voice concern about the elimination of due process and the presumption of innocence for the targets of the #MeToo campaign, they are unbothered by the fact that the writings of Adolf Hitler are published and praised in feminist academic circles.

Pluckrose, Lindsay and Boghossian are self-described liberals who are concerned that the present identity hysteria is "pushing the culture war to ever more toxic and existential polarization," by fanning the flames of the far right. As a result, identitarians are "affecting activism on behalf of women and racial and sexual minorities in a way which is counterproductive to equality aims by feeding into right-wing reactionary opposition to those equality objectives."

In contrast, the authors' aim is to "give people -- especially those who believe in liberalism, progress, modernity, open inquiry, and social justice -- a clear reason to look at the identitarian madness coming out of the academic and activist left and say, 'No, I will not go along with that. You do not speak for me.'"

The hoax's authors are correct to link the identity politics proponents' hostility to equality with their opposition to rationalism, scientific analysis and the progressive gains of the Enlightenment. But the roots of this right-wing, irrationalist, anti-egalitarian degeneration are to be found in the economic structure of capitalist society.

The academic architects of postmodernism and identity politics occupy well-paid positions in academia, often with salaries upwards of $100,000–$300,000 or more. As a social layer, the theoreticians of what the World Socialist Web Site refers to as the "pseudo-left" are in the wealthiest 10 percent of American society. Their political and philosophical views express their social interests.

The obsession with "privilege," sex, and racial and gender identity is a mechanism by which members and groups within this layer fight among themselves for income, social status and positions of privilege, using degrees of "oppression" to one up each other in the fight for tenure track jobs, positions on corporate or non-profit boards, or election to public office. A chief purpose of the #MeToo campaign, for example, is to replace male executives and male politicians with women, while ignoring the social needs of the vast majority of working class women.

The weaponization of identity politics is directed down the social ladder as well. By advancing the lie that white workers benefit from "white privilege," for example, the proponents of identity politics argue: the spoils of Wall Street should not go to meeting the social needs of the working class, including white workers, who face record rates of alcoholism, poverty, opioid addiction, police violence and other indices of social misery. Instead, the world's resources should go to me . It is this visceral class hatred that serves as the basis for absurd and reactionary arguments like those advanced in the hoax papers.

Nor have the politics of racial identity improved the material conditions for the vast majority of minority workers. Inequality within racial minorities has increased alongside the introduction of affirmative action programs and the increasing dominance of identity politics in academia and bourgeois politics. In 2016, the top 1 percent of Latinos owned 45 percent of all Latino wealth, while the top 1 percent of African-Americans owned 40.5 percent and the richest whites owned 36.5 percent of white wealth.

The influence of postmodernism in academia exploded in the aftermath of the mass protests of the 1960s and early 1970s. Based explicitly on a rejection of the revolutionary role of the working class and opposition to the "meta narrative" of socialist revolution, it is not accidental that identity politics and postmodernism have now been adopted as official ideological mechanisms of bourgeois rule.

In recent decades, a massive identity politics industry has been erected, with billions of dollars available from corporate funds and trusts for journals, non-profits, publications, fellowships and political groups advancing racial or gender politics. Identity politics has come to form a central component of the Democratic Party's electoral strategy. Imperialist wars are justified on the grounds that the US is intervening to protect women, LGBT people and other minorities.

The growing movement of the working class, broadening strikes across industries and widespread interest in socialism on college campuses pose an existential threat to the domination of postmodernism. Pluckrose, Lindsay and Boghossian have struck a well-timed blow against this reactionary obstacle to the development of scientific socialist consciousness.

Eric London

[Oct 16, 2018] Donald Trump's Foreign Policy Goes Neocon

Highly recommended!
The question is why the Deep State still is trying to depose him, if he essentially obeys the dictate of the Deep State ?
Notable quotes:
"... The Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Actually that's Trump. He demands total and utter loyalty from his people and gives none in return. ..."
"... The significance here is that Bolton and Pompeo represent just about everything Trump ran against during his 2016 presidential campaign. He ran against the country's foreign policy establishment and its rush to war in Iraq; its support of NATO's provocative eastward expansion; its abiding hostility toward Russia; its destabilization of the Middle East through ill-conceived and ill-fated activities in Iraq, Libya, and Syria; its ongoing and seemingly endless war in Afghanistan; and its enthusiasm for regime change and nation-building around the world. Bolton and Pompeo represent precisely those kinds of policies and actions as well as the general foreign policy outlook that spawned them. ..."
"... Trump gave every indication during the campaign that he would reverse those policies and avoid those kinds of actions. He even went so far, in his inimitable way, of accusing the Bush administration of lying to the American people in taking the country to war in Iraq, as opposed to making a reckless and stupid, though honest, mistake about that country's weapons of mass destruction. He said it would be great to get along with Russia and criticized NATO's aggressive eastward push. He said our aim in Syria should be to combat Islamist extremism, not depose Bashar al-Assad as its leader. In promulgating his America First approach, he specifically eschewed any interest in nation-building abroad. ..."
"... Still, generally speaking, anyone listening to Trump carefully before the election would have been justified in concluding that, if he meant what he said, he would reverse America's post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush and Barack Obama. ..."
"... Thus any neutral observer, at the time of Mattis's selection as defense secretary, might have concluded that he was more bent on an adventurous American foreign policy than his boss. But it turned out to be just the opposite. There are two reasons for this. First, Mattis is cautious by nature, and he seems to have taken Trump at his word that he didn't want any more unnecessary American wars of choice. Hence he opposed the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal prior to Trump's decision to pull America out of it. That action greatly increased the chances that America and Iran could find themselves on a path to war. Mattis also redeployed some military resources from the Middle East to other areas designed to check actions by Russia and China, which he considered greater threats to U.S. security. ..."
"... That seems to have presented a marvelous opportunity to Bolton and Pompeo, whose philosophy and convictions are stark and visible to all. Bolton has made clear his desire for America to bring about regime change in Iran and North Korea. He supported the Iraq war and has never wavered in the face of subsequent events. He has advocated a preemptive strike against North Korea. Pompeo harbors similar views. He favored withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and has waxed bellicose on both Iran and Russia. ..."
"... The New York Times ..."
"... Bolton was put in power to ensure unswerving loyalty to the dictates of Bibi Netanyahu and local neocons. Have we forgotten Iraq and endless wars since? ..."
"... this is all about Israel's hold on the Oval Office. Bolton and Pompeo are far, far closer to Israel than Mattis and that's a problem for him. Sorry Robert Merry, but you clearly didn't catch Trump's first foreign "policy" speech in 2016. He suddenly revealed his priorities for all to see. There are four words that Trump apologists simply cannot bring themselves to utter: "Trump is a neo-con". Suckers. ..."
"... Military adventurism is another disappointment. We can't afford more neocon disasters. We don't need to be the world's police force. We should be shrinking the military budgets. It is dismaying to watch the neocons gaining power after the catastrophic failures of recent decades. ..."
"... "Still, generally speaking, anyone listening to Trump carefully before the election would have been justified in concluding that, if he meant what he said, he would reverse America's post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush and Barack Obama." ..."
"... Come on, anyone listening to Trump before the election realized that he said whatever drew the most applause from the crowd. He never, in his entire life, has meant what he said. ..."
"... He will continue down the neo-con line until Fox News and NY Times run front-page articles about how Bolton and Pompeo are manipulating him and actually running US foreign policy, at which time he will dump them and make up something else. ..."
"... Arrest the warmongering "leaders" who create havoc around the world ..."
"... I guess DJT offered you a "Bad Deal" then? Past performance does predict future results. ..."
Oct 16, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

In covering President Donald Trump's recent pregnant comments about Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, The Wall Street Journal tucked away in its story an observation that hints at the president's foreign policy direction. In an interview for CBS's 60 Minutes , the president described Mattis as "sort of a Democrat if you want to know the truth" and suggested he wouldn't be surprised if his military chief left his post soon. After calling him "a good guy" and saying the two "get along very well," Trump added, "He may leave. I mean, at some point, everybody leaves . That's Washington."

Actually that's Trump. He demands total and utter loyalty from his people and gives none in return. In just his first 14 months as president, he hired three national security advisors, reflecting the unstable relationships he often has with his top aides. Following the 60 Minutes interview, Washington was of course abuzz with speculation about what all this might mean for Mattis's fate and who might be the successor if Mattis were to quit or be fired. It was just the kind of fodder Washington loves -- human drama revealing Trump's legendary inconstancy amid prospective new turmoil in the capital.

But far more significant than Mattis's future or Trump's love of chaos was a sentence embedded in the Journal 's report. After noting that recent polls indicated that Mattis enjoys strong support from the American people, reporter Nancy A. Youssef writes: "But his influence within the administration has waned in recent months, particularly following the arrival of John Bolton as national security adviser and former CIA Director Mike Pompeo as secretary of state."

The significance here is that Bolton and Pompeo represent just about everything Trump ran against during his 2016 presidential campaign. He ran against the country's foreign policy establishment and its rush to war in Iraq; its support of NATO's provocative eastward expansion; its abiding hostility toward Russia; its destabilization of the Middle East through ill-conceived and ill-fated activities in Iraq, Libya, and Syria; its ongoing and seemingly endless war in Afghanistan; and its enthusiasm for regime change and nation-building around the world. Bolton and Pompeo represent precisely those kinds of policies and actions as well as the general foreign policy outlook that spawned them.

Trump gave every indication during the campaign that he would reverse those policies and avoid those kinds of actions. He even went so far, in his inimitable way, of accusing the Bush administration of lying to the American people in taking the country to war in Iraq, as opposed to making a reckless and stupid, though honest, mistake about that country's weapons of mass destruction. He said it would be great to get along with Russia and criticized NATO's aggressive eastward push. He said our aim in Syria should be to combat Islamist extremism, not depose Bashar al-Assad as its leader. In promulgating his America First approach, he specifically eschewed any interest in nation-building abroad.

The one area where he seemed to embrace America's post-Cold War aggressiveness was in his attitude toward Iran. But even there he seemed less bellicose than many of his Republican opponents in the 2016 primaries, who said they would rip up the Iran nuclear deal on their first day in office. Trump, by contrast, said it was a bad deal but one he would seek to improve.

Still, generally speaking, anyone listening to Trump carefully before the election would have been justified in concluding that, if he meant what he said, he would reverse America's post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

Now we know he didn't mean what he said, and the latest tiff over the fate of Mattis crystallizes that reality. It's not that Mattis represents the kind of anti-establishment outlook that Trump projected during the campaign; in fact, he is a thoroughgoing product of that establishment. He said Iran was the main threat to stability in the Middle East. He supported sending arms to the Syrian rebels. He decried Russia's intent to "break NATO apart."

Thus any neutral observer, at the time of Mattis's selection as defense secretary, might have concluded that he was more bent on an adventurous American foreign policy than his boss. But it turned out to be just the opposite. There are two reasons for this. First, Mattis is cautious by nature, and he seems to have taken Trump at his word that he didn't want any more unnecessary American wars of choice. Hence he opposed the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal prior to Trump's decision to pull America out of it. That action greatly increased the chances that America and Iran could find themselves on a path to war. Mattis also redeployed some military resources from the Middle East to other areas designed to check actions by Russia and China, which he considered greater threats to U.S. security.

And second, it turns out that Trump has no true convictions when it comes to world affairs. He brilliantly discerned the frustrations of many Americans over the foreign policy of the previous 16 years and hit just the right notes to leverage those frustrations during the campaign. But his actual foreign policy has manifested a lack of consistent and strong philosophy. Consider his approach to NATO. During the campaign he criticized the alliance's eastward push and aggressive approach to Russia; then as president he accepted NATO's inclusion of tiny Montenegro, a slap at the Russians; then later he suggested Montenegro's NATO status could force the U.S. into a major conflagration if that small nation, which he described as aggressive, got itself into a conflict with a non-NATO neighbor. Such inconsistencies are not the actions of a man with strong convictions. They are hallmarks of someone who is winging it on the basis of little knowledge.

That seems to have presented a marvelous opportunity to Bolton and Pompeo, whose philosophy and convictions are stark and visible to all. Bolton has made clear his desire for America to bring about regime change in Iran and North Korea. He supported the Iraq war and has never wavered in the face of subsequent events. He has advocated a preemptive strike against North Korea. Pompeo harbors similar views. He favored withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and has waxed bellicose on both Iran and Russia.

Thus a conflict was probably inevitable between Mattis and these more recent administration arrivals. The New York Times speculates that Bolton likely undermined Mattis's standing in Trump's eyes. Writes the paper: "Mr. Bolton, an ideological conservative whose views on foreign policy are more hawkish than those of Mr. Mattis, appears to have deepened the president's suspicions that his defense secretary's view of the world is more like those of Democrats than his own."

The paper didn't clarify the basis of this speculation, but it makes sense. Bolton and Pompeo are gut fighters who go for the jugular. Trump is malleable, susceptible to obsequious manipulation. Mattis is an old-style military man with a play-it-straight mentality and a discomfort with guile. Thus it appears we may be seeing before our eyes the transformation of Trump the anti-establishment candidate into Trump the presidential neocon.

Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C. journalist and publishing executive, is a writer-at-large for . His latest book is President McKinley: Architect of the American Century .


General Manager October 15, 2018 at 11:30 pm

Bolton was put in power to ensure unswerving loyalty to the dictates of Bibi Netanyahu and local neocons. Have we forgotten Iraq and endless wars since? We need more folks like Phil Giraldi at TAC. Love him or hate him – but please bring him back. The First Amendment needs him. And many of us still long for his direct and well-informed comments.
George Hoffman , says: October 16, 2018 at 5:27 am
"Come on now!" as sports analysts say in a sarcastic segment about football blunders on ESPN. Did GWB really make just an honest mistake based upon faulty intelligence? Does this writer really believe his assertion? This intellectually dishonest essay comes on the heels of a puff piece by another so-called "conservative" writer who asserted that had JFK not been assassinated and won a second term, he would have surely withdrawn American soldiers from South Vietnam. And then later in this essay the writer finally admits that these wars in the global war on terror, excluding the war in Afghanistan, were unnecessary. But if these other wars were unnecessary, then it historically follows they were illegal wars of aggression against humanity. That was the legal basis under which we tried Nazi leaders as war criminals at Numenberg. By the way, if Trump does get rid of Mattis, there are plenty more, one could even say they are a dime a dozen, at the Pentagon who would be willing to toe the line under Trump. They're basically professional careerists, corporate suits with misto salads of colorful medals on their uniforms. They take their marching orders from the military/industrial complex. I'm a Vietnam vet and realized long ago how clueless these generals actually are when we crossed our Rubicon in Vietnam. The war on terror now rivals the Vietnam War as a major foreign policy debacle. All these other unnecessary wars are part of the endgame as we continue our decline as a constitutional republic and we eventually hit bottom and go bankrupt by 2030.
jd , says: October 16, 2018 at 9:37 am
Absolutely right General Manager, this is all about Israel's hold on the Oval Office. Bolton and Pompeo are far, far closer to Israel than Mattis and that's a problem for him. Sorry Robert Merry, but you clearly didn't catch Trump's first foreign "policy" speech in 2016. He suddenly revealed his priorities for all to see. There are four words that Trump apologists simply cannot bring themselves to utter: "Trump is a neo-con". Suckers.
Kirt Higdon , says: October 16, 2018 at 10:23 am
When was Trump's foreign policy anything but Neo-con? Oh, he had a few good lines when he was running – that was the "con" part. I didn't fall for it but many did. But since he took office, he's been across-the-board anti-Russian, anti-Iran, pro-Saudi, uber-Zionist, and enthusiastic shill for the military-industrial complex.
Patricus , says: October 16, 2018 at 10:35 am
Trump surprised many of us with some very positive conservative actions but has also disappointed smaller government conservatives. The deficits and debt grows as the economy improves. What in the world happens in the next recession?

Military adventurism is another disappointment. We can't afford more neocon disasters. We don't need to be the world's police force. We should be shrinking the military budgets. It is dismaying to watch the neocons gaining power after the catastrophic failures of recent decades.

TheSnark , says: October 16, 2018 at 11:05 am
"Still, generally speaking, anyone listening to Trump carefully before the election would have been justified in concluding that, if he meant what he said, he would reverse America's post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush and Barack Obama."

Come on, anyone listening to Trump before the election realized that he said whatever drew the most applause from the crowd. He never, in his entire life, has meant what he said.

He will continue down the neo-con line until Fox News and NY Times run front-page articles about how Bolton and Pompeo are manipulating him and actually running US foreign policy, at which time he will dump them and make up something else.

swb , says: October 16, 2018 at 11:34 am
Hmm

And second, it turns out that Trump has no true convictions when it comes to world affairs.

Fixed:

And second, it turns out that Trump has no true convictions.

This is another article that attempts to overlay some sort of actual logical policy or moral framework over the top of Trumps actions. Please stop. Next week or next month this whole line of reasoning will be upended again and you will have to start over with another theory that contradicts this one.

BradleyD , says: October 16, 2018 at 11:40 am
@R Dodge

Are are you implying that Mattis is a slacker? Like, he isn't doing a good job? And, specially, what is he failing to do?

Even if he wasn't doing anything at all, you don't fire Mattis. He is beloved among the military. While a fair number revere and maybe even keep their own little "St. Mattis" shrine as a joke, it is only half a joke.

Mattis is one of the few modern military generals with a cult of personality who, I have little doubt, could declare crossing the Rubicon and would get a good number of veterans and active marching in support.

Stephen J. , says: October 16, 2018 at 11:48 am
I believe a good peaceful and appropriate "Foreign Policy" would be to:

"Arrest Them"

Arrest all those responsible for the plight of the Refugees
These people are in camps, or drowning in unfriendly seas
And when these unwanted, reach "safety," or a foreign land
They are treated like garbage and the rulers want them banned

Arrest these "rulers" who created this hell on earth
Who act, that human lives, don't have any worth
They are examples of evil and should not be in power
They really are disgraceful and an awful bloody shower

Arrest the warmongering "leaders" who create havoc around the world
Authorizing bombings and killings these "leaders" should be reviled
Instead we give them fancy titles and homes to park their asses
Will there ever be a day of reckoning and a rise up of the masses?

Arrest the financiers of these bloody wars of destruction
This is how these blood sucking parasites get their satisfaction
Drag them away in chains and handcuffs, and orange prison attire
These are the corporate cannibals who set the world on fire

Arrest the fat and plump little "honourable" Ministers of Wars
They are the "useful idiots" for the leading warmongering whores
They never fight in battle or sacrifice any of their rotten lives
They get others to do their evil work while they themselves thrive

Arrest the corporate chieftains who feed off death and destruction
And who count their bloodstained profits with smiling satisfaction
These are the well dressed demons who call their investments "creating jobs"
Meanwhile, around the world the oppressed are crying, and nobody hears their sobs

Arrest the uniformed generals who blindly obey their marching orders
To bomb, kill, maim and destroy: they are the brainwashed enforcers
Years ago there were trials for war crimes committed by those in charge
Now we need them again for we have war criminals at large

Arrest all the aforementioned, and help clean up the world
We cannot afford these people in power: Are they mentally disturbed?
They are a danger to all of us and we better wake up
Is it time to arrest all of them: Have you had enough?
[more info at links below]

http://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2015/09/arrest-them.html
-- --

https://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2017/12/the-great-satan-and-his-satanic-gang-of.html
-- –
https://graysinfo.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-satanic-savages-in-suits-and-dresses.html

FJR Atlanta , says: October 16, 2018 at 12:13 pm
Hillary was right when she called Trump a puppet. She just had the puppeteers wrong.
Doswell , says: October 16, 2018 at 1:04 pm
"The significance here is that Bolton and Pompeo represent just about everything Trump ran against during his 2016 presidential campaign. "

Yes. Those two names are the main reason that this lifelong Republican is voting against Trump and the GOP in a few weeks. I voted against this kind of crap in 2016.

Sid Finster , says: October 16, 2018 at 1:09 pm
Trump is weak, stupid and easily manipulated. That is obvious. What blows my mind is how many people refuse to admit this obvious fact.
b. , says: October 16, 2018 at 1:11 pm
"[G]enerally speaking, anyone listening [..] before the election would have been justified in concluding [Trump] would reverse America's post-Cold War foreign policy as practiced by George W. Bush and Barack Obama."

What did Judas Goat 43 say again?

"Fool me once, shame on me. Full me twice in the long run we'll all be dead."

I guess DJT offered you a "Bad Deal" then? Past performance does predict future results.

Cape Fear , says: October 16, 2018 at 1:13 pm
If Trump loses at least one house of Congress this year, he can put it down to 1) failure on immigration and border control, 2) failure to control government spending, and 3) failure to get us out of the Middle East.

His new neocon friends are responsible for 3) and couldn't care less about 1) and 2).

One Guy , says: October 16, 2018 at 1:24 pm
"Now we know he didn't mean what he said "

No, Mr. Merry. We knew that long ago. I don't know how much attention you've been paying, but it's been so obvious for so long. But better late than never, I suppose.

Myron Hudson , says: October 16, 2018 at 1:56 pm
The only thing that surprises me is that anyone is surprised.

[Oct 15, 2018] Identity Politics and the Ruling Class

Notable quotes:
"... Fairness Doctrine. ..."
"... Telecommunications Act ..."
"... Crazy Rich Asians ..."
"... sufficiently-attractive collective program for the future' ..."
"... identity politics ..."
"... It comes as no shock that the powerful hate identity politics ..."
"... Invertebrate Spain ..."
Oct 15, 2018 | www.counterpunch.org

October 12, 2018 Identity Politics and the Ruling Class by James Munson Reagan ditched the Fairness Doctrine. Now his youth complain they're shunned by the politically-correct media. Clinton's Telecommunications Act let mergers trample the free press. Now it pains his wing that we read rants and conspiracy, instead of news.

So much that Hillary employed teams of fact-checkers in 2016, figuring we couldn't trust our own minds to parse reality from clown-babble. Then–contrarily–she blamed her loss on hopeless cases. If one or the other were true, democracy would be a lost cause, and perhaps that's crossed her mind since losing, despite a majority of votes. But it can't explain why close to half of us had the common sense to not vote for either hopeless party.

Yet, to hear either speak, tribal privileges are fracturing America. Not the top .001%'s privilege to half the wealth, nor the military's to the bulk of our taxes. Rather, half of the poor's designation, versus the other half's. Somehow, minorities -the lowest rung in terms of media ownership- bully the mainstream press, and rednecks -the next-lowest- bully the rest. (Hourly-waged Russians command any overlap.) And since, according to the Right (and much of the Left), 'political-correctness' stifles all other manner of free speech, elites are powerless to restore order to their own, private empires, or prevent the hordes tearing us up over what bathroom to use.

Really? Have we lost our pussy-grabbing Executive and Judiciary branches to the wanton touch of #MeToo? Can our founding, 'self-evident truths' not outwit pc's chauvinism? On the other hand, how is it 'deplorables' are blind to exploding class inequality, yet so attuned to the nuances of race, gender, and their nomenclature?

'Identity-politics' explain everything recently, from Trump and Kavanaugh, to Crazy Rich Asians . Francis Fukuyama has a new book out (I've read only part), regarding its tension with liberalism–group versus individual rights, etc., tepidly joining him to more-hawkish mouth-pieces like Sam Harris and Ben Shapiro (and some Left doom-sayers) who warn its steam-rolling our democracy. Their over-arching fear is that identity politics suppress rational–though not always politically-correct–thought, giving extremists on both sides the floor, who don't mind confronting 'identity' on racist (and sexist, etc) terms. Ergo, more than an analytical device or a school of (not always congruent) ideas, a movement. A juggernaut, if you read and believe the hype.

But if so, whose? Saying 'first respect my uniqueness, then treat me as equal' provides snares that 'first treat me as equal, then respect my uniqueness' does not. The Left has a long history with -and can tie most of its successes- to the latter. The labor movement, for instance, united presumed-cultural rivals and coordinated dozens of languages. Ergo, the Left , by definition -the many against the privileged few- would have to be amnesiac, or -more likely- not the Left, to think a plan that tries to establish the differences first would better serve their goals.

Perhaps the cultural wins (like marriage equality) and sizable, politico-economic losses (demise of Unions, etc.) of the past few decades have inspired reorientation. There's evidence, so long as we define the 'Left' as ruling, Neoliberal Democrats. Certainly their Wall Street financiers can accept women CEOs and gay marriage more-readily than Union wages and universal healthcare. (After all, the point of capitalism is to pocket the most one can without sparking an insurrection.) BUT an elite-run party -paid for by Wall Street–doesn't constitute a Left. Nor is it able to absorb popular will. Proven, since they lose most of their elections.

Also, that leftists would demand censorship when most everyone of them believe the Right is in control, and when they're silenced within their own party, seems farce. Again there's evidence, college students sometimes dis-invite conservative speakers, and we figure, as Reagan did, they're taught to (so he hiked tuition). But I doubt censorship exists as agenda, nor even as sentiment on any grand scale. Think, whenever something explodes multiple parties besides the bomber take credit. Where are the professors claiming this attack? If 18% are communists (as the American Enterprise Institute warns), what sort of communist links class to 'identity', not labor?

The other 'fear' is that over-zealous freshman are taking control, like in the Princeton and Evergreen incidents. Perhaps but it contradicts the wisdom of Occupy!, which refused the collaborative financial, political, educative, and other aligned powers from pigeon-holling their complaints. -Wisdom that we credit to the young of the movement.

There's also a notion that dis-investment has engendered a new 'tribalism'. But even though 'color-blindness', for example, has excused softening equal-opportunity legislation (welfare reform, voting law, etc.), which baits 'identity', as minorities are often dis-empowered under the ruse of equality, color-blindness came out of the neoliberal play-book and expanded Leftward from think-tanks on the Right. In other words, while it's hard to gauge its impact, it marks a very separate program from the Left-academia or 'bottom-up' narratives.

Furthermore, most every poll finds 'economic inequality', not racial, gender, or other inequalities to be the #1 problem with America. So, while it's not unreasonable that our decline in wealth and status might see us retreat toward other than liberal identities (Fukuyama's point), unless someone's peddling those narratives, one plainly sees more leverage in class-solidarity.

As for the Right, what should be 'self-evident' is that complaining minority recognition is unfair to the majority rests on the same argument it decries; that your privilege impedes my privilege (instead of the reverse). Evident, at least to a Harvard-educated lawyer like Ben Shapiro. Yet you find all that fallacious, 'populist' reaction in his books. Do they speak to him or he to them? Does he speak for them?

Of course, identity politics aren't new. The Spanish liberal-philosopher, Jose Ortega y Gasset wrestled with it a century ago, when his homeland's empire was crumbling, and came up with a lot better answers (though it didn't save Spain from its fascist clown). Spain even had, in his words, 'a common past, language, and race, yet had split into mainly-regional factions because it had failed to invent a sufficiently-attractive collective program for the future' . [i]

Isn't he right? Rather than hell-bent on forcing this or that culture on the rest of us, aren't the 'extreme' Left, Right, and clusters of us in between are just figuring out that, increasingly, being 'American' means losing ground to the .001% and their top brass? The opening passage to the Combahee River Collective's manifesto says as much: ' focusing upon our own oppression is embodied in the concept of identity politics . We believe that the most profound and potentially most radical politics come directly out of our own identity, as opposed to working to end somebody else's oppression.'

Last week Gary Younge revived that notion in a piece titled ' It comes as no shock that the powerful hate identity politics ' [ii] , reminding that without 'women', 'blacks', and other self-referential vanguards we wouldn't have democracy, anyway. It's an important point, and I agree, but is his over-arching theme–that the powerful hate it–also true?

Whether 'identity-politics' raise tensions or awareness among the crowd might be a secondary matter. First is whom they neglect. For all the media's naval-gazing, the system, itself gets rare attention. Mind, all political strategies shoulder contradictions. But it's odd that cultural issues (not to say there's no overlap) would hold the foreground right when fraudulent wars, torture, bank crime, rigged elections, police violence, tax-breaks for the rich, willful habitat destruction, and a widely-evident and growing gap between rich and poor and state and population have laid the political, economic, and judicial systems bare. Matters such as environmental or foreign policy are largely out of public reach, except with massive, boots on the ground confrontation. In which case, atomizing class politics seems counter-intuitive to the extreme.

Unless it's not us preaching it. It bears saying, in an oligarchy, oligarchs speak in order to make their actions less–not more–clear. That's what a shill like Ben Shapiro (Hillary does the work herself on the Left) laments when his talks get ignored (or Ocasio-Cortes ignores him). Shapiro's a cause-celeb for saying identity politics threatens our democracy, because it censors Right voices. Yet it appears complaining gets him more, not less, airtime. In fact, I've heard too little substance in his' speeches (or Hillary's of late) to warrant an interview, otherwise. Thus I suspect its the opposite of censorship; hyping the market, that threatens our democracy. Threatens for real, like the Telecom Act, not just prescriptively, like 'Russo-bots' and 'terrorism'.

Notes.

[i] Invertebrate Spain , 1921, p.37

[ii] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/05/no-shock-powerful-hate-identity-politics Join the debate on Facebook

[Oct 14, 2018] Where Is Trump's Alleged Isolationism by Ted Galen Carpenter

Notable quotes:
"... American Conservative ..."
Oct 09, 2018 | nationalinterest.org

It's nearly impossible to read major newspapers, magazines, or online publications in recent months without encountering a plethora of articles contending that the United States is turning inward and "going alone," "abandoning Washington's global leadership role" or "retreating from the world." These trends supposedly herald the arrival of a new "isolationism." The chief villain in all of these worrisome developments is, of course, Donald Trump. There is just one problem with such arguments; they are vastly overstated bordering on utterly absurd.

President Trump is not embracing his supposed inner isolationist. The policy changes that he has adopted regarding both security and international economic issues do not reflect a desire to decrease Washington's global hegemonic status. Instead, they point to a more unilateral and militaristic approach, but one that still envisions a hyper-activist U.S. role.

For instance, it's certainly not evident that the United States is abandoning its security commitments to dozens of allies and clients. Despite the speculation that erupted in response to Trump's negative comments about the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and other alliances during the 2016 election campaign (and occasionally since then), the substance of U.S. policy has remained largely unchanged. Indeed, NATO has continued to expand its membership with Trump's blessing -- adding Montenegro and planning to add Macedonia.

Indeed, Trump's principal complaint about NATO has always focused on European free-riding and the lack of burden-sharing, not about rethinking the wisdom of the security commitments to Europe that America undertook in the early days of the Cold War. In that respect, Trump's emphasis on greater burden-sharing within the Alliance is simply a less diplomatic version of the message that previous generations of U.S. officials have tried sending to the allies.

Moreover, Trump's insistence at the July NATO summit in Brussels that the European nations increase their military budgets and do more for transatlantic defense echoed the comments of President Obama's Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel in 2014. Hagel warned his European counterparts that they must step up their commitment to the alliance or watch it become irrelevant. Declining European defense budgets, he emphasized, are "not sustainable. Our alliance can endure only as long as we are willing to fight for it, and invest in it." Rebalancing NATO's "burden-sharing and capabilities," Hagel stressed, "is mandatory -- not elective."

Additionally, U.S. military activities along NATO's eastern flank certainly have not diminished during the Trump administration. Washington has sent forces to participate in a growing number of exercises (war games) along Russia's western land border -- as well as in the Black Sea -- to demonstrate the U.S. determination to protect its alliance partners. Trump has even escalated America's "leadership role" by authorizing the sale of weapons to Ukraine -- a very sensitive step that President Obama carefully avoided.

Trump even seems receptive to establishing permanent U.S. military bases in Eastern Europe. During a state visit to Washington in mid-September, Poland's president, Andrzej Duda, promised to provide $2 billion toward construction costs if the United States built a military base in his country. Duda even offered to name the base "Fort Trump." Trump's reaction was revealing. Noting that Poland "is willing to make a very major contribution to the United States to come in and have a presence in Poland," Trump stated that the United States would take Duda's proposal "very seriously." American Conservative columnist Daniel Larison notes that while Trump often is accused of wanting to "retreat" from the world, "his willingness to entertain this proposal shows that he doesn't care about stationing U.S. forces abroad so long as someone else is footing most of the bill."

U.S. military activism does not seem to have diminished outside the NATO region either. Washington persists in its futile regime-change campaign in Syria, and it continues the shameful policy of assisting Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies pursue their atrocity-ridden war in Yemen. Both of those Obama-era ventures should have been prime candidates for a policy change if Trump had wished to decrease America's military activism.

There are no such indications in Europe, the Middle East, or anywhere else. The U.S. Navy's freedom of navigation patrols in the South China Sea have actually increased in size and frequency under Trump -- much to China's anger . Washington's diplomatic support for Taiwan also has quietly increased over the past year or so, and National Security Advisor John Bolton is on record suggesting that the United States move some of its troops stationed on Okinawa to Taiwan. The U.S. military presence in Sub-Saharan Africa is increasing, both in overall size and the number of host countries.

Those are all extremely strange actions for an administration supposedly flirting with a retreat from the world to be adopting. So, too, is Trump's push for increases in America's already bloated military budget, which now exceeds $700 billion -- with even higher spending levels on the horizon.

Accusations of a U.S. retreat from the world on non-military matters have only slightly greater validity. True, Trump has shown little patience for multilateral arrangements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Paris climate agreement, or the United Nations Human Rights Council that he concluded did not serve America's national interests. On those issues, the president's actions demonstrated that his invocation of "America First" was not just rhetoric. However, regarding such matters, as well as the trade disputes with China and North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement partners, the administration's emphasis is on securing a "better deal" for the United States, not abandoning the entire diplomatic process. One might question the wisdom or effectiveness of that approach, but it is a far cry from so-called isolationism.

Indeed, Americans would have been better off if Trump had been more serious about challenging the policy status quo, especially with respect to security issues. A reconsideration of Washington's overgrown and often obsolete security commitments to allies and clients around the world is long overdue. Abandoning the disastrous twin strategies of humanitarian military intervention and regime-change wars is a badly needed step. And waging a new cold war against Russia is the height of dangerous folly that needs to be reversed.

But contrary to Trump's shrill -- and sometimes hysterical -- critics, America has had no meaningful reconsideration of such misguided policies or a willingness to adopt a more focused, limited, and prudent U.S. role in the world. Notions that there has been a pell-mell U.S. retreat from global leadership -- i.e., Washington's hegemonic pretentions -- under Donald Trump are a myth. What Trump has adopted is merely a more unilateral and militarized version of a stale foreign policy that does not benefit the American people.


Source: The National Interest

[Oct 11, 2018] The Woke Elite Have No Clothes by Rod Dreher

Notable quotes:
"... The way you have to term everything just right. And if you don't term it right you discriminate them. It's like everybody is going to be in the know of what people call themselves now and some of us just don't know. But if you don't know then there is something seriously wrong with you. ..."
"... in their own lives ..."
Oct 11, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Another dissatisfied Social Justice Warrior, at Trump's inauguration ( ODN screengrab ) Here's a genuinely fascinating essay in The Atlantic , by Yascha Mounk, who writes about research showing that overwhelming majorities of Americans hate political correctness.

It starts like this:

On social media, the country seems to divide into two neat camps: Call them the woke and the resentful. Team Resentment is manned -- pun very much intended -- by people who are predominantly old and almost exclusively white. Team Woke is young, likely to be female, and predominantly black, brown, or Asian (though white "allies" do their dutiful part). These teams are roughly equal in number, and they disagree most vehemently, as well as most routinely, about the catchall known as political correctness.

Reality is nothing like this. As scholars Stephen Hawkins, Daniel Yudkin, Miriam Juan-Torres, and Tim Dixon argue in a report published Wednesday, " Hidden Tribes: A Study of America's Polarized Landscape ," most Americans don't fit into either of these camps. They also share more common ground than the daily fights on social media might suggest -- including a general aversion to PC culture.

You don't say. More:

If you look at what Americans have to say on issues such as immigration, the extent of white privilege, and the prevalence of sexual harassment, the authors argue, seven distinct clusters emerge: progressive activists, traditional liberals, passive liberals, the politically disengaged, moderates, traditional conservatives, and devoted conservatives.

According to the report, 25 percent of Americans are traditional or devoted conservatives, and their views are far outside the American mainstream. Some 8 percent of Americans are progressive activists, and their views are even less typical. By contrast, the two-thirds of Americans who don't belong to either extreme constitute an "exhausted majority." Their members "share a sense of fatigue with our polarized national conversation, a willingness to be flexible in their political viewpoints, and a lack of voice in the national conversation."

Hmm. If one out of four people believe something, are they really "far" out of the American mainstream? In the report, "Traditional Liberals" and "Passive Liberals" make up 26 percent of the population. Aren't they part of the mainstream too? Or am I reading this wrong? Here's a graphic from the "Hidden Tribes" report that shows how they sort us:

How do the authors define these groups? Here:

Anyway, the story goes on to say that r ace and youth are not indicators of openness to PC. Black Americans are the minority group most accepting of PC, but even then, 75 percent of them think it's a problem. More:

If age and race do not predict support for political correctness, what does? Income and education.

While 83 percent of respondents who make less than $50,000 dislike political correctness, just 70 percent of those who make more than $100,000 are skeptical about it. And while 87 percent who have never attended college think that political correctness has grown to be a problem, only 66 percent of those with a postgraduate degree share that sentiment.

Political tribe -- as defined by the authors -- is an even better predictor of views on political correctness. Among devoted conservatives, 97 percent believe that political correctness is a problem. Among traditional liberals, 61 percent do. Progressive activists are the only group that strongly backs political correctness: Only 30 percent see it as a problem.

Here's the heart of it:

So what does this group look like? Compared with the rest of the (nationally representative) polling sample, progressive activists are much more likely to be rich, highly educated -- and white. They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than $100,000 a year. They are nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree. And while 12 percent of the overall sample in the study is African American, only 3 percent of progressive activists are. With the exception of the small tribe of devoted conservatives, progressive activists are the most racially homogeneous group in the country.

This, a thousand times:

As one 57- year-old woman in Mississippi fretted:

The way you have to term everything just right. And if you don't term it right you discriminate them. It's like everybody is going to be in the know of what people call themselves now and some of us just don't know. But if you don't know then there is something seriously wrong with you.

Seriously, read the whole thing. It's encouraging news.

So, guess who runs most of the institutions in this country: academia, media, entertainment, corporations? Educated, rich white liberals (and minorities who come out of those institutions, and who agree with their PC ideology). They have created a social space in which they lord their ideology over everybody else, and have intimidated everyone into going along with it, out of fear of harsh consequences, and stigma, for dissenters.

Mounk points out that it's not that majorities believe racism and bigotry aren't things to be concerned about. They do! It's that they believe that PC is the wrong way to address those problems.

If you have the time, read the whole "Hidden Tribes" report on which Mounk bases his essay. They reveal something that has actually been brought out by Pew Research studies in the past: that US political conversation is entirely driven by the extremes, while most people in the middle are more open to compromise. It's not that most of these people are moderates, are centrists. It's that they aren't driven by a strong sense of tribalism.

The authors call these "hidden tribes" because they are defined not by race, sex, and the usual tribal markers, but rather by a shared agreement on how the world works, whether they're aware of it or not. Where individuals come down on these points generally determines where they'll come down on hot button political and cultural issues (e.g., immigration, feminism):

You shouldn't assume that most Americans share the same basic values. As the report indicates, there are substantive differences among us. It's simply not accurate to blame tension over these divisions on extremists of the right or the left who exaggerate them. Though the differences are real, what seems to set the majority-middle apart is their general unwillingness to push those differences to the breaking point.

I want to point out one aspect of the analysis that means a lot to me, as a religious conservative. It's on page 81 of the report. Here's a graph recording answers to the question, "How important is religious faith to you?"

Religion is important to almost two-thirds of Americans. The only tribe in which a majority finds it unimportant are Progressive Activists. According to the study:

Strong identification with religious belief appears to be a strong tribal marker for the Devoted and Traditional Conservatives, and an absence of religious belief appears to be a marker for Progressive Activists.

Guess which tribe runs the culture-making institutions in our society (e.g., major media, universities, entertainment)?

I am reminded of something one of you readers, a conservative academic, wrote to me once: that you feel safe because your department is run by traditional liberals, who don't agree with you, but who value free and open exchange of ideas. You are very worried about what happens when those people -- who are Baby Boomers -- retire, because the generational cohort behind them are hardcore left-wing ideologues who do not share the traditional liberal view.

This just in from Reuters:

Hollywood has been at the forefront of the political resistance to President Donald Trump, using awards shows, social media and donations to promote progressive positions on issues from immigration to gun control.

Now, the entertainment industry is using its star power and creativity to support down-ballot candidates in the Nov. 6 elections. Down-ballot races are typically state and local positions that are listed on voting ballots below national posts.

This approach is part of the way Hollywood is rewriting its script for political action following Trump's shock election in 2016.

I can't blame anyone for advocating for their political beliefs in the public square. But these are among the most privileged people on the planet. They are Progressive Activists -- and they are massively out of touch with the rest of the country, though they have massively more cultural power to define the narrative than their adversaries.

Here's another interesting factoid from the report:

Progressive Activists are unique in seeing the world as a much less dangerous place than other Americans. For other tribes, the differences are much smaller. On average, 14 percent of Americans view the world as generally safe and nonthreatening, while among Progressive Activists almost three times as many people hold this view (40 percent). This figure is especially striking in light of Progressive Activists' deep pessimism about the direction of the country (98 percent say it is going in the wrong direction) and their emotions toward the country (45 percent say they currently feel "very" scared about the country's direction).

Think of the psychology of this! How can they feel that the world is "generally safe and nonthreatening" while at the same time be "very" scared about the direction of the US? The answer, I think, is that in their own lives , they feel secure. And why not? Remember this from Yascha Mounk's essay on this study:

So what does this group look like? Compared with the rest of the (nationally representative) polling sample, progressive activists are much more likely to be rich, highly educated -- and white. They are nearly twice as likely as the average to make more than $100,000 a year. They are nearly three times as likely to have a postgraduate degree.

Economically, educationally, and racially, Progressive Activists are the most elite group in the country.

Look at this amazing factoid:

First, notice that one out of three African Americans think that people are too sensitive about race, the same percentage of Traditional Liberals who do. A solid majority of Hispanic Americans believe that, and nearly three out of four Asian Americans believe that. Sixty percent of Americans overall agree with this viewpoint. Who rejects it overwhelmingly? Progressive Activists -- the rich, educated white people who control academia and media.

Note well that majorities are not saying that racism isn't a problem (81 percent agree that we have serious problems with racism), only that there is too much emphasis on it. Do you get that? They're saying that racism is a serious issue, but it has been disproportionately emphasized relative to other serious issues. On bread-and-butter issues like college admissions, Progressive Activists are far, far removed from everybody else, even Traditional Liberals:

The numbers are similar on gender issues. Progressive Activists are radically far apart from the views of most Americans. No wonder the media can't understand why everybody doesn't agree with them that Brett Kavanaugh is a sexist monster.

Finally, the last chapter of the study focuses on what its authors call the "Exhausted Majority" -- Traditional Liberals, Passive Liberals, Politically Disengaged and Moderates:

The four segments in the Exhausted Majority have many differences, but they share four main attributes:

– They are more ideologically flexible

– They support finding political compromise

– They are fatigued by US politics today

– They feel forgotten in political debate

Importantly, the Traditional Conservatives do not belong to the Exhausted Majority, while the Traditional Liberals do. The key difference lies in their mood towards the country's politics. While the Exhausted Majority express disillusionment, frustration, and anger at the current state of US politics, Traditional Conservatives are far more likely to express confidence, excitement and optimism. As such, the Traditional Conservatives hold a meaningfully different emotional disposition towards the country that aligns them more with the Devoted Conservatives.

That's really interesting. Having read the detailed descriptions of the various tribes, I fall more into the Traditional Conservative camp, but I am much more pessimistic about the country's politics than TCs in this study. What accounts for that? Is it:

a) I spend a lot of time looking at the cultural fundamentals and trends, especially regarding religion, and believe that the optimism of Traditional Conservatives is irrational; or

b) I spend a lot of time reading and analyzing the mainstream media, including social media, and therefore overestimate the power and influence of Progressive Activists

I'd say the answer is probably 80 percent a) and 20 percent b). I believe my fellow Traditional Conservatives (like the Devoted Conservatives to our right) believe that things are more stable than they actually are.

Anyway, if you have the time, I encourage you to read the entire report. It's basic point is that neither extreme of left and right speak for the majority of Americans, though their stridency, and the nature of media to emphasize conflict, conditions most of us to think that things are far more polarized than they actually are.

For me, the best news in the entire report is learning how sick and tired most Americans are of political correctness. It's not that most people believe there aren't serious problems in the country having to do with race, sex, immigration, and so forth. It's that people are tired of the Progressive Speech Police stalking around like Saudi imams with sticks in hand, whacking anyone who fails to observe strict pieties. As Yascha Mounk says in his piece about the report:

The gap between the progressive perception and the reality of public views on this issue could do damage to the institutions that the woke elite collectively run. A publication whose editors think they represent the views of a majority of Americans when they actually speak to a small minority of the country may eventually see its influence wane and its readership decline. And a political candidate who believes she is speaking for half of the population when she is actually voicing the opinions of one-fifth is likely to lose the next election.

Yes. And -- drums please -- that has a lot to do with how we got Trump.

[Oct 10, 2018] Casualty Lists From the Kavanaugh Battle by Pat Buchanan

Notable quotes:
"... Why should a robed, unelected politician be redefining marriage? ..."
"... Many people here still don't get it. This fake left vs right paradigm is just a show and is no different than either professional football or wrestling. The public cheer on their teams and engage in meaningless battle while the controllers pilfer everything of value. ..."
"... Peter Hitchens has remarked that demonstrations are actually indicators of weakness rather than power or authority (something that seems to have eluded Flake and Murkowski), however shrill and enraged that they may be. ..."
"... I'm an aging New Deal Democrat. I have not changed but my former party changed with the tenure of the immoral and ethically challenged rapist, Bill Clinton and his enabler wife. In their previous lives, both were Goldwater Republicans. They switched to the Democrat Party to win elections but they never strayed too far from teats of the the Bushes and their destructive political roots. I"m willing to bet thousands of dollars that if given a fair chance at a quiz about the Clintons, most of the young SJW's, rabid homo's and the poor suckers who follow them know very little about the real Clintons. ..."
"... The Democrat party today is less a party than it is a mob of homosexuals and rabid social justice warriors duped into believing they are oppressed by the extremist college courses in Social Justice. Yet, what they have offer the world is not justice. They offer chaos and anarchy as we saw with the mob of racists black and stupid white kids attacking a man who looked lost and confused, and as it turns out, rightfully frightened by the crowd of social justice terrorists from the Alt-Left. ..."
"... The Democrat Party is gonzo, the same as Hillary and Bill Clinton's speaking tour is destined to be. ..."
Oct 10, 2018 | www.unz.com

Ludwig Watzal , says: Website October 9, 2018 at 7:27 am GMT

Mr. Buchanan, you forgot the "treacherous" work of porn lawyer Michael Avenatti who offered the straw that broke the camel's back by presenting such an abysmal "witness" such as Julie Swetnick. Ms. Ramirez' alleged allegations also came down to nothing. Even the so-called Me too movement suffered a big blow. They turned a fundamental democratic principle upside down: The accused is innocent until proven guilty. They insisted instead that the accuser is right because she is a woman!

I watched the whole confirmation circus on CNN. When Dr. Ford started talking my first thought was; this entire testimony is a charade initiated by the Dems. As a journalist, I was appalled by the CNN "colleagues." During the recesses, they held tribunals that were 95 percent staffed by anti-Trumpets. Fairness looks different.

For me, the Democratic Party and the Me too movement lost much of its credibility. To regain it, they have to get rid of the demons of the Clinton's and their ilk. Anyone who is acquainted with the history of the Clinton's knows that they belong to the most politically corrupt politicians in the US.

Realist , says: October 9, 2018 at 10:21 am GMT

So where are we going now?

This country is on a shit slide to hell. No turning back ..to many god damn idiots in this country.

What people in this country better understand is Trump is part of the Deep State and he means harm to all non elites.

anonymous [340] Disclaimer , says: October 9, 2018 at 11:19 am GMT
@utu You're thinking of Justice Kennedy, another Republican choice for whom young Mr. Kavanaugh clerked before helping President Cheney with the Patriot Act to earn his first robe on the Swampville Circuit. Chief Justice Roberts was the one who nailed down Big Sickness for the pharmaceutical and insurance industries.

Like the "federal" elections held every November in even-numbered years and the 5-4 decrees of the Court, these nailbiting confirmation hearings are another part of the show that keeps people gulled into accepting that so many things in life are to be run by people in Washington. Mr. Buchanan for years has been proclaiming each The Most Important Ever.

I'm still inclined to the notion that the Constitution was intended, at least by some of its authors and supporters, to create a limited national government. But even by the time of Marbury, those entrusted with the powers have arrogated the authority to redefine them. In my lifetime, the Court exists to deal with hot potato social issues in lieu of the invertebrate Congress, to forebear (along with the invertebrate Congress) the warmongering and other "foreign policy" waged under auspices of the President, and to dignify the Establishment's shepherding and fleecing of the people.

Why should a robed, unelected politician be redefining marriage? Entrusted to enforce the Constitutional limitations on the others? Sure, questions like these are posed from time to time in a dissenting Justice's opinion, but that ends the discussion other than in the context of replacing old Justice X with middle-aged Justice Y, as exemplified in this cliche' column from Mr. Buchanan. Those of us outside the Beltway are told to tune in and root Red. And there are pom pom shakers and color commentators just like him for Team Blue.

Puppet show.

Jon Baptist , says: October 9, 2018 at 12:38 pm GMT
Many people here still don't get it. This fake left vs right paradigm is just a show and is no different than either professional football or wrestling. The public cheer on their teams and engage in meaningless battle while the controllers pilfer everything of value. Buchanan knows this but is too afraid to tell "the other half of the story."
36 ulster , says: October 9, 2018 at 12:57 pm GMT
@verylongaccountname

It was a costly victory, but not a Pyrrhic one. The Left will no doubt raise the decibel and octave levels, but if they incur a richly-deserved defeat a month from now, they won't even make it to the peanut gallery for at least the next two years.

Peter Hitchens has remarked that demonstrations are actually indicators of weakness rather than power or authority (something that seems to have eluded Flake and Murkowski), however shrill and enraged that they may be. Should the Left choose to up the ante, to REALLY take it to the streets well as the English ditty goes: We have the Maxim Gun/And they have not.

prefer anon , says: October 9, 2018 at 1:13 pm GMT
Pat, you are one of the few thinkers with real common sense.

I'm an aging New Deal Democrat. I have not changed but my former party changed with the tenure of the immoral and ethically challenged rapist, Bill Clinton and his enabler wife. In their previous lives, both were Goldwater Republicans. They switched to the Democrat Party to win elections but they never strayed too far from teats of the the Bushes and their destructive political roots. I"m willing to bet thousands of dollars that if given a fair chance at a quiz about the Clintons, most of the young SJW's, rabid homo's and the poor suckers who follow them know very little about the real Clintons.

The Democrat party today is less a party than it is a mob of homosexuals and rabid social justice warriors duped into believing they are oppressed by the extremist college courses in Social Justice. Yet, what they have offer the world is not justice. They offer chaos and anarchy as we saw with the mob of racists black and stupid white kids attacking a man who looked lost and confused, and as it turns out, rightfully frightened by the crowd of social justice terrorists from the Alt-Left.

They all slept through the Obama disaster thinking the globalist open borders would make the world Shang Ri La instead of crime ridden, diseased, and under attack from Muslims and their twisted ides about God and Sharia Law. Look at the Imam who proclaimed yesterday they Sharia is the law of Britain and that Muslims are at war with the British government. Yet, Tommy Robinson gets jailed for pointing out their sated intentions. Messed up. We cannot let this happen in America.

They ignore the fact that the emasculated Obama failed to fight to pick a Supreme Court Justice. Even though he was going to choose Neil Gorsuch, not a leftist, the Alt-Left no doubt would have remained silent if he had. Why? Because Obama was black. But the Alt-Left is shallow and they could not see that the oreo president was black on the outside but rich and creamy white on the inside. No doubt, Obama was more like a 1980′s Republican than he was a Democrat as I understood them to be for decades.

The Democrat Party is gonzo, the same as Hillary and Bill Clinton's speaking tour is destined to be.


Si1ver1ock , says: October 9, 2018 at 2:17 pm GMT

@prefer anon I agree. These parties get hijacked by the worst sort. The Neocons are still riding high in the Republican party.
SolontoCroesus , says: October 9, 2018 at 2:44 pm GMT
@Tiny Duck

You wanted a fight? You are going to get one and just like the Nazis and confederates we will thrash you

Hold up a sec, pal.

Your lot has painted a target on Russia, claiming Russians collusioned with Trump. Right?

But it was Russians who "thrashed" the Nazis.

Goes without saying you hate the Nazis and extend that epithet to include Germans. Right?

But German mercenaries provided a great deal of the fighting force that "thrashed" the confederates.

Looks like you've made enemies of most of the fighting force you are counting on to thrash the GOP, pal.

Ooops.

Svigor , says: October 9, 2018 at 3:22 pm GMT
@Ludwig Watzal Vis-a-vis #PayAttentionToMeToo, it really was a win-win. Rightists successfully defended the firewall and kept it contained to the left. Perfect. As far as leftists are concerned, it's still perfectly legitimate – the leftist circular firing squads will continue.
Realist , says: October 9, 2018 at 7:09 pm GMT
@Jon Baptist

Many people here still don't get it. This fake left vs right paradigm is just a show and is no different than either professional football or wrestling.

Well I get it and have been saying so. Trump knows damn well that the people he has surrounded himself with are Deep Staters Trump is a part of the Deep State. Trump has done nothing of significance for the 99%. Trump hasn't prosecuted anyone for criminal activity 'against' his campaign or administration. Trump hasn't built a wall (he won't either). Instead of reducing conflict and war Trump has been belligerent in his actions toward Russia, China, Syria and Iran .risking all out war. All these things are being done to increase the wealth and power of the Deep State. For the past ten years Republican House members have been promising investigations and prosecutions of Democrats for criminal activities .not one god damn thing changed. Kabuki theater is the name of the game. With such inane bullshit as Dancing With The Stars on TV and the fake Republicans v Democrats game, it is all meant to keep the proles from knowing how they are being screwed .a rather easy task at that.

prefer anon , says: October 9, 2018 at 9:10 pm GMT
@Si1ver1ock @S1ver1ock

They are in the Democrat party too. In fact, their only allegiance is to Israel. The

Neocons are anti-USA – same as the communists in antifa and the mobs of idiots in the Damnedcrat party.

Richard Wicks , says: October 9, 2018 at 9:21 pm GMT
@utu Same sex marriage is basically irrelevant. Less than 10% of homosexuals co-habitate with a partner. Perhaps 10% of the general population is openly homosexual (and that's definitely an over-estimation.).

This means that if all homosexuals that cohabitate with a partner are married, it's less than 1% of the population we're talking about.

This is a "who really cares?" situation. There's more important things to worry about when the nation has been at war for 16 years straight, started over a bunch of lies starting with George W. Bush and continuing with Barak Obama. We have lost the moral high ground because of those two, identical in any important way, scumbags.

Richard Wicks , says: October 9, 2018 at 9:31 pm GMT
@Tiny Duck

Democrats are enraged and have seen the GOP for the white supremacist evil institution that it is

This from a group of people that have been endlessly complaining that the Butcher of Libya, who voted for the Authorization to Use Force in Iraq (what you know as the 2nd Iraq War) wasn't elected president just because she was running a fraudulent charity, was storing classified information on an unsecured and compromised server illegally, and is telling you absolutely morally bankrupt and unprincipled individuals that you have the moral high ground because she's a woman after all, not just another war criminal like George W. Bush is, and Obama is.

Caligula's horse would have beaten Hillary Clinton, if the voter base had any sense. Clinton was the worst possible candidate ever. Anybody, and I mean anybody, that voted for the Iraq War should be in prison, not in government. They are all traitors.

Hyperion , says: October 9, 2018 at 9:45 pm GMT
@Realist Agree Big money interets have broguht us Trump not only for the tax cuts but to destroy America's hemegomony. to start the final leg of the shift from west to east. A traitor of the highest order Pat Buchanan has led the grievence brigade of angry white men for decades distracted and deluded over the social issues meanwhile the Everyman/woman has lost ground economically or stayed static no improvement.
SamAdams , says: October 10, 2018 at 2:20 am GMT
@Jon Baptist You can just about guarantee that the losers in the false 'Right' versus 'Left' circus will be We The People.

Big Government/Big Insider Corporations/Big Banks feed parasitically off the population. The role of the lawyers wearing black dresses on the SC, is to help hide the theft. They use legal mumbo jumbo. The economists at the Fed use economics & mathematical mumbo jumbo.

Much of current Western society is made up of bullsh*t.

[Oct 09, 2018] Upcoming Elections by Richard Sale

Oct 09, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Without a party you have no political standing. You are literally zero. Unfortunately. But this is the situation in modern politics.

Our judgments reveal who we really are.

An election is an occasion for ordinary people to endorse or reject certain political programs or personalities. If you belong to a political party, you have already given up a great deal of your intellectual independence, your self-ownership. Belonging to a party means that you have no choice but to endorse the party's platform, many party members are hardly aware that that program was put in place by senior political figures who serve their own self-seeking agendas. I know a few close friends, one of whom is a former Colorado legislator, who have forsaken their own deep, personal convictions in order to submit to their leaders. (They tell of this without blushing.)

I don't belong to a political party, (*) not because I think I'm superior to the rest of us, but because I abhor anything that drives us to think in unison, which is what a political party demands. Even in a group we retain our own individual view of life and our personal circumstances, but such things don't seem to matter in an election. It is a sad fact that a political party thinks in a herd. A party by its nature ignores our temperament, moral character, intelligence, and education. The less educated a voter is, the more he or she is liable to be swept along with a leader's rhetoric, the spate of clichés he or she utters, ignoring the knowledge and experience that enables a voter to cross examine what they are being told. Voters remind me of schools of minnows that veer one way only to suddenly veer in another. All of us are supposed to arrive at our conclusions by strenuous study, comparison, and dispassionate analysis, not mere association. Unanimity is the enemy of individual thought. An election assumes that we are all basically the same that every personality has an equal worth, and that reasonable people will do as they're told by their leaders and endorse the majority.

But is the majority right?

Very often, it's not.

[Oct 09, 2018] How the malicious smear game works

Notable quotes:
"... The way it works is, the smearers bait the smearee into defending himself against the defamatory content of the smears. Once the smearee has done that, the smearers have him. From then on, the focus of the debate becomes whether or not the smears are accurate, rather than why he's being smeared, how he's being smeared, and who is smearing him. This is the smearers' primary objective, i.e., to establish the boundaries of the debate, and to trap the target of the smears within them. ..."
"... focus as much attention on the tactics and the motives of the smearers as possible ..."
Oct 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

Because that is precisely how the smear game works.

The way it works is, the smearers bait the smearee into defending himself against the defamatory content of the smears. Once the smearee has done that, the smearers have him. From then on, the focus of the debate becomes whether or not the smears are accurate, rather than why he's being smeared, how he's being smeared, and who is smearing him. This is the smearers' primary objective, i.e., to establish the boundaries of the debate, and to trap the target of the smears within them.

If you've followed the fake "Labour Anti-Semitism" scandal, you've witnessed this tactic deployed against Corbyn , who unfortunately fell right into the trap and gave the smearers the upper hand. No, the only way to effectively counter a smear campaign (whether large-scale or small-scale), is to resist the temptation to profess your innocence, and, instead, focus as much attention on the tactics and the motives of the smearers as possible . It is difficult to resist this temptation, especially when the people smearing you have significantly more power and influence than you do, and are calling you a racist and an anti-Semite, but, trust me, the moment you start defending yourself, the game is over, and the smearers have won.

Carroll Price says: October 1, 2018 at 3:52 pm GMT @Dorian I agree. The me-too crown demanding Brett Kavanagh's head on a platter should have been shown the door rather than given a worldwide stage from which to spew their hateful venom.

[Oct 09, 2018] Who Doesn't Love Identity Politics by C.J. Hopkins

Oct 09, 2018 | www.unz.com

If there is one thing that still unites Americans across the ever more intellectually suffocating and bitterly polarized political spectrum our imaginations have been crammed into like rush hour commuters on the Tokyo Metro, it's our undying love of identity politics.

Who doesn't love identity politics? Liberals love identity politics. Conservatives love identity politics. Political parties love identity politics. Corporations love identity politics. Advertisers, anarchists, white supremacists, Wall Street bankers, Hollywood producers, Twitter celebrities, the media, academia everybody loves identity politics.

Why do we love identity politics? We love them for many different reasons.

The ruling classes love identity politics because they keep the working classes focused on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and so on, and not on the fact that they (i.e., the working classes) are, essentially, glorified indentured servants, who will spend the majority of their sentient existences laboring to benefit a ruling elite that would gladly butcher their entire families and sell their livers to hepatitic Saudi princes if they could get away with it. Dividing the working classes up into sub-groups according to race, ethnicity, and so on, and then pitting these sub-groups against each other, is extremely important to the ruling classes, who are, let's remember, a tiny minority of intelligent but physically vulnerable parasites controlling the lives of the vast majority of human beings on the planet Earth, primarily by keeping them ignorant and confused.

The political parties love identity politics because they allow them to conceal the fact that they are bought and paid for by these ruling classes, which, in our day and age, means corporations and a handful of obscenely wealthy oligarchs who would gut you and your kids like trout and sell your organs to the highest bidder if they thought they could possibly get away with it. The political parties employ identity politics to maintain the simulation of democracy that prevents Americans (many of whom are armed) from coming together, forming a mob, dismantling this simulation of democracy, and then attempting to establish an actual democracy, of, by, and for the people, which is, basically, the ruling classes' worst nightmare. The best way to avoid this scenario is to keep the working classes ignorant and confused, and at each other's throats over things like pronouns, white privilege, gender appropriate bathrooms, and the complexion and genitalia of the virtually interchangeable puppets the ruling classes allow them to vote for.

The corporate media, academia, Hollywood, and the other components of the culture industry are similarly invested in keeping the vast majority of people ignorant and confused. The folks who populate this culture industry, in addition to predicating their sense of self-worth on their superiority to the unwashed masses, enjoy spending time with the ruling classes, and reaping the many benefits of serving them and, while most of them wouldn't personally disembowel your kids and sell their organs to some dope-addled Saudi trillionaire scion, they would look the other way while the ruling classes did, and then invent some sort of convoluted rationalization of why it was necessary, in order to preserve democracy and freedom (or was some sort of innocent but unfortunate "blunder," which will never, ever, happen again).

The fake Left loves identity politics because they allow them to pretend to be "revolutionary" and spout all manner of "militant" gibberish while posing absolutely zero threat to the ruling classes they claim to be fighting. Publishing fake Left "samizdats" (your donations to which are tax-deductible), sanctimoniously denouncing racism on Twitter, milking whatever identity politics scandal is making headlines that day, and otherwise sounding like a slightly edgier version of National Public Radio, are all popular elements of the fake Left repertoire.

Marching along permitted parade routes, assembling in designated "free speech areas," and listening to speeches by fake Left celebrities and assorted Democratic Party luminaries, are also well-loved fake Left activities. For those who feel the need to be even more militant, pressuring universities to cancel events where potentially "violent" and "oppressive" speech acts (or physical gestures) might occur, toppling offensive historical monuments, ratting out people to social media censors, or masking up and beating the crap out of "street Nazis" are among the available options. All of these activities, by herding potential troublemakers into fake Left ghettos and wasting their time, both on- and off-line, help to ensure that the ruling classes, their political puppets, the corporate media, Hollywood, and the rest of the culture industry can keep most people ignorant and confused.

Oh, and racists, hardcore white supremacists, anti-Semites, and other far-Right wing nuts my God, do they love identity politics! Identity politics are their entire worldview (or Weltanschauung, for you Nazi fetishists). Virtually every social, political, economic, and ontological phenomenon can be explained by reducing it to race, ethnicity, religion, or some other simplistic criterion, according to these "alt-Right" geniuses. And to render everything even more simplistic, each and every one of their simplistic theories can be subsumed into a meta-simplistic theory, which amounts to (did you guess it?) a conspiracy of Jews.

According to this meta-theory, this conspiracy of Jews (which is headquartered in Israel, but maintains offices in Los Angeles and New York, from which it controls the corporate media, Hollywood, and the entire financial sector) is responsible for well, anything they can think of. September 11 attacks? Conspiracy of Jews. Financial crisis? Jews, naturally. Black on Black crime? Jews again! Immigration? Globalization? Gun control laws? Abortion? Drugs? Media bias? Who else could be behind it all but Jews?!

See, the thing is, there is no essential difference between your identity politics-brainwashed liberal and your Swastika-tattooed white supremacist. Both are looking at the world through the lens of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or some other type of "identity." They are looking through this "identity" lens (whichever one it happens to be) because either they have been conditioned to do so (most likely from the time they were children) or they have made a conscious choice to do so (after recognizing, and affirming or rejecting, whatever conditioning they received as children).

Quantum physicists, Sufi fakirs, and certain other esoterics understand what most of us don't, namely, that there is no such thing as "the Truth," or "Reality," apart from our perception of it. The world, or "reality," or whatever you want to call it, is more than happy to transform itself into any imaginable shape and form, based on the lens you are looking at it through. It's like a trickster in that regard. Look at "reality" through a racist lens, and everything will make sense according to that logic. Look at it through a social justice lens, or a Judeo-Christian lens, or a Muslim lens, or a scientific or a Scientologist lens, or a historical materialist or capitalist lens (it really makes no difference at all) and abracadabra! A new world is born!

Sadly, most of us never reach the stage in our personal (spiritual?) development where we are able to make a conscious choice about which lens we want to view the world through. Mostly, we stick with the lens we were originally issued by our families and societies. Then we spend the rest of our fleeting lives desperately insisting that our perspective is "the Truth," and that other perspectives are either "lies" or "errors." The fact that we do this is unsurprising, as the ruling classes (of whatever society we happened to be born and socialized into) are intensely invested in issuing everyone a "Weltanschauung lens" that corresponds to whatever narrative they are telling themselves about why they deserve to be the ruling classes and we deserve to exist to serve them, fight their wars, pay interest on their loans, not to mention rent to live on the Earth, which they have claimed as their own and divided up amongst themselves to exploit and ruin, which they justify with "laws" they invented, which they enforce with armies, police, and prisons, which they teach us as children to believe is "just the way life is" but I digress.

So, who doesn't love identity politics? Well, I don't love identity politics. But then I tend to view political events in the context of enormous, complex systems operating beyond the level of the individuals and other entities such systems comprise. Thus I've kind of been keeping an eye on the restructuring of the planet by global capitalism that started in the early 1990s, following the collapse of the U.S.S.R., when global capitalism (not the U.S.A.) became the first globally hegemonic system in the history of aspiring hegemonic systems.

Now, this system (i.e., capitalism, not the U.S.A), being globally hegemonic, has no external enemies, so what it's been doing since it became hegemonic is aggressively destabilizing and restructuring the planet according to its systemic needs (most notably in the Middle East, but also throughout the rest of the world), both militarily and ideologically. Along the way, it has encountered some internal resistance, first, from the Islamic "terrorists," more recently, from the so-called "nationalists" and "populists," none of whom seem terribly thrilled about being destabilized, restructured, privatized, and debt-enslaved by global capitalism, not to mention relinquishing what remains of their national sovereignty, and their cultures, and so on.

I've been writing about this for over two years , so I am not going to rehash it all in detail here (this essay is already rather long). The short version is, what we are currently experiencing (i.e., Brexit, Trump, Italy, Hungary, et cetera, the whole "populist" or "nationalist" phenomenon) is resistance (an insurgency, if you will) to hegemonic global capitalism, which is, essentially, a values-decoding machine, which eliminates "traditional" (i.e., despotic) values (e.g., religious, cultural, familial, societal, aesthetic, and other such non-market values) and replaces them with a single value, exchange value, rendering everything a commodity.

The fact that I happen to be opposed to some of those "traditional" values (i.e., racism, anti-Semitism, oppression of women, homosexuals, and so on) does not change my perception of the historical moment, or the sociopolitical, sociocultural, and economic forces shaping that moment. God help me, I believe it might be more useful to attempt to understand those forces than to go around pointing and shrieking at anyone who doesn't conform to my personal views like the pod people in Invasion of the Body Snatchers .

But that's the lens I choose to look through. Maybe I've got it all assbackwards. Maybe what is really going on is that Russia "influenced" everyone into voting for Brexit and Donald Trump, and hypnotized them all with those Facebook ads into hating women, people of color, transsexuals, and the Jews, of course, and all that other "populist" stuff, because the Russians hate us for our freedom, and are hell-bent on destroying democracy and establishing some kind of neo-fascist, misogynist, pseudo-Atwoodian dystopia. Or, I don't know, maybe the other side is right, and it really is all a conspiracy of Jews transsexual, immigrant Jews of color, who want to force us all to have late-term abortions and circumcise our kids, or something.

I wish I could help you sort all that out, but I'm just a lowly political satirist, and not an expert on identity politics or anything. I'm afraid you'll have to pick a lens through which to interpret "reality" yourself. But then, you already have, haven't you or are you still looking through the one that was issued to you?

C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .

[Oct 08, 2018] The Left-Wing Rage Machine by Rod Dreher

Oct 08, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Along those lines, a female reader of this blog left this comment on a thread about Alexis Grenell's shocking New York Times op-ed denouncing "white women" for worrying that their sons, brothers, and fathers might be falsely accused of rape. Grenell, who is a white woman, lambasted them over what she calls a "blood pact between white men and white women." My reader commented

Many white women have, in fact, made a kind of "blood pact" with white men: we call it "family" in saner times. The expectation that abstract loyalty to any random person who shares one's gender should override one's loyalty to their actual fathers, brothers, husbands, and sons (as well as their actual mothers, sisters, and daughters) is profoundly sad.

With more and more fatherless homes and very small families, I wonder how many women go through life with no tight, enduring, loving, secure bonds with a father, husband, brother, or son. Family is where these bonds that transcend individual identity can form. But if your marriage can be dissolved for no reason, even the most primary bonds are insecure. Without that, it's just tribe vs. tribe.

It is worth considering that many of these hysterical activists really do despise the family, and are eager to see families turn on each other over politics. Consider this tweet, from the senior art critic at New York magazine:

me frameborder=

Come gather round people wherever you roam & shun any republican family member you have. Until this president is gone. You don't need to tell that family member that you are shunning them. Just stand up for your country very close to home. Make it hurt for both of you. Rise. Rise

-- Jerry Saltz (@jerrysaltz) October 7, 2018

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Anyone -- left-wing or right-wing -- who would turn their back on a family member over the family member's politics is a disgrace. I have family members and good friends with whom I disagree strongly on politics. Anybody who tries to come between us can go to hell.


Pete from Baltimore October 8, 2018 at 1:57 pm

This may seem trivial to some. But I canthelp but notice that whenever there is a photo of one of these kind of protests,at least 1/4 to a third of the protesters are taking "Selfies" of themselves

Maybe its because im 50 years old. .Maybe im an old fogie . But it really strikes me how immature and narcissistic most of these protesters seem .

Its like the NYT op/ed that Mr Dreher linked to yesterday. I may disagree with much of what Paul Krugman writes.But at least he writes like an adult . The NYT op/ed that Mr Dreher linked to reads like it was written by a 16 year old high school student

Pete from Baltimore , says: October 8, 2018 at 2:21 pm
Ive long thought that those surrounded by those that they agree with , tend to not be good at debating. For instance, a liberal that lives in a conservative part of Mississippi, is probably good at debating.Whereas a liberal tht lives in Berkley CA probably has never had to learn how to acutaly debate someone

The same goes for conservatives. Mostof the conservatives that I have met in Baltimore tend to be good at debating.Because they need to be.They cant simply state a conservative position and just sit back while everyone around them agrees with them

I think that the problem with liberalism nowdays is that a liberal is far more likely to be surrounded by liberal media and liberal pop culture. To be in a "bubble" a conservative has to restrict themselves to only watching FoxNews and reading the WSJ.And they pretty much have to tune out almost all modern American pop culture.And if they go to college, they have to go to Liberty University

All a liberal has to do in order to be in a bubble is to watch mainstream media and read mainstream newspapers[like the NYT] and they just have to go to their local college and watch and listen to mainstream pop culture

It didn't used to be this way.When I was growing up in the 1970s and 80s, igrew up in extremely liberal areas. And the liberals that I knew were very good at discussing politics. Nowdays the liberals that I know[and there are many in Baltimore] just repeat and giggle about, some joke that Samantha Bee told about Republicans. The older liberals that I know are able to discuss politics.But the younger liberals really cant seem to discuss things in any kind of adult manner. Since they really seem to have never heard any disagreeing viewpoints

Stephen J. , says: October 8, 2018 at 2:05 pm
An example perhaps at link below.
-- -- -- -- --
The Party of Screaming Women
Robert Stacy McCain
October 8, 2018, 12:39 am
https://spectator.org/the-party-of-screaming-women/

[Oct 08, 2018] What an Audacious Hoax Reveals About Academia

Notable quotes:
"... Scholarship based less upon finding truth and more upon attending to social grievances has become firmly established, if not fully dominant, within these fields, and their scholars increasingly bully students, administrators, and other departments into adhering to their worldview. ..."
"... This worldview is not scientific, and it is not rigorous. For many, this problem has been growing increasingly obvious, but strong evidence has been lacking. For this reason, the three of us just spent a year working inside the scholarship we see as an intrinsic part of this problem." ..."
"... We spent that time writing academic papers and publishing them in respected peer-reviewed journals associated with fields of scholarship loosely known as "cultural studies" or "identity studies" (for example, gender studies) or "critical theory" because it is rooted in that postmodern brand of "theory" which arose in the late sixties. ..."
Oct 08, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Dr. Buddy Tubside , Oct 8, 2018 3:41:22 AM | link

What an Audacious Hoax Reveals About Academia

Three scholars wrote 20 fake papers using fashionable jargon to argue for ridiculous conclusions.

Harvard University's Yascha Mounk writing for The Atlantic:

"Over the past 12 months, three scholars -- James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, and Peter Boghossian -- wrote 20 fake papers using fashionable jargon to argue for ridiculous conclusions, and tried to get them placed in high-profile journals in fields including gender studies, queer studies, and fat studies. Their success rate was remarkable


Sokal Squared doesn't just expose the low standards of the journals that publish this kind of dreck, though. It also demonstrates the extent to which many of them are willing to license discrimination if it serves ostensibly progressive goals.

This tendency becomes most evident in an article that advocates extreme measures to redress the "privilege" of white students.

Exhorting college professors to enact forms of "experiential reparations," the paper suggests telling privileged students to stay silent, or even BINDING THEM TO THE FLOOR IN CHAINS

If students protest, educators are told to "take considerable care not to validate privilege, sympathize with, or reinforce it and in so doing, recenter the needs of privileged groups at the expense of marginalized ones. The reactionary verbal protestations of those who oppose the progressive stack are verbal behaviors and defensive mechanisms that mask the fragility inherent to those inculcated in privilege."

In an article for Areo magazine, the authors of the hoax explain their motivation: "Something has gone wrong in the university -- especially in certain fields within the humanities.

Scholarship based less upon finding truth and more upon attending to social grievances has become firmly established, if not fully dominant, within these fields, and their scholars increasingly bully students, administrators, and other departments into adhering to their worldview.

This worldview is not scientific, and it is not rigorous. For many, this problem has been growing increasingly obvious, but strong evidence has been lacking. For this reason, the three of us just spent a year working inside the scholarship we see as an intrinsic part of this problem."

We spent that time writing academic papers and publishing them in respected peer-reviewed journals associated with fields of scholarship loosely known as "cultural studies" or "identity studies" (for example, gender studies) or "critical theory" because it is rooted in that postmodern brand of "theory" which arose in the late sixties.

As a result of this work, we have come to call these fields "grievance studies" in shorthand because of their common goal of problematizing aspects of culture in minute detail in order to attempt diagnoses of power imbalances and oppression rooted in identity.

We undertook this project to study, understand, and expose the reality of grievance studies, which is corrupting academic research.

Because open, good-faith conversation around topics of identity such as gender, race, and sexuality (and the scholarship that works with them) is nearly impossible, our aim has been to reboot these conversations.''

To read more, see Areo magazine + "academic grievance studies and the corruption of scholarship"

[Oct 08, 2018] It Was All Made Up, It Was Fabricated Trump Says Kavanaugh Victim Of Democrat Hoax

Oct 08, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

President Trump said that Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh was the victim of a Democrat Hoax, and that allegations of sexual assault levied by multiple women were "all made up" and "fabricated."

In comments made to reporters on the White House driveway, Trump addressed rumors that the Democrats will investigate and attempt to impeach Kavanaugh if they regain control over the House or Senate during midterms.

"So, I've been hearing that now they're thinking about impeaching a brilliant jurist -- a man that did nothing wrong, a man that was caught up in a hoax that was set up by the Democrats using the Democrats' lawyers -- and now they want to impeach him," said Trump.

The President then suggested that the attacks on Kavanaugh will bring conservatives to the polls for midterms:

"I think it's an insult to the American public," said Trump. "The things they said about him -- I don't even think he ever heard of the words. It was all made-up. It was fabricated. And it's a disgrace. And I think it's going to really show you something come November sixth."

[Oct 08, 2018] Civil War Two Looms As Deep State Circles The Wagons by James Kunstler

Notable quotes:
"... It's a matter of record that Dr. Ford traveled to Rehobeth Beach Delaware on July 26, where her Best Friend Forever and former room-mate, Monica McLean, lives, and that she spent the next four days there before sending a letter July 30 to Senator Diane Feinstein that kicked off the "sexual assault" circus. ..."
"... The Democratic Party has its fingerprints all over this, as it does with the shenanigans over the Russia investigation. Not only do I not believe Dr. Ford's story; I also don't believe she acted on her own in this shady business. ..."
Oct 08, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Authored by James Howard Kunstler via Kunstler.com

What's happening with all these FBI and DOJ associated lawyers is an obvious circling of the wagons. They've generated too much animus in the process and they're going to get nailed..."

Aftermath As Prologue

"I believe her!"

Really? Why should anyone believe her?

Senator Collins of Maine said she believed that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford experienced something traumatic, just not at the hands of Mr. Kavanaugh. I believe Senator Collins said that to placate the #Metoo mob, not because she actually believed it. I believe Christine Blasey Ford was lying, through and through, in her injured little girl voice, like a bad imitation of Truman Capote.

I believe that the Christine Blasey Ford gambit was an extension of the sinister activities underway since early 2016 in the Department of Justice and the FBI to un-do the last presidential election, and that the real and truthful story about these seditious monkeyshines is going to blow wide open.

It turns out that the Deep State is a small world.

Did you know that the lawyer sitting next to Dr. Ford in the Senate hearings, one Michael Bromwich, is also an attorney for Andrew McCabe, the former FBI Deputy Director fired for lying to investigators from his own agency and currently singing to a grand jury?

What a coincidence. Out of all the lawyers in the most lawyer-infested corner of the USA, she just happened to hook up with him.

It's a matter of record that Dr. Ford traveled to Rehobeth Beach Delaware on July 26, where her Best Friend Forever and former room-mate, Monica McLean, lives, and that she spent the next four days there before sending a letter July 30 to Senator Diane Feinstein that kicked off the "sexual assault" circus. Did you know that Monica McClean was a retired FBI special agent, and that she worked in the US Attorney's office for the Southern District of New York under Preet Bharara, who had earlier worked for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer? Could Dr. Ford have spent those four days in July helping Christine Blasey Ford compose her letter to Mrs. Feinstein? Did you know that Monica McClean's lawyer, one David Laufman is a former DOJ top lawyer who assisted former FBI counter-intel chief Peter Strozk on both the Clinton and Russia investigations before resigning in February this year -- in fact, he sat in on the notorious "unsworn" interview with Hillary in 2016. Wow! What a really small swamp Washington is!

Did you know that Ms. Leland Keyser, Dr. Ford's previous BFF from back in the Holton Arms prep school, told the final round of FBI investigators in the Kavanaugh hearing last week -- as reported by the The Wall Street Journal -- that she "felt pressured" by Monica McLean and her representatives to change her story -- that she knew nothing about the alleged sexual assault, or the alleged party where it allegedly happened, or that she ever knew Mr. Kavanaugh. I think that's called suborning perjury.

None of this is trivial and the matter can't possibly rest there. Too much of it has been unraveled by what remains of the news media. And meanwhile, of course, there is at least one grand jury listening to testimony from the whole cast-of-characters behind the botched Hillary investigation and Robert Mueller's ever more dubious-looking Russian collusion inquiry: the aforementioned Strozk, Lisa Page, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Bill Priestap, et. al. I have a feeling that these matters are now approaching critical mass with the parallel unraveling of the Christine Blasey Ford "story."

The Democratic Party has its fingerprints all over this, as it does with the shenanigans over the Russia investigation. Not only do I not believe Dr. Ford's story; I also don't believe she acted on her own in this shady business. What's happening with all these FBI and DOJ associated lawyers is an obvious circling of the wagons. They've generated too much animus in the process and they're going to get nailed. These matters are far from over and a major battle is looming in the countdown to the midterm elections. In fact, op-ed writer Charles M. Blow sounded the trumpet Monday morning in his idiotic column titled: Liberals, This is War . Like I've been saying: Civil War Two.


Dickweed Wang , just now link

Blasey-Ford happens to work at Palo Alto University, which is the west coast HQ for the left wing feminist movement in the US. Here's a good video by a woman professor from Canada that blows the lid off the entire conspiracy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFL6k5yOAFM

OccamsCrazor , 1 minute ago link

the DEMS, THE CIA, and THE DOJ in particular are up to their rotten stinking eyesballs in this collusion crap...

Chupacabra-322 , 4 minutes ago link

Civil War pits brother against brother...

dirty fingernails , 37 seconds ago link

Nope, the people are so fragmented and full of disinfo and propaganda that they actually think the other peons are the real problem. While we peons slaughter each other for having different opinions on the privileged predator class spokespeople, they hop into the private planes and disappear.

Unbelievabubble , 5 minutes ago link

Gotta love The Kunst. A great distillation of the state of things. This is getting serious folks.

ATTILA THE WIMP , 17 minutes ago link

I actually fought in a civil war, the one in the former Yugoslavia. They are like wildfires that can not be controlled but must burn until the fuel is consumed...

[Oct 08, 2018] The common folk never had control of the Federal Government.

Notable quotes:
"... At the time the eligible voters were males of European descent (MOED), and while not highly educated they were relatively free of propaganda and IQ's were higher than today. After giving women the right to vote and with other minorities voting the MOED became a minority voter. ..."
"... So today with propaganda and education being what it is, not to mention campaign financing laws especially post Citizen United, and MSM under control of 6 companies, the entire voting class is miseducated and easily influenced to vote for candidates chosen by the elites ..."
"... The founders who incited the revolution against British rule were the American Elites (also British citizens) who wanted more. The elites today got everything they want. They have no need for revolution. The common folk are divided, misinformed, unorganized, leaderless and males are emasculated. Incapable of taking control peacefully or otherwise. ..."
"... This was the high-tariff-era and the budget surplus was an issue all through the balance of the 19th Century. So what were the politics about? 1. Stirring stump (Trump) speeches were all about "waving the bloody shirt" ..."
"... In my view of the fundamental dynamic - namely that of history being one unbroken story of the rich exploiting the poor - representative government is one of the greatest achievements of the poor. If we could only get it to work honestly, and protect it from the predations of the rich. This is a work in progress. It forms just one aspect of millennia of struggle. To give up now would be madness. ..."
Oct 08, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

Pft , Oct 8, 2018 12:11:11 AM | 43 k

The constitution was a creation of the elite at the time, the property class. Its mission was to prevent the common folk from having control. Democracy=mob rule= Bad.

The common folk only had the ability to elect representatives in the house, who in turn would elect Senators. Electors voted for President and they were appointed by a means chosen by the state legislature , which only in modern times has come to mean by the popular vote of the common folk. Starting from 1913 it was decided to let the common folk vote for Senator and give the commonfolk the illusion of Democracy confident they could be controlled with propaganda and taxes (also adopted in 1913 with the Fed)

At the time the eligible voters were males of European descent (MOED), and while not highly educated they were relatively free of propaganda and IQ's were higher than today. After giving women the right to vote and with other minorities voting the MOED became a minority voter.

Bernays science of propaganda took off during WWI, Since MOED's made up the most educated class (relative to minorities and women) up to the 70's this was a big deal for almost 60 years , although not today when miseducation is equal among the different races, sexes and ethnicities.

So today with propaganda and education being what it is, not to mention campaign financing laws especially post Citizen United, and MSM under control of 6 companies, the entire voting class is miseducated and easily influenced to vote for candidates chosen by the elites

So how do the common folk get control over the federal government? That is a pipe dream and will never happen. The founders who incited the revolution against British rule were the American Elites (also British citizens) who wanted more. The elites today got everything they want. They have no need for revolution. The common folk are divided, misinformed, unorganized, leaderless and males are emasculated. Incapable of taking control peacefully or otherwise.

Thats just my opinion

Guerrero , Oct 8, 2018 1:03:57 AM | link

Pft has a point. If there was ever a time for the people to take the republic into its hands, it may have been just after the Civil War when the Dems were discredited and the Repubs had a total control of Congress.

This was the high-tariff-era and the budget surplus was an issue all through the balance of the 19th Century. So what were the politics about? 1. Stirring stump (Trump) speeches were all about "waving the bloody shirt"

All manner of political office-seekers devoted themselves to getting on the government gravy train, somehow. The selling of political offices was notorious and the newspaper editors of the time were ashamed of this.

Then there was the Whiskey Ring. The New York Customs House was a major source of corruption lucre. Then there was vote selling in blocks of as many as 10,000 and the cost of paying those who could do this. Then there were the kickbacks from the awards of railroad concessions which included large parcels of land. If there ever was a Golden Age of the United States it must have been when Franklin Roosevelt was President.

ben , Oct 8, 2018 1:13:04 AM | link

karlof1 @ 34 asked:"My question for several years now: What are us Commonfolk going to do to regain control of the federal government?"

The only thing us "common folk" can do is work within our personal sphere of influence, and engage who you can, when you can, and support with any $ you can spare, to support the sites and any local radio stations that broadcast independent thought. ( if you can find any). Pacifica radio, KPFK in LA is a good example. KPFA in the bay area.

Other than another economic crash, I don't believe anything can rouse the pathetic bovine public. Bread and circuses work...

Grieved , Oct 8, 2018 1:13:32 AM | link
@38 Pft

The division of representative power and stake in the political process back at the birth of the US Constitution was as you say it was. But this wasn't because any existing power had been taken away from anyone. It was simply the state of play back then.

Since that time, we common people have developed a more egalitarian sense of how the representation should be apportioned. We include former slaves, all ethnic groups and both genders. We exclude animals thus far, although we do have some - very modest - protections in place.

I think it has been the rise of the socialist impulse among workers that has expanded this egalitarian view, with trade unions and anti-imperialist revolutions and national struggles. But I'm not a scholar or a historian so I can't add details to my impression.

My point is that since the Framers met, there has been a progressive elevation of our requirements of representative government. I think some of this also came from the Constitution itself, with its embedded Bill of Rights.

I can't say if this expansion has continued to this day or not. History may show there was a pinnacle that we have now passed, and entered a decline. I don't know - it's hard to say how we score the Internet in this balance. It's always hard to score the present age along its timeline. And the future is never here yet, in the present, and can only ever be guessed.

In my view, the dream of popular control of representative government remains entirely possible. I call it an aspiration rather than a pipe dream, and one worth taking up and handing on through the generations. Current global society may survive in relatively unbroken line for millennia to come. There's simply no percentage in calling failure at this time.

It may be that better government comes to the United States from the example of the world nations, over the decades and centuries to come. Maybe the demonstration effect will work on us even when we cannot work on ourselves. We are not the only society of poor people who want a fair life.

In my view of the fundamental dynamic - namely that of history being one unbroken story of the rich exploiting the poor - representative government is one of the greatest achievements of the poor. If we could only get it to work honestly, and protect it from the predations of the rich. This is a work in progress. It forms just one aspect of millennia of struggle. To give up now would be madness.

In my opinion.

dh-mtl , Oct 8, 2018 2:34:39 AM | link
Grieved @42 said:

"representative government is one of the greatest achievements of the poor. If we could only get it to work honestly, and protect it from the predations of the rich. This is a work in progress. It forms just one aspect of millennia of struggle. To give up now would be madness."

Here, here! I fully agree with you.

In my opinion, representative government was stronger in the U.S. from the 1930's to the 1970's and Europe after WW2. And as a result the western world achieved unprecedented prosperity. Since 1980, the U.S. government has been captured by trans-national elites, who, since the 1990's have also captured much of the political power in the EU.

Both Europe and the U.S. are now effectively dictatorships, run by a trans-national elite. The crumbling of both is the result of this dictatorship.

Prosperity, and peace, will only return when the dictators are removed and representative government is returned.

Krollchem , Oct 8, 2018 2:42:16 AM | link
dh-mtl@44

"Both Europe and the U.S. are now effectively dictatorships, run by a trans-national elite. The crumbling of both is the result of this dictatorship."

Exactly!! I feel like the Swedish knight Antonius Block in the movie the 7th Seal. There does not seem any way out of this evil game by the death dealing rulers.

Anton Worter , Oct 8, 2018 3:06:04 AM | link
@24

Love it. But you fad3d at the end. It was Gingrich, not Rodham, who was behind Contract on America, and GHWBush's Fed Bank group wrote the legislation that would have been Bush's second term 'kinder, gentler' Gramm-Leach-Bliley bayonet up the azs of the American Dream, as passed by a majority of Congress, and by that point Tripp and Lewinski had already pull-dated Wild Bill. God, can you imagine being married to that hag Rodham? The purple people-eating lizards of Georgetown and Alexandria. Uurk.

Anton Worter , Oct 8, 2018 3:34:05 AM | link
40

¿Que tal?

I'm reading a great FDR book, 'Roosevelt and Hopkins', a signed 1st Ed copy by Robert Sherwood, and the only book extant from my late father's excellent political and war library, after his trophy wife dumped the rest of his library off at Goodwill, lol. They could have paid for her next booblift, ha, ha, ha.

Anyway, FDR, in my mind, only passed the populist laws that he did because he needed cannon fodder in good fighting shape for Rothschild's Wars ("3/4ths of WW2 conscripts were medically unfit for duty," the book reports), and because Rothschild's and Queens Bank of London needed the whole sh*taco bailed out afterward, by creating SS wage-withholding 'Trust Fund' (sic) the Fed then tapped into, and creating Lend-Lease which let Rothschilds float credit-debt to even a higher level and across the globe. Has it all been paid off by Germany and Japan yet?

Even Lincoln, jeez, Civil War was never about slavery, it was about finance and taxation and the illegitimate Federal supremacy over the Republic of States, not unlike the EU today. Lincoln only freed the slaves to use them as cannon fodder and as a fifth column.

All of these politicians were purple people-eating lizards, except maybe the Kennedy's, and they got ground and pounded like Conor McGregor, meh?

Guerrero | Oct 8, 2018 10:22:34 AM | 61

@BM | Oct 8, 2018 10:03:12 AM | 60

"representative government is one of the greatest achievements of the poor. If we could only get it to work honestly, and protect it from the predations of the rich. This is a work in progress. It forms just one aspect of millennia of struggle. To give up now would be madness."

Compare to: Sentiments of the Nation:

12º That as the good Law is superior to every man, those dictated by our Congress must be such, that they force constancy and patriotism, moderate opulence and indigence; and in such a way increase the wages of the poor, improve their habits, moving away from ignorance, rapine and theft.

13º That the general laws include everyone, without exception of privileged bodies; and that these are only in the use of the ministry..

14º That in order to dictate a Law, the Meeting of Sages is made, in the possible number, so that it may proceed with more success and exonerate of some charges that may result.

15. That slavery be banished forever, and the distinction of castes, leaving all the same, and only distinguish one American from another by vice and virtue.

16º That our Ports be open to friendly foreign nations, but that they do not enter the nation, no matter how friendly they may be, and there will only be Ports designated for that purpose, prohibiting disembarkation in all others, indicating ten percent.

17º That each one be kept his property, and respect in his House as in a sacred asylum, pointing out penalties to the offenders.

18º That the new legislation does not admit torture.

19º That the Constitutional Law establishes the celebration of December 12th in all Peoples, dedicated to the Patroness of our Liberty, Most Holy Mary of Guadalupe, entrusting to all Peoples the monthly devotion.

20º That the foreign troops, or of another Kingdom, do not step on our soil, and if it were in aid, they will not without the Supreme Junta approval.

21º That expeditions are not made outside the limits of the Kingdom, especially overseas, that they are not of this kind yet rather to spread the faith to our brothers and sisters of the land inside.

22º That the infinity of tributes, breasts and impositions that overwhelm us be removed, and each individual be pointed out a five percent of seeds and other effects or other equally light weight, that does not oppress so much, as the alcabala, the Tobacconist, the Tribute and others; because with this slight contribution, and the good administration of the confiscated goods of the enemy, will be able to take the weight of the War, and pay the fees of employees.

Temple of the Virgen of the Ascencion
Chilpancingo, September 14, 1813.
José Mª Morelos.

23º That also be solemnized on September 16, every year, as the Anniversary day on which the Voice of Independence was raised, and our Holy Freedom began, because on that day it was in which the lips of the Nation were deployed to claim their rights with Sword in hand to be heard: always remembering the merit of the great Hero Mr. Don Miguel Hidalgo and his companion Don Ignacio Allende.

Answers on November 21, 1813. And therefore, these are abolished, always being subject to the opinion of S. [u] A. [alteza] S. [very eminent]

[Oct 08, 2018] American Caesar Tucker Carlson's Conservative Revolution by Jake Bowyer

Notable quotes:
"... Donald Trump Is Shocking, Vulgar and Right ..."
"... And, my dear fellow Republicans, he's all your fault, ..."
"... verboten ..."
"... Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution. ..."
"... Well, Ship of Fools ..."
"... Explicit in this critique of America's Ruling Class is the fact that democracies are unstable and prone to self-destruction. In modern America, the elite do not attend to the population, cynical race-mongering is used to win votes at the cost of internal peace, and chicken hawks like Max Boot and William Kristol still receive adulation in the Main Stream Media despite their disastrous record of cheering on military misadventures that kill thousands of Americans. (To say nothing of their fanatical opposition to Trump -- despite the fact that he won the presidency when their catspaws McCain and Romney ignominiously failed). Ship of Fools ..."
"... Jake Bowyer [ Email him ] is the pseudonym of an American college student. ..."
Oct 08, 2018 | www.unz.com
Jake Bowyer October 3, 2018

Since the late fall of 2016, Democrats and other Leftist types have been decrying President Donald J. Trump as "not normal" and a "threat to democracy." Of course, this is hogwash of the most rank sort. The same people lambasting Trump for his supposed " authoritarianism " are the same people who have created the modern American oligarchy. Tucker Carlson , the popular Fox News who wrote the single most brilliant and prescient Main Stream Media article on the Trump phenomenon: Donald Trump Is Shocking, Vulgar and Right | And, my dear fellow Republicans, he's all your fault, by Tucker Carlson, Politico, January 28, 2016.

That was written before, let it be noted, Trump's double-digit triumph in the New Hampshire primary -- has continued to speak verboten things . Now he takes aim at America's oligarchic class in his just-released book Ship of Fools: How a Selfish Ruling Class Is Bringing America to the Brink of Revolution.

For Carlson, moral and social rot in the United States starts at the very top -- the place where Democrats and Republicans https://vdare.com/posts/they-want-to-lose-gop-congress-sounds-retreat-on-border-wall-funds-democratic-priorities to maintain unpopular elite rule. Carlson compares this American elite to blind drunk captains steering a sinking ship. Making matters worse: the fact that, in keeping with Carlson's nautical parallel, "Anyone who points out the consequences of what they're [the elite] doing gets keelhauled." Gavin McInnes (banned from Twitter ) and Alex Jones (banned from everything ) would agree.

Ship of Fools is no apology for Trumpism. Indeed, Carlson calls Trump "vulgar and ignorant." But he rightly points out that Trump "didn't invade Iraq or bail out Wall Street. He didn't lower interest rates to zero, or open the borders, or sit silently by as the manufacturing sector collapsed and the middle class died." Basically, Donald J. Trump is not your average American politician. Thank God.

For much of Ship of Fools , Carlson comes off sounding like someone with his heart in the center-left. Some cheeky Twitter users might even dub Carlson's latest book National Bolshevism.

Why? Well, Ship of Fools excoriates finance capitalism and the class that has constantly reaped economic benefits out of the labor of American workers without contributing anything of substance to the American body politic. The Democrats used to be the party of populist rabble rousers like Huey Long and Al Smith.

But Carlson points out that "the Democratic Party is now the party of the rich." Rather than attacking mega-wealthy people like Amazon's Jeff Bezos or Apple's Tim Cook , the modern American Left is completely in thrall to money and corporate power. This hurts every American not in the upper income bracket.

Republicans are no better. They remain wedded to the idea of being the party of business, and as such many Republican elected officials support Open Borders because that would provide their donors with an endless supply of cheap labor. This support comes at the cost of angering a majority of Republican voters.

In sum, both parties have given up on the native-born American workers. And, beginning in 2016, American workers began pushing back at the ballot box.

Ship of Fools is a bleak book. It is also much better than the usual fluff penned (or signed) by Fox News pundits. Carlson tells uncomfortable truths and engages with topics that until very recently were only considered fit for the fringe Right (like VDARE.com ).

Take for instance the displacement of white Americans, especially white working-class Americans. America is a nation of 200 million white people. Native-born whites pay more in taxes, provide the majority of America's soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen, and are the offspring of the people who built this country. For this hard work and loyalty, foreign-born editors at the New York Times tweet "#CancelWhitePeople." Hordes of Antifa types cheer on the displacement of native-born whites, while the political elite do nothing to combat rising drug overdose deaths and suicides in the Midwest, rural Northeast, and South. As Carlson warns, " White identity politics will be a response to a world in which identity politics is the only game there is."

And, as anti-white vitriol increases and whites are demoted from majority status, Carlson predicts that white interest groups will form and flex their muscles when they feel that their backs are up against the wall.

At several points in Ship of Fools , Carlson sincerely grieves for the lost Liberal-Left of his childhood. He misses the environmentalists who cared about littering, not about some abstract thing called climate change. He misses those Leftists who cried about injustice in the world rather than ranting and raving at the behest of the elite class. Without an honest Left, America could further descend into corporate anarcho-tyranny -- a place where businesses control free speech and only a small sliver of people enjoy the benefits of the modern and high-tech economy.

Ship of Fools ends with a warning: either practice democracy or be prepared for authoritarian rule.

"In order to survive, democracies must remain egalitarian," Carlson argues."When all the spoils seem to flow upward, the majority will revolt in protest."

Explicit in this critique of America's Ruling Class is the fact that democracies are unstable and prone to self-destruction. In modern America, the elite do not attend to the population, cynical race-mongering is used to win votes at the cost of internal peace, and chicken hawks like Max Boot and William Kristol still receive adulation in the Main Stream Media despite their disastrous record of cheering on military misadventures that kill thousands of Americans. (To say nothing of their fanatical opposition to Trump -- despite the fact that he won the presidency when their catspaws McCain and Romney ignominiously failed). Ship of Fools correctly notes that this is what an empire looks like in its final days.

In this sense the elites may be right to characterize President Trump as a populist. After all, Julius Caesar gave the common man order, security, and bread in the face of a cold and sterile system. By attempting to dismantle the elite consensus, Trump, Trumpism , and America First may just be the first entries in a new age of all-American Caesarism.

We should only be so lucky!

Jake Bowyer [ Email him ] is the pseudonym of an American college student.

KenG , says: October 7, 2018 at 6:36 am GMT

I enjoyed the book immensely even though I'm a socialist myself. Tucker's disdain for wars, technology companies, and the ruling class are a breath of fresh air. I also enjoy his show but I do wish he wouldn't talk over the guests he disagrees with.
AlreadyPublished , says: October 7, 2018 at 4:39 am GMT
There must be a reason why people like j g strijdom and curmudgeon, with their slimy unsubstantiated charges, despise Tucker Carlson. I suspect it is this:

[Oct 08, 2018] It has been ALLEGED that Christine Blasey Ford is a psychologist in the CIA's undergraduate internship program at Stanford. I checked her Stanford profiles and it was scrubbed clean but in place .

Notable quotes:
"... Equally troubling is the family history alleged to be connected to that stellar three letter agency. The dad is alleged to be a long time contractor for the agency running building management, security, and executive protection company's that service the office sites of the highest levels of these types of agencies. These items are easily researched out. That includes personal security for all the major players in the anti Trump wing of the state. ..."
"... It is alleged that her brother, Ralph Blasey 3rd, worked for the law firm that represented Fusion GPS who was behind the phony anti Trump dossier paid for by the DNC. ..."
"... All in all, IF TRUE (and some of this does appear true), it confirms my THEORY. The CIA backed Hillary and the military backed Trump. ..."
Oct 08, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

dltravers , Oct 7, 2018 1:12:39 PM | link

The Kavanaugh circus was a sad spectacle. His wife was Bush's personal secretary. The Democrats used the grievance culture because that is all they have. Focusing on abortion and grievances keeps the public stirred up and diverts attention from some other very serious very troubling issues that they are cashing out on.

It has been ALLEGED that Christine Blasey Ford is a psychologist in the CIA's undergraduate internship program at Stanford. I checked her Stanford profiles and it was scrubbed clean but in place .

Snopes has worked hard to discredit the allegations that came out on some websites that are a bit crazy but the information is interesting. She MAY well have been the intake psychologist for this program. Then again, maybe not. She was doing work at Stanford and the scope of that work is not fully known.

Equally troubling is the family history alleged to be connected to that stellar three letter agency. The dad is alleged to be a long time contractor for the agency running building management, security, and executive protection company's that service the office sites of the highest levels of these types of agencies. These items are easily researched out. That includes personal security for all the major players in the anti Trump wing of the state.

https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=6846922&privcapId=4395750&previousCapId=30029621&previousTitle=American%2520DG%2520Energy%2520Inc.

It is alleged that her brother, Ralph Blasey 3rd, worked for the law firm that represented Fusion GPS who was behind the phony anti Trump dossier paid for by the DNC.

While this information came out on some crazy websites SOME of it can be confirmed. Who else is going to publish this? CNN?

All in all, IF TRUE (and some of this does appear true), it confirms my THEORY. The CIA backed Hillary and the military backed Trump.


james , Oct 7, 2018 1:21:55 PM | link

@4 dltravers.. i think your theory has a lot of merit.. "The CIA backed Hillary and the military backed Trump." whatever is going on in the usa, it seems to be coming apart at the seams..
karlof1 , Oct 7, 2018 2:19:27 PM | link
dltravers @4--

Yes, CIA backed HRC since WJC was their boy from the time he attended the school of foreign service at Georgetown where he was recruited, which is how he got his law degree and was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship. The CIA has either had its own people as POTUS or controlled them via other means since late November 1963. Trump isn't one of them, thus the virulent opposition and collaboration to undermine his office. Now it looks like he's under control, but with Trump you never can tell.

Greece , Oct 7, 2018 6:45:29 PM | link
Just talking to myself mostly...
If CIA backed HRC, and US Military backed Trump, and of course the israeli's, (read The Mossad) also backed Trump, then it means that US Military and The Mossad go hand in hand in Global Theater Operations, since they didn't (apparently) trusted CIA enough? Or is it that what we see here is actually just The Mossad doing some moar extortion operations so they get stuff from the CIA or also the Military transferred over to israeli control?
The Brazil elections if the rightwingers (read fascists) win I bet will be a rainfall for israel, since, there you go, full country in upheaval, letaves you with great opportunities to go sell your 5G and your smart dust and let the government keep every dissident in check, without having to relly on third parties (Google/Apple/Microsoft - the bad guys full of chinese chips.) that won't play with you along (israel). So they get to have their first own little country (80 million?) to play with their new tech, and if you count that rgentina is now back at the IMF, you just add the coiuntries now, from North to South: USA + Brazil + Argentina, that's almost the entire Americas (minus Mexico and Canada, (but I gues uncle Trump will make Mexican's comes to their senses with the Wall right?) That's not bad of a "Market" of a lil country with merely 7 million people like Israel and it's "start up" companies, right? No wonder Mossad doesn't like CIA now. They (retired vets?) took out too much of their (could be) market share, right?

Am I right or am I right as they say in Texas?

[Oct 08, 2018] Sic Semper Tyrannis The mask slips off Appointing judges is just as political as electing them

Oct 08, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

The mask slips off: Appointing judges is just as political as electing them Kavanaugh_rove

By Robert Willmann

On Friday, 5 October, the U.S. Senate voted on whether to end unlimited debate and the possibility of a filibuster on the Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, through a vote on "cloture", the gimmick allowing Senators to do a filibuster or stop one, without actually having to stand up and filibuster.

Shortly after Supreme Court Judge Anthony Kennedy announced on 27 June 2018 that he would be leaving the court, we discussed here on SST the fact that former president Obama, former Democratic Democratic majority leader Harry Reid, current minority "leader" Charles Schumer, and Senate Democrats muscled through a new "interpretation" of the Senate rules that allowed a vote on cloture to require only a simple majority instead of 60 votes, for federal district trial court and court of appeals judges, and other presidential appointees; but for supreme court nominees, 60 votes were still required at that time [1]. This allowed the Obama administration to push through nominees easier.

But when Donald Trump was elected president, the vacancy on the supreme court after the death of Antonin Scalia remained. Trump appointed Neil Gorsuch. A cloture vote was demanded to end debate on Gorsuch and to proceed to a final up or down vote. But the vote was not successful and did not get the required 60 votes. The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, then followed up on what he said when the Democrats changed the filibuster rule: "You'll regret this, and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think". He did what Harry Reid had done, and with the slight Republican majority, reinterpreted the Senate filibuster rule to remove the 60-vote requirement for supreme court nominees. The Democrats could hardly effectively protest, as they had unclean hands from their own prior actions. A second cloture vote was taken on Gorsuch, and it passed, since only a simple majority was required. On the subsequent final vote, he was confirmed. Had Obama et. al. not been greedy and arrogant, the monkey would have been on the back of the Republicans about changing the filibuster rule, and I think it is likely that McConnell would not have changed it. The dynamic in confirming supreme court justices appointed by Trump would have been dramatically different.

When the Kavanaugh nomination was made, the Democrats again did not think past the end of their noses, and tried to block him through a three act play with an accusation of sexual misconduct made by Christine Blasey Ford. Two more accusations then conveniently showed up, along with obviously coached "protesters". But with no real supporting evidence, the entire approach began publicly to implode on itself, and behind the scenes, enough votes were put together to confirm Kavanaugh's appointment.

[Oct 08, 2018] We Are All Deplorables Now by Patrick J. Buchanan

Notable quotes:
"... "'Thirty-six years ago this happened. I had one beer.' 'Right?' 'I had one beer.' 'Well, you think it was (one beer)?' 'Nope, it was one beer.' 'Oh, good. How did you get home?'" ..."
"... 'I don't remember.' 'How did you get there?' 'I don't remember.' 'Where is the place?' 'I don't remember.' 'How many years ago was it?' 'I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.'" ..."
"... Ford was handled by the judiciary committee with the delicacy of a Faberge egg, said Kellyanne Conway, while Kavanaugh was subjected to a hostile interrogation by Senate Democrats. ..."
Oct 08, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

... ... ...

Four days after he described Christine Blasey Ford, the accuser of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, as a "very credible witness," President Donald Trump could no longer contain his feelings or constrain his instincts.

With the fate of his Supreme Court nominee in the balance, Trump let his "Make America Great Again" rally attendees in Mississippi know what he really thought of Ford's testimony.

"'Thirty-six years ago this happened. I had one beer.' 'Right?' 'I had one beer.' 'Well, you think it was (one beer)?' 'Nope, it was one beer.' 'Oh, good. How did you get home?'"

'I don't remember.' 'How did you get there?' 'I don't remember.' 'Where is the place?' 'I don't remember.' 'How many years ago was it?' 'I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.'"

By now the Mississippi MAGA crowd was cheering and laughing.

Trump went on: "'What neighborhood was it in?' 'I don't know.' 'Where's the house?' 'I don't know.' 'Upstairs, downstairs, where was it?' 'I don't know. But I had one beer. That's the only thing I remember.'"

Since that day three years ago when he came down the escalator at Trump Tower to talk of "rapists" crossing the U.S. border from Mexico, few Trump remarks have ignited greater outrage.

Commentators have declared themselves horrified and sickened that a president would so mock the testimony of a victim of sexual assault.

The Republican senators who will likely cast the decisive votes on Kavanaugh's confirmation -- Jeff Flake, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski -- they all decried Trump's mimicry.

Yet, in tossing out the "Catechism of Political Correctness" and treating the character assassination of Kavanaugh as what it was, a rotten conspiracy to destroy and defeat his nominee, Trump's instincts were correct, even if they were politically incorrect.

This was not a "job interview" for Kavanaugh.

In a job interview, half the members of the hiring committee are not so instantly hostile to an applicant that they will conspire to criminalize and crush him to the point of wounding his family and ruining his reputation.

When Sen. Lindsey Graham charged the Democratic minority with such collusion, he was dead on. This was a neo-Bolshevik show trial where the defendant was presumed guilty and due process meant digging up dirt from his school days to smear and break him.

Our cultural elites have declared Trump a poltroon for daring to mock Ford's story of what happened 36 years ago. Yet, these same elites reacted with delight at Matt Damon's "SNL" depiction of Kavanaugh's angry and agonized appearance, just 48 hours before.

Is it not hypocritical to laugh uproariously at a comedic depiction of Kavanaugh's anguish, while demanding quiet respect for the highly suspect and uncorroborated story of Ford?

Ford was handled by the judiciary committee with the delicacy of a Faberge egg, said Kellyanne Conway, while Kavanaugh was subjected to a hostile interrogation by Senate Democrats.

In our widening and deepening cultural-civil war, the Kavanaugh nomination will be seen as a landmark battle. And Trump's instincts, to treat his Democratic assailants as ideological enemies, with whom he is in mortal struggle, will be seen as correct.

Consider. In the last half-century, which Supreme Court nominees were the most maligned and savaged?

Were they not Nixon nominee Clement Haynsworth, chief judge of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, Reagan nominee Robert Bork, Bush 1 nominee Clarence Thomas, and Trump nominee Brett Kavanaugh, the last three all judges on the nation's second-highest court, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals?

Is it a coincidence that all four were Republican appointees, all four were judicial conservatives, and all four were gutted on the grounds of philosophy or character?

Is it a coincidence that Nixon in Watergate, Reagan in the Iran-Contra affair, and now Trump in Russiagate, were all targets of partisan campaigns to impeach and remove them from office?

Consider what happened to decent Gerald Ford who came into the oval office in 1974, preaching "the politics of compromise and consensus."

To bring the country together after Watergate, Ford pardoned President Nixon. For that act of magnanimity, he was torn to pieces by a Beltway elite that had been denied its anticipated pleasure of seeing Nixon prosecuted, convicted and sentenced to prison.

Trump is president because he gets it. He understands what this Beltway elite are all about -- the discrediting of his victory as a product of criminal collusion with Russia and his resignation or removal in disgrace. And the "base" that comes to these rallies to cheer him on, they get it, too.

Since Reagan's time, there are few conservatives who have not been called one or more of the names in Hillary Clinton's litany of devils, her "basket of deplorables" -- racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic, bigoted, irredeemable.

The battle over Kavanaugh's nomination, and the disparagement of the Republicans who have stood strongest by the judge, seems to have awakened even the most congenial to the new political reality.

We are all deplorables now.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the recent book, Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.

[Oct 08, 2018] What amazes me throughout this is that Dianne Feinstein, who is the true villain in this piece, has been given a pass by all sides

Oct 08, 2018 | www.theamericanconservative.com

Clyde Schechter October 6, 2018 a t 11:49 am

What amazes me throughout this is that Dianne Feinstein, who is the true villain in this piece, has been given a pass by all sides. She had the Ford accusations in hand for weeks, but sat on them. She could have passed them on to the FBI much earlier, and there would have been adequate time for a thorough, professional, credible investigation of the accusations. Perhaps that investigation would have been as inconclusive as the one that was ultimately done. But it would have been done in an unhurried, and dignified manner. Nobody need have been publicly humiliated. Nobody need have been dragged into Congress to testify reluctantly, in public, about a painful episode in her life. And, more importantly, the investigation, having been done in the normal course of background investigation, would have had credibility–nobody would have called it a whitewash. And the resulting confirmation, or not, of Kavanaugh would have ultimately been accepted by most people as legitimate.

Feinstein had the ability to make that happen, but she chose instead to sit on this until the last minute when, surely she knew, it would unleash a sh**storm.

Her excuse that she was protecting Ford's privacy holds no water at all. A regular FBI investigation could have been conducted discretely: they know how to keep things confidential when they want to. Moreover, take a look at Feinstein's abysmal voting record on surveillance: she doesn't respect anybody's privacy, ever.

Feinstein is a disgrace to California and to the United States. I'm certainly voting for her opponent, and I hope everybody else will, too.

Pete from Baltimore , says: October 6, 2018 at 12:01 pm
I think that from the very beginning this Court Nomination has been about the midterm election. The Democrats never really expected to be bale to stop Kavvanaugh.But they figured that they could use anger against him in order to get out their "base" in November

In the end, both parties will probably get their "Base" out to vote.But there is going to be a lot of wrecked human lives left behind because of this sad,sordid battle

[Oct 08, 2018] From the start, the Democrats' opposition to Kavanaugh was never intended to block his nomination. The Democrats fundamentally agree with Kavanaugh's right-wing views. Kavanaugh had a voting record similar to that of Merrick Garland, whom the Democratic Party attempted to elevate to the Supreme Court in 2016. but was blocked by the Republicans.

Oct 08, 2018 | crookedtimber.org

likbez 10.07.18 at 2:59 am ( 9 )

Two quotes:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/05/us/politics/susan-collins-speech-brett-kavanaugh.html

Some of the allegations levied against Judge Kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of innocence is so important. I am thinking in particular not of the allegations raised by Professor Ford, but of the allegation that, when he was a teenager, Judge Kavanaugh drugged multiple girls and used their weakened state to facilitate gang rape.

This outlandish allegation was put forth without any credible supporting evidence and simply parroted public statements of others. That such an allegation can find its way into the Supreme Court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of innocence is so ingrained in our American consciousness.


The facts presented do not mean that Professor Ford was not sexually assaulted that night – or at some other time – but they do lead me to conclude that the allegations fail to meet the "more likely than not" standard. Therefore, I do not believe that these charges can fairly prevent Judge Kavanaugh from serving on the Court.

-Sen. Susan Collins

Supreme
Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh clears crucial hurdle to confirmation
By Eric London, World Socialist Web Site; 6 October 2018

With Kavanaugh on the court, the composition of the body will reflect the domination of the financial oligarchy over the political process like never before. Four of the nine justices will have been nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote (George W. Bush and Donald Trump). Including the two nominated by Clinton, six of the justices will have been nominated by presidents who received less than 50 percent of votes.
The Democratic Party opposed Kavanaugh not because of his political record as a supporter of torture, deportation, war and attacks on the rights of the working class, but based on uncorroborated, 36-year-old allegations of sexual assault that became the sole focus of the confirmation process.

From the start, the Democrats' opposition to Kavanaugh was never intended to block his nomination. The Democrats fundamentally agree with Kavanaugh's right-wing views. They offer no principled opposition to his hostility to the right to abortion, which the Democratic Party has abandoned as a political issue.

In an editorial board statement Friday, the New York Times signaled that the Democratic Party's opposition to Kavanaugh was not based on political differences with Trump's nominee. The newspaper even encouraged Trump to replace Kavanaugh with an equally reactionary justice, as long as the person nominated had not been accused of assault:

"President Trump has no shortage of highly qualified, very conservative candidates to choose from, if he will look beyond this first, deeply compromised choice," the Times wrote.

The right-wing character of the Democratic Party's opposition to Kavanaugh was hinted at by Republican Senator Susan Collins, who spoke from the Senate floor Friday afternoon to defend her decision to vote for Kavanaugh. At the appellate level, Collins said, Kavanaugh had a voting record similar to that of Merrick Garland, whom Barack Obama and the Democratic Party attempted to elevate to the Supreme Court in 2016. Garland's nomination was blocked by the Republicans.

Garland and Kavanaugh served together on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Collins explained, and voted together in 93 percent of cases. They joined one another's opinions 96 percent of the time. From 2006, one of the two judges dissented from an opinion written by the other only once.

In the end, each party has gotten what it wanted out of the process. The Republicans secured the confirmation of their nominee, while the Democrats succeeded in creating a new "narrative" leading up to the midterm elections, which are a month away.

nikbez 10.07.18 at 3:22 am ( 10 )
ph 10.07.18 at 1:20 am (5)

Changing the rules, talks of changing the constitution, and the status of the SC because Dems can't find a positive message, or a positive candidate, or persuade the candidate to recognize and reach out to voters the Democratic party abandoned, reeks of defeatism and worse.

Exactly.

Clinton neoliberals (aka soft neoliberals) still control the Democratic Party but no longer can attract working-class voters. That's why they try "identity wedge" strategy trying to compensate their loss with the rag tag minority groups.

Their imperial jingoism only makes the situation worse. Large swaths of the USA population, including lower middle class are tired of foreign wars and sliding standard of living. They see exorbitant military expenses as one of the causes of their troubles.

That's why Hillary got a middle finger from several social groups which previously supported Democrats. And that's why midterm might be interesting to watch as there is no political party that represents working class and lower middle class in the USA.

"Lesser evil" mantra stops working when people are really angry at the ruling neoliberal elite.

As Slavoj Žižek aptly said " To paraphrase Stalin: They are both worse." ( http://inthesetimes.com/features/zizek_clinton_trump_lesser_evil.html _

Nick Caldwell 10.07.18 at 5:05 am ( 14 )
"ph" is one of the more subtle Concern Trolls I've seen, I'll give them that.

Reactionaries need to be more afraid that their relentlessly tightening grip on every single lever of power will lead inexorably to the most bloodthirsty correction in human history. It's not something anyone would wish for, but what's the realistic alternative? American elites are just too stupid to enact the kind of sophisticated authoritarian controls that might stave off total collapse.

[Oct 07, 2018] There Was No Debate When We Needed One by Paul Craig Roberts

As b wrote in Moon of Alabama blog: "The anti-Kavanaugh strategy by the Democratic Party leadership was an utter failure. They could have emphasized his role in the Patriot Act, the Bush torture regime and his earlier lies to Congress to disqualify him. Instead they used the fake grievance culture against him which allowed Trump to do what he does best - wield victimhood (vid, recommended).
Notable quotes:
"... The Democrats and their feminist allies failed the country in their approach to the Kavanaugh hearing. Instead of finding out whether Kavanaugh believes in the unitary executive theory that the president has powers unaccountable to Congress and the Judiciary and agrees that a Justice Department underling, a Korean immigrant, can write secret memos that permit the president to violate the US Constitution, US statutory law, and international treaties, the Democrats' entire focus was on a vague and unsubstantiated accusation that Kavanaugh when 17 years old and under the influence of alcohol tussled fully clothed with a fully clothed 15 year old girl in a bed at an unchaperoned house party. ..."
"... Feminists turned this vague accusation missing in crucial details into "rape," with a crazed feminist Georgetown University professor declaring Kavanaugh to be "a serial rapist" who along with the Senate Judiciary Committee's male members should be given agonizing deaths and then castrated and fed to swine. ..."
"... A presstitute at USA Today suggested that Kavanaugh was a pedophile and should not be allowed to coach his daughter's sports team. On the basis of nothing real, a Supreme Court nominee's reputation was squandered. ..."
Oct 07, 2018 | www.unz.com

The Democrats and their feminist allies failed the country in their approach to the Kavanaugh hearing. Instead of finding out whether Kavanaugh believes in the unitary executive theory that the president has powers unaccountable to Congress and the Judiciary and agrees that a Justice Department underling, a Korean immigrant, can write secret memos that permit the president to violate the US Constitution, US statutory law, and international treaties, the Democrats' entire focus was on a vague and unsubstantiated accusation that Kavanaugh when 17 years old and under the influence of alcohol tussled fully clothed with a fully clothed 15 year old girl in a bed at an unchaperoned house party.

Feminists turned this vague accusation missing in crucial details into "rape," with a crazed feminist Georgetown University professor declaring Kavanaugh to be "a serial rapist" who along with the Senate Judiciary Committee's male members should be given agonizing deaths and then castrated and fed to swine.

A presstitute at USA Today suggested that Kavanaugh was a pedophile and should not be allowed to coach his daughter's sports team. On the basis of nothing real, a Supreme Court nominee's reputation was squandered.

There are important issues before the United States having to do with the very soul of the country. They involve constitutional and separation of powers constraints on executive branch powers and the protection of US civil liberty. Important books, such as Charlie Savage's Takeover have been written about the Cheney-Bush successful assault on the principle that the president is accountable under law. Can the executive branch torture despite domestic and international laws against torture? Can the executive branch spy on citizens without warrants and cause, despite laws and constitutional prohibitions to the contrary? Can the executive branch detain citizens indefinitely despite habeas corpus, despite the US Constitution's prohibition? Can the executive branch kill US citizens without due process of law, despite the US Constitution's prohibition? Dick Cheney and University of California law professor John Yoo say "yes the president can."

Instead of using the opportunity to find out if Kavanaugh stood for liberty or unbridled presidential power, feminist harpies indulged in an orgy of man-hate.

And it wasn't just the RadFem harpies. It was the entire liberal/progresive/left which has discredited itself even more than the crazed feminist Georgetown University professor, who, by the way, unlike what would have been required of a heterosexual male, did not have to apologize and was not fired as a male would have been.

There is now a "funding platform" endorsed by liberal/progressive/left websites that claims to have raised $3 million to unseat Senator Susan Collins for voting, after hearing all the scant evidence, to confirm Kavanaugh. Websites such as Commondreams, CounterPunch, OpEdNews are losing their credibility as they mire themselves in divisive Identity Politics in which everyone is innocent except the white heterosexual male. Precisely at the time when Trump's capture by the Zionist neoconservative warmongers needs protests and opposition as the US is being driven to war with Iran, Russia, and China, there is no opposition as the United States dissolves into the hatreds spawned by Identity Politics.

To see how absurd the RadFem/liberal/progressive/left is, let's assume that the vague, unsubstantiated accusation that is 30 to 40 years late against Kavanaugh is true. Let's assume that the encounter of bed tussling occurred. If rape was the intention, why wasn't she raped? I suggest a likely scenario. There is an unchaperoned house party. Alcohol is present. The accuser admits to drinking beer with boys in a house with access to bedrooms. The accused assumes, which would have been a normal assumption in the 1980s, that the girl is available. Otherwise, why is she there? So he tries her, and she is not. So he gives up and lets her go. How is this a serious sexual offense?

Even if the accused had persisted and raped his accuser, how does this crime compare to the enormous extraordinary horrific crimes against humanity resulting in the destruction in whole or part of eight countries and millions of human beings during the Clinton, Cheney-Bush, Obama, and Trump regimes?

There has been no accountability for these obvious and undeniable crimes. Why are not feminists and presidents of Catholic Universities such as Georgetown and Catholic University in Washington, and the Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the US media, and the liberal/progressive/left websites concerned about real crimes instead of make-believe ones? What has happened to our country that nothing that really matters ever becomes part of public notice?

US administrations have not only murdered, maimed, orphaned, and dislocated millions of totally innocent human beings, but also the evil and corrupt US government, protected by the presstitute media, which is devoid of character and integrity, has tortured in violation of United States law hundreds of innocents sold to it under the US bounty system in Afghanistan, when the Cheney-Bush regime desperately needed "terrorists" to justify its war based on nothing but its lies.

All sorts of totally innocent people were tortured by sadistic US government personnel who delighted in making people under their power suffer. These were unprotected people picked up by war lords in response to Washington's offer of a bounty for "terrorists" and sold to the Americans. The victims included aid workers, traveling salesmen, unprotected visitors, and others who lacked protection from being misrepresented as "terrorists" in order to be sold for $5,000 so that Dick Cheney and the criminal Zionist neocons would have some "terrorists" to show to justify their war crime.

ORDER IT NOW

The utterly corrupt US media was very reticent about telling Americans that close to 100% of the "world's most dangerous terrorists," in the words of the criminal US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, were released as innocent of all

[Oct 06, 2018] The Lesser Evil: Slavoj i ek on Clinton, Trump and the Left's Dilemma by Slavoj Žižek

Kind of "disaster politics" if we take analogy with "disaster capitalism": if you are dissatisfied with the direction of the country you need to vote for the "more evil" candidate not the "less evil" to create the possibility of positive changes in the future.
Stalin phrase "They are both worse" now have anew interesting meaning.
Notable quotes:
"... When Stalin was asked in the late 1920s which deviation is worse, the Rightist one or the Leftist one, he snapped back: They are both worse! ..."
"... With such a choice, one should not lose ones nerve and chose the "worst," which means change -- even if is a dangerous change -- because it opens up the space for a different more authentic change. ..."
"... The point is to approach coldly the question: Whose victory is better ..."
"... while advocating concern for the misery of ordinary people, he effectively promotes a brutal neoliberal agenda that includes tax breaks for the rich, further deregulation, etc., etc. ..."
"... The Road to Wigan Pier ..."
"... Hillary Clinton: The Goldman Sachs Speeches ..."
Oct 06, 2018 | inthesetimes.com

This, exactly, is how citizens should act when faced with the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. When Stalin was asked in the late 1920s which deviation is worse, the Rightist one or the Leftist one, he snapped back: They are both worse! Is it not the same with the choice American voters are confronting in the 2016 presidential elections? Trump is obviously "worse." He enacts a decay of public morality. He promises a Rightist turn. But he at least promises a change. Hillary is "worse" since she makes changing nothing look desirable.

With such a choice, one should not lose ones nerve and chose the "worst," which means change -- even if is a dangerous change -- because it opens up the space for a different more authentic change.

The point is thus not to vote for Trump -- not only should one not vote for such a scum, one should not even participate in such elections. The point is to approach coldly the question: Whose victory is better for the fate of the radical emancipatory project, Clinton's or Trump's?

Trump wants to make America great again, to which Obama responded that America already is great. But is it? Can a country in which a person like Trump has a chance of becoming president be really considered great? The dangers of a Trump presidency are obvious: he not only promises to nominate conservative judges to the Supreme Court; he mobilized the darkest white-supremacist circles and openly flirts with anti-immigrant racism; he flouts basic rules of decency and symbolizes the disintegration of basic ethical standards; while advocating concern for the misery of ordinary people, he effectively promotes a brutal neoliberal agenda that includes tax breaks for the rich, further deregulation, etc., etc.

Trump is a vulgar opportunist, yet he is still a vulgar specimen of humanity (in contrast to entities like Ted Cruz or Rick Santorum whom I suspect of being aliens).

What Trump is definitely not is a successful productive and innovative capitalist -- he excels at getting into bankruptcy and then making the taxpayers cover up his debts.

... ... ...

Second, the fact remains that Trump draws support from the same rage out of which Bernie Sanders mobilized his partisans. The majority of his supporters view him as the anti-establishment candidate. And one should never forget that popular rage is by definition free-floating and can be re-directed. Liberals who fear the Trump victory are not really afraid of a radical Rightist turn. What they are really afraid of is actual radical social change. To repeat Robespierre, they admit (and are sincerely worried about) the injustices of our social life, but they want to cure them with a "revolution without revolution" (in exact parallel to today's consumerism which offers coffee without caffeine, chocolate without sugar, beer without alcohol, multiculturalism without conflict, etc.): a vision of social change with no actual change, a change where no one gets really hurt, where well-meaning liberals remain cocooned in their safe enclaves. Back in 1937, George Orwell in The Road to Wigan Pier wrote:

We all rail against class-distinctions, but very few people seriously want to abolish them. Here you come upon the important fact that every revolutionary opinion draws part of its strength from a secret conviction that nothing can be changed.

Orwell's point is that radicals invoke the need for revolutionary change as a kind of superstitious token that should achieve the opposite, i.e., prevent the only change that really matters, the change in those who rule us, from occurring. Who really rules in the United States? Can we not already hear the murmur of secret meetings where members of the financial and other "elites" are negotiating about the distribution of the key posts in the Clinton administration? To get an idea how this negotiations in the shadows work, it suffices to read the John Podesta emails or Hillary Clinton: The Goldman Sachs Speeches (to appear soon by OR Books with an introduction by Julian Assange).

Hillary's victory would be the victory of a status quo overshadowed by the prospect of a new world war (and Hillary definitely is a typical Democratic cold warrior), a status quo of a situation in which we gradually but inevitably slide towards ecological, economic, humanitarian and other catastrophes. That's why I consider Ian Steinman's "Leftist" critique of my position extremely cynical. He writes:

Yet while we can do little to predict how the pieces will fall, we know that to intervene in a crisis the left must be organized, prepared and with support among the working class and oppressed. We can not in any way endorse the vile racism and sexism which divides us and weakens our struggle. We must always stand on the side of the oppressed, and we must be independent, fighting for a real left exit to the crisis. Even if Trump causes a catastrophe for the ruling class, it will also be a catastrophe for us if we have not laid the foundations for our own intervention.

True, the left "must be organized, prepared and with support among the working class and oppressed" -- but in this case, the question should be: Which candidate's victory would contribute more to the organization of the Left and its expansion? Isn't it clear that Trump's victory would have "laid the foundations for our own intervention" much more than Hillary's?

Yes, there is a great danger in Trump's victory, but the Left will be mobilized only through such a threat of catastrophe. If we continue the inertia of the existing status quo, there will for sure be no Leftist mobilization. To quote the poet Hoelderlin: "Only where there is danger the saving force is also rising."

In the choice between Clinton and Trump, neither "stands on the side of the oppressed," so the real choice is: abstain from voting or choose the one who, worthless as s/he is, opens up a greater chance of unleashing a new political dynamics which can lead to massive Leftist radicalization. Think about Trump's anti-establishment supporters who would be unavoidably upset with Trump's presidency. Some of them would have to turn towards Sanders in order to find an outlet for their rage. Think about the disappointed mainstream Democrats who would have seen how Clinton's centrist strategy failed to win even against an extreme figure like Trump. The lesson they would learn would be that sometimes, to win, the strategy of "we are all together" doesn't work and we should instead introduce a radical division.

Many poor voters claim Trump speaks for them. How can they recognize themselves in the voice of a billionaire whose speculations and failures are one of the causes of their misery? Like the paths of god, the paths of ideology are mysterious. When Trump supporters are denounced as "white trash," it is easy to discern in this designation the fear of the lower classes so characteristic of the liberal elite.

The title and subtitle of a Guardian report of a recent Trump electoral meeting puts it this way: "Inside a Donald Trump rally: good people in a feedback loop of paranoia and hate. Trump's crowd is full of honest and decent people -- but the Republican's invective has a chilling effect on fans of his one-man show." But how did Trump become the voice of so many "honest and decent" people? Trump single-handedly ruined the Republican Party, antagonizing both the old party establishment and the Christian fundamentalists -- what remains as the core of his support are the bearers of the populist rage versus the establishment, and this core is dismissed by liberals as the "white trash" -- but are they not precisely those that should be won over to the radical Leftist cause (this is what Bernie Sanders was able to do).

One should rid oneself of the false panic, fearing the Trump victory as the ultimate horror which makes us support Clinton in spite of all her obvious shortcomings. Although the battle seems lost for Trump, his victory would have created a totally new political situation with chances for a more radical Left -- or, to quote Mao: "Everything under heaven is in utter chaos; the situation is excellent."

Slavoj Zizek, a Slovenian philosopher and psychoanalyst, is a senior researcher at the the Institute for Humanities, Birkbeck College, University of London. He has also been a visiting professor at more than 10 universities around the world. Žižek is the author of many books, including Living in the End Times, First As Tragedy, Then As Farce, The Year of Dreaming Dangerously and Trouble in Paradise.

[Oct 06, 2018] Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh clears crucial hurdle to confirmation by Eric London

Oct 06, 2018 | www.wsws.org

... ... ...

With Kavanaugh on the court, the composition of the body will reflect the domination of the financial oligarchy over the political process like never before. Four of the nine justices will have been nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote (George W. Bush and Donald Trump). Including the two nominated by Clinton, six of the justices will have been nominated by presidents who received less than 50 percent of votes.

The Democratic Party opposed Kavanaugh not because of his political record as a supporter of torture, deportation, war and attacks on the rights of the working class, but based on uncorroborated, 36-year-old allegations of sexual assault that became the sole focus of the confirmation process.

From the start, the Democrats' opposition to Kavanaugh was never intended to block his nomination. The Democrats fundamentally agree with Kavanaugh's right-wing views. They offer no principled opposition to his hostility to the right to abortion, which the Democratic Party has abandoned as a political issue.

In an editorial board statement Friday, the New York Times signaled that the Democratic Party's opposition to Kavanaugh was not based on political differences with Trump's nominee. The newspaper even encouraged Trump to replace Kavanaugh with an equally reactionary justice, as long as the person nominated had not been accused of assault:

"President Trump has no shortage of highly qualified, very conservative candidates to choose from, if he will look beyond this first, deeply compromised choice," the Times wrote.

The right-wing character of the Democratic Party's opposition to Kavanaugh was hinted at by Republican Senator Susan Collins, who spoke from the Senate floor Friday afternoon to defend her decision to vote for Kavanaugh. At the appellate level, Collins said, Kavanaugh had a voting record similar to that of Merrick Garland, whom Barack Obama and the Democratic Party attempted to elevate to the Supreme Court in 2016. Garland's nomination was blocked by the Republicans.

Garland and Kavanaugh served together on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Collins explained, and voted together in 93 percent of cases. They joined one another's opinions 96 percent of the time. From 2006, one of the two judges dissented from an opinion written by the other only once.

In the end, each party has gotten what it wanted out of the process. The Republicans secured the confirmation of their nominee, while the Democrats succeeded in creating a new "narrative" leading up to the midterm elections, which are a month away.

[Oct 05, 2018] White working class who voted for Trump have been duped so many times. First, when Trump promised us "America First!" Voters, apparently content to trust mere words, have ignored Trump's apparent definition of "America First!" as "America has the right to antagonize Iran and Russia, and launch pointless attacks upon Syria

Notable quotes:
"... Christine Ford is, quite frankly, a distraction from the real intrigue ..."
Oct 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan , says: October 5, 2018 at 2:38 pm GMT

Want to talk about lost memory?

How about this lost memory?

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-decision-nominate-brett-kavanaugh-kennedy-2018-7/

White people who voted for Trump for his Supreme Court list have been duped so many times. First, when Trump promised us "America First!" Voters, apparently content to trust mere words, have ignored Trump's apparent definition of "America First!" as "America has the right to antagonize Iran and Russia, and launch pointless attacks upon Syria." Second, when Trump added Kavanaugh's name to a list of judges after he had gotten into office. Third, when Trump negotiated with scum Anthony Kennedy, who obviously demanded a Kavanaugh nomination in exchange for his retirement.

Christine Ford is, quite frankly, a distraction from the real intrigue: how Donald Trump motivated his base to support a candidate from the elitist wing.

But good luck finding conservatives with the balls to publicly point out the truth: the President we elected has stabbed us in the back with an establishment nomination.

[Oct 05, 2018] It would seem Kavanaugh never encountered a Stasi-style privacy invasion he did not like

I come across information about connection of Kavanauch to Vince Foster before but this is probably the most complete text of what can be called Internet rumor. The suicide has nevertheless continued to fuel speculation: then-presidential candidate Donald Trump made news in 2016 when he remarked in an interview with the Washington Post that Foster's death was "very fishy", and added "I will say there are people who continue to bring it up because they think it was absolutely a murder. I don't do that because I don't think it's fair."
Notable quotes:
"... Praised *dissent* in Roe ..."
"... Criticized Roberts ruling on Obamacare ..."
"... Says sitting POTUS can't be indicted/can fire special counsel whenever he wants ..."
"... Opposes net neutrality ..."
"... Opposes consumer bureau ..."
"... Says assault weapon bans are unconstitutional ..."
"... -- Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) July 10, 2018 ..."
"... " According to this Supreme Court nominee, he thinks it is just fine and dandy for police and government to track you, spy on you, and dig through your personal life -- without a warrant" ..."
"... " According to his wife , security operative Jerry Parks delivers large sums of money from Mena airport to Vince Foster at a K-Mart parking lot. Mrs. Parks discovers this when she opens her car trunk one day and finds so much cash that she has to sit on the trunk to close it again. She asks her husband whether he is dealing drugs, and he allegedly explains that Foster paid him $1,000 for each trip he took to Mena. Parks said he didn't "know what they were doing, and he didn't care to know. He told me to forget what I'd seen"" ..."
"... color of law: n. the claim or appearance of an act based upon constitutional authority via enforcement of statute, when in reality no such constitutional authority exists, e.g. secret FISA courts where the 4th, 5th & 6th Amendments do not apply. ..."
"... "Their judgment was based more upon blind wishing than upon any sound pre-vision; for it is a habit of mankind to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not fancy" ..."
"... A former Special Forces Sergeant of Operations and Intelligence, Ronald Thomas West is a retired investigator (living in exile) whose work focus had been anti-corruption. Ronald is published in International Law as a layman (The Mueller-Wilson Report, co-authored with Dr Mark D Cole) and has been adjunct professor of American Constitutional Law at Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany (for English credit, summer semester 2008.) Ronald's Western educational background (no degree) is social psychology. His therapeutic device is satire. ..."
Jul 10, 2018 | ronaldthomaswest.com

Kavanaugh.jpg - 1

Kavanaugh:

-- Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) July 10, 2018

[Oct 05, 2018] I thought the Judge was too angry, whining, and evasive, when he could have been much more precise and pointed in his responses.

Oct 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

alexander , says: October 5, 2018 at 4:26 pm GMT

@anonymous I agree, it is a big circus.

Both sides seem to be interested in the truth , only in so far as it serves their respective political agenda's. Nothing more.

I was not particularly impressed with the testimony from either Judge Kavanaugh or Dr. Ford.

I thought the Judge was too angry , whining, and evasive, when he could have been much more precise and pointed in his responses. I was not a big fan of the "calendar"story (true or not) nor his responses to an FBI investigation.

... ... ...

[Oct 05, 2018] Sex, Lies and Privilege The Kavanaugh Case

Notable quotes:
"... The use of identity politics by establishment Democrats to obscure a violent and hegemonic foreign policy has led many clear-minded people to conflate the very real problem of sexual assault, with a liberal Democratic agenda, says Joe Lauria. ..."
Oct 05, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

By Joe Lauria

October 2, 2018 • 240 Comments

The use of identity politics by establishment Democrats to obscure a violent and hegemonic foreign policy has led many clear-minded people to conflate the very real problem of sexual assault, with a liberal Democratic agenda, says Joe Lauria.

... ... ...

(SEN. SHELDON) WHITEHOUSE (D-RI): So the vomiting that you reference in the Ralph Club reference, related to the consumption of alcohol?

KAVANAUGH : Senator, I was at the top of my class academically, busted my butt in school. Captain of the varsity basketball team. Got in Yale College. When I got into Yale College, got into Yale Law School. Worked my tail off.

... ... ...

In earlier testimony in September, Kavanaugh appeared the model of judicial restraint and non-partisanship. On Thursday he dropped all the pretenses.

" This whole two-week effort has been a calculated and orchestrated political hit," he said, "fueled with apparent pent-up anger about President Trump and the 2016 election, fear that has been unfairly stoked about my judicial record, revenge on behalf of the Clintons and millions of dollars in money from outside left-wing opposition groups."

" This is a circus," Kavanaugh said. "The consequences will extend long past my nomination. The consequences will be with us for decades." He then issued what can only be seen as a threat: "And as we all know, in the United States political system of the early 2000s, what goes around comes around."

The judge's outburst unleashed an attack from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) on Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA), the ranking member of the opposition party.

" I hope the American people can see through this sham," Graham screamed. "This is going to destroy the ability of good people to come forward because of this crap If you vote no, you're legitimizing the most despicable thing I have seen in my time in politics."

... ... ...

Francis Boyle, an international law professor at the University of Illinois, said :

" Contrary to the mantra that the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have it in for Kavanaugh, they've largely let him off the hook on a number of critical issues, instead favoring theatrics."

"While there's substantial attention being paid to the serious charges of sexual assault by Kavanaugh, there's been very little note that he is a putative war criminal. Specifically, recently released documents show that while Kavanaugh worked for the George W. Bush administration, one of the people he attempted to put on the judiciary was John Yoo, who authored many of the justifications for torture that came out of the Bush administration."


O Society , October 4, 2018 at 8:08 am

Kavanaugh's career as a Republican legal operative and judge supporting the power of corporations, the security state, and abusive foreign policy should have been put on trial. The hearings could have provided an opportunity to confront the security state, use of torture, mass spying, and the domination of money in politics and oligarchy as he has had an important role in each of these.

Brett Kavanaugh is a douchebag who lacks the political, emotional, and moral grounding to be a Supreme Court Justice.

Sifting , October 3, 2018 at 11:55 pm

It's clear that most commentators here didn't read Anastasia's recommendation above about Ford's friends, FBI connections, and substantiated lies:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/10/03/christine-blasey-ford-friend-in-delaware-was-career-fbi-agent-and-likely-together-during-accusation-letter-construct/comment-page-3/

backwardsevolution , October 4, 2018 at 1:38 am

Sifting – I read it, and it was very interesting indeed. Ms. Ford needs to be investigated. She has yet to hand over to the Senate Judiciary Committee her therapist notes and the information they wanted re her polygraph test.

Her former boyfriend of six years has said that she was never claustrophobic, was not afraid of tight spaces, flew often, even on small planes, he witnesssed her help her friend prepare for a polygraph test with the FBI, and, although the reporter did not want to talk about it, it appears that her sexual relationships were not hampered by this alleged Kavanaugh groping.

Sounds like her FBI friend may have helped draft the letter to Senator Feinstein. Many questions to be answered by Ms. Ford.

irina , October 4, 2018 at 12:37 pm

I found the 'flying around the Hawai'ian Islands in a propeller plane' to be
rather telling. This activity could probably be easily corroborated by family
or friends or even old postcards, receipts, etc. If anything is designed to
make a person feel 'trapped' (in more ways than one), a prop plane ranks
right up there. Her 'fear of flying' (interesting reference to Erica Jong as well !)
seems to me to be extremely selective.

Sandra Villarreal , October 3, 2018 at 11:47 pm

EVERYONE'S behavior during this Kavanaugh/Ford circus was deplorable. Made for a nice distraction though didn't it. Christine Blasey Ford deserves an award for her performance, because that's all it was – acting. She's a disgrace to all women who have 'really' been raped, many violently, including myself. And we certainly don't reach out 36 years later to profit from our traumatic experience. Gofundme: Help Christine Blasey Ford $528,475 raised of $150,000. Donald Trump and our entire Government is a joke, a laughing stock for the entire world to see. It doesn't get much more disgusting than this. Oh but wait, it will.

robjira , October 3, 2018 at 5:46 pm

As was pointed out in this article (and thanks to Mr. Lauria for re-emphasising the point), Kavanaugh already had plenty of factors against his suitability for the Supreme Court; mainly his being an enthusiastic war monger and an accessory to war crimes (not to mention the appearance of judicial corruption). Rather than focusing on these salient issues, Democrats resorted to the burlesque now on display. It is distressing that otherwise insightful posters to these boards are getting caught up in the partisan theatre which, once again, has proven to be highly effective in keeping the citizenry divided against itself while the usual criminals continue to laugh our collective way to either thermonuclear or ecological apocalypse.

xeno , October 3, 2018 at 6:14 pm

Bridget , October 4, 2018 at 12:51 am

"Rather than focusing on these salient issues, Democrats resorted to the burlesque now on display."

That's because the Democrats are equally guilty of war crimes and war mongering. There's no partisanship when it comes to grinding under the corporate boot.

Why is it that the Republicans aren't shouting about Ukraine's collusion with the DNC to benefit Hillary Clinton? [And they did, succeeding in ruining Manafort, and birthing the Trump/Russia narrative.] Could it be that the Republicans are just as eager to demonize Russia, that they need an enemy to justify their war economy? Trump is expendable. Their real target is Putin. They'd like to replace him with Khodarkovsky so they can once more rape Russia as they did in the 1990's.

anastasia , October 3, 2018 at 3:24 pm

A part of the coup vs. Trump?

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/10/03/christine-blasey-ford-friend-in-delaware-was-career-fbi-agent-and-likely-together-during-accusation-letter-construct/comment-page-3/

The polygrrapher was also a retired FBI agent. Done in Delaware where the letter to Feinstein was written, and where Monica McClean lived?

xeno , October 3, 2018 at 5:08 pm

That link anastasia posted is well worth a few minutes – take a look people, it may alter how you look at this Kavanaugh thing.

jean , October 3, 2018 at 5:48 pm

Even MSNBC is reporting about it ..

Christine Blasey Ford's Credibility Under New Attack by Senate Republicans

WASHINGTON -- Senate Republicans are stepping up efforts to challenge Christine Blasey Ford's credibility by confronting her with a sworn statement from a former boyfriend who took issue with a number of assertions she made during testimony before the Judiciary Committee last week.

The former boyfriend told the Judiciary Committee that he witnessed Dr. Blasey helping a friend prepare for a possible polygraph examination, contradicting her testimony under oath. Dr. Blasey, a psychology professor from California who also goes by her married name Ford, was asked during the hearing whether she had "ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test." She answered, "Never."

"I witnessed Dr. Ford help McLean prepare for a potential polygraph exam," the man said in the statement. "Dr. Ford explained in detail what to expect, how polygraphs worked and helped McLean become familiar and less nervous about the exam."

He added that she never told him about a violent encounter with Judge Kavanaugh. "It strikes me as odd it never came up in our relationship," Mr. Merrick told the newspaper. "But I would never try to discredit what she says or what she believes." "During our time dating, Dr. Ford never brought up anything regarding her experience as a victim of sexual assault, harassment, or misconduct," he wrote. "Dr. Ford never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh."

Mr. Merrick took issue with Dr. Blasey's professed fear of flying and of confined spaces, noting that they once traveled around the Hawaiian islands in a propeller plane. "Dr. Ford never indicated a fear of flying," he wrote. "To the best of my recollection Dr. Ford never expressed a fear of closed quarters, tight spaces, or places with only one exit."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/christine-blasey-ford%E2%80%99s-credibility-under-new-attack-by-senate-republicans/ar-BBNSOBF?ocid=spartanntp

xeno , October 3, 2018 at 1:47 pm

I wonder if the Toxic Cloud State (aka deep state) couldn't find anything relevant against the nominee in the 10+ years of private comm data they have on him (and on all of us), or do they favor him, despite being a Trump nominee, because of his not caring about the 4th Amendment?

Something to think about.

Brian , October 3, 2018 at 5:39 pm

You want something to think about ? If there's nothing damming about this nominee, why did the committee withhold 100,000 pages of information about him ? Or why you support a nominee for the highest court in the land who lies at the drop of a hat (2 that can be proven with his last conformation hearing) ?

xeno , October 3, 2018 at 6:30 pm

Here's what I think – that this is an attempt to destroy someone with an accusation – it's about the power to do that.

If he can proven to have lied in his last confirmation hearing, then why isn't that what they're using to defeat him, instead of an unsupported accusation from 35 yrs ago. There's good reason to believe this accusation is part of a well planned conspiracy and is full of holes.

I think you should read this
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/10/03/christine-blasey-ford-friend-in-delaware-was-career-fbi-agent-and-likely-together-during-accusation-letter-construct/comment-page-3/

I think his lack of support of the 4th amendment is itself a good enough reason to reject his nomination instead of this feminist liberal attempt to destroy someone with an accusation.

I think there's EVIDENCE plainly available to defeat him. Defeating him on the basis of an accusation is what they're trying because that suits what this really about – the power to destroy with an emotionalized accusation. That's power that undermine the law, politics, everyday ethical behavior and normal humn relationships.

Rob , October 3, 2018 at 7:12 pm

That about sums it up. We're making fools of ourselves to the world.

Herman , October 3, 2018 at 9:19 am

Very selective in your judgement.

Smear, malign, ridicule a man, then when he succumbs emotionally smear him for not being able to control his emotions. Not a bad strategy. Attacking him because of his performance, even as a teenager for goodness sake, and finding that was likely to fail, the enemies of what they think he represents have attacked his emotional stability.

Having said that, I think Cavanaugh could have used some coaching before he rightly attacked his accusers on the Committee. He. being human, I can sympathize with his attack but his attackers are a cold and cunning lot and they finally found something they could use to do what they wanted, to keep a Trump nominee off the Court.

That Trump will be willing to throw him under the bus is not beyond imagining.

As to Ms. Ford, however useful she was, she will suffer from the continuing glare of the spotlight as the inconsistencies in her story unravel and her personal life is dissected over and over.

If she is instrumental in keeping Cavanaugh off the Court, she will have proved quite useful to those who went after Cavanaugh. That she is also a victim means little to the scoundrels that used her.

JoeSixPack , October 3, 2018 at 11:38 am

"That she is also a victim means little to the scoundrels that used her."

Excellent point. Neither Democrats nor Republicans care. This is all political theater. No one is interested in the truth.

jean , October 3, 2018 at 5:56 pm

Trump is a huge middle finger to the entire system especially the GOP and Bush cabal..The more outrageous he was the better they liked it.My guess.

Lucius Patrick , October 3, 2018 at 10:54 am

Yes, the great Obama, who bombed more countries and dropped more bombs, than Bush and Cheney; who sold more military weapons to foreign countries than any president in history. Who backed an illegal in Ukraine and restarted the Cold War. That Obama?

willow , October 3, 2018 at 3:13 pm

Obama legalized and industrialized fake news when he repealed the Smith-Mundt domestic propaganda ban as part of the 2013 NDAA. https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/14/u-s-repeals-propaganda-ban-spreads-government-made-news-to-americans/

willow , October 3, 2018 at 2:34 am

Everybody needs to call the republican and democrat senators of your state and tell them not to
confirm Bret Kavenaugh based on his opinion on the record that bulk NSA spying is not a violation of the 4th Amendment. That makes him a traitor who does not uphold the Constitution. This dog and pony show is a study in distraction. A 2015 Pew research study found the majority of Americans, Republican, Democrat and Independent voters, oppose NSA bulk spying.

jean , October 3, 2018 at 6:05 pm

You mean the NSA illegal and unconstitutional spying that democrat made legal and expanded?

The Same Democrats Who Denounce Donald Trump as a Lawless, Treasonous Authoritarian Just Voted to Give Him Vast Warrantless Spying Powers

https://theintercept.com/2018/01/12/the-same-democrats-who-denounce-trump-as-a-lawless-treasonous-authoritarian-just-voted-to-give-him-vast-warrantless-spying-powers/

You do know the architects for those crimes now work for MSNBC and CNN? .they are democrats new hero's?

CIA director John Brennan lied to you and to the Senate. Fire him
Video for brennan lies
? 1:34
https://www.theguardian.com/ /cia-director-john-brennan-lied-sen

Jul 31, 2014
"The facts will come out," Brennan told NBC News in March after apologizes even though he's not sorry, who

James Clapper Just Lied Again About His Previous Lies About NSA

Video for clapper lies
? 9:28
thefederalist.com/ /james-clapper-just-lied-again-about-his-previous

General Hayden Lies To The Press

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJZ0hALJVrE

May 22, 2018 – Uploaded by The View
In an interview with the ladies of 'The View' James Clapper told another lie about his previous lies about

Knomore , October 2, 2018 at 10:19 pm

What we've learned in these days is that it does not matter one whit if what you charge is false; the mainstream media, in league with the Democrat Party, have mastered this to perfection. No: What matters is lobbing something -- filth works best because it sticks best -- at someone, especially if the latter person is someone you want to discredit in some way -- any way -- possible.

I'm having a large problem with Lauria's article, admit I did not read past the first paragraph. My excuse is that we are all on emotional overload in the aftermath of Ford's juvenile presentation before the Judiciary Committee. What most of us suspected at the time–that these were false charges–was largely substantiated first by what we heard and then by Ms. Mitchell, the sex abuse professional who interviewed Ford. Witnessing the Democrats, Feinstein especially, and then the dispassionate Kamala H., smile beseechingly while encouraging this preposterous display left yet more funky smells in the room.

Now we are asked to forget all that and engage in a new game: This one is called Double jeopardy? Triple jeopardy ? It goes like this:

You take a baseball bat and slam someone over the head with it as hard as you can. Next step is to stand there and critique that person from every angle imaginable, but mostly for having the audacity to stand up and try to defend himself.

Shame on all of us.

JR_Leonardi , October 2, 2018 at 10:16 pm

I shall be amazed if the censor permits this comment to post.

Joe Lauria does not deserve to be the Editor of the journal Robert Parry established and, for years, edited honorably and professionally.

Joe Lauria disgraces Consortium News with his part-fraudulent, all toxic propaganda "article" that clashes with near-all the ACTUAL EVIDENCE (rather than the baseless, thoroughly discredited accusations and the vile-politics-engendered "belief" of the Democrat-suborned false accusations).

One must wonder whether her, Lauria, would feel and express rage and show tears were HE the object of vicious, fraudulent character-assassination like that suffered by Judge Kavanaugh.

I contemn Joe Lauria as I contemned Joe McCarthy and contemn now the Democrat Party's members of Congress and the Clintonian DNC.

Joe Lauria needs to resign his Editorship.

exiled off mainstreet , October 4, 2018 at 4:21 am

Lauria's knowledge of Kavanaugh's real historic role explains why he finds the baseless allegations against him believable. One has to examine his entire record, which is admirable, rather than going to the mattresses because he makes a mistake here. The fact is, Kavanaugh is a disgrace for reasons other than the ones the democrats are proferring because as an integral part of a corrupt militarist imperialist power structure intent on continuing their total domination of everything, they don't want to deal with the real failings of Kavanaugh as a corrupt opponent of the rule of law. I agree that it is unfortunate that Lauria accepts this largely debunked story influenced by his knowledge of unrelated worse stories that are provable.

jean , October 2, 2018 at 9:17 pm

Could Trump Take Down the American Empire?

"Trump had entered the White House with a clear commitment to ending U.S.
military interventions, based on a worldview in which fighting wars in
the pursuit of military dominance has no place. In the last speech of
his "victory tour" in December 2016, Trump vowed,

"We will stop racing to topple foreign regimes that we knew nothing about, that we shouldn't
be involved with." Instead of investing in wars, he said, he wouldinvest in rebuilding America's crumbling infrastructure."

"Trump retorted angrily that the generals were "the architects of this mess" and that they have were "making it worse," by asking him to add more troops to "something I don't believe in."

Then Trump folded his arms and declared, "I want to get out. And you're telling me the answeris to get deeper in."

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/could-trump-take-down-the-american-empire/

No wonder democrats hate him.

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/could-trump-take-down-the-american-empire/

KiwiAntz , October 3, 2018 at 4:01 am

Jean, you make a good point that Trump's taking down the American Empire, but not as you've envisioned it? Trump's Trade Wars & Financial terrorism in the form of Tarriffs & Sanctions are forcing other Nations to consolidate & start the process of the "dedollarisation" of their economies to transition away from the US Dollar & it's removal as the Worlds reserve currency! Alternatives to the US Swift Banking system are well on the way, further isolating the USA's role in punishing Nations through financial & economic warfare via the Banking system! Once this happens, the entire "ponzi scheme" of the most indebted Nation on Earth will collapse in on itself like a Black hole! And Trump is accelerating this demise of America as a Hegemonic Empire! And for your information & in direct contradiction of his campaign promises,Trump is not withdrawing America from meddling in the Middle East, he's appeasing the Deepstate & outsourcing this Foreign Policy of Regime change & Resources theft of other Countries, to Warmongers like Mattis & Pompeo who are maintaining the status quo of the US as a unwanted, Foreign Invader by hanging on in Afghanistan; Iraq & Syria, like a limpett crab attaching itself to a rock! Trump is unable to extricate the US because the US cant't or won't face the reality, that they have achieved nothing, despite wasting trillions of dollars of warmongering with zero results to show for the horrendous cost of the invasions! So they will remain over there, till hell freezes over, as a face saving measure to avoid the inevitable humiliation of defeat like in Vietnam, knowing that the endless Wars conducted by them has been a utter, catastrophic disaster caused by arrogance, ignorance & supreme hubris by a out of control, lawless Rogue Nation!

jean , October 3, 2018 at 6:09 pm

its called consistency and principles.

"Whataboutism" is a call out of hypocrisy and was first used by a poor Carpenter who said to "First remove the beam out of your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck out of your brother's eye."

We wouldnt even have Trump if not for Hillary.

rosemerry , October 3, 2018 at 3:57 pm

All this "evidence" business is interesting when we observe that since March, the USA media and government has accepted the word of UK PM Theresa May that the Russians have poisoned two Salisbury residents with novichok under the orders of Vladimir Putin himself. NO evidence of any kind has been produced, the EU and NATO gang were called in, over 100 diplomats were expelled and the Russians had no right of reply at all, and the whole saga continues. These days, who cares about evidence?
In this case, there is abundance evidence over thirty years that Kavanaugh is "a corporation masquerading as a judge", to use Ralph Nader's words. He cares not at all for workers, environment, poor people, ordinary citizens. Find a real candidate, if any come forward.

Cratylus , October 2, 2018 at 4:58 pm

There are good reasons for opposing Kavanaugh – and they were obvious to begin with. Lauria and others have summarized them nicely.
BUT with all those things known, he was on his way to confirmation. The lesson is that the Elite, Dems and GOP, are just fine with Kavanaugh. If it were a Dem essentially like him the voting would be Partisan, just the other way.

Some would prefer a woman but they had their day in approving Gina Haspel. No big fight was involved; and we know what she has done dwarfs even the worst accusations against Kavanaugh.

Then the last minute accusations, and everyone got interested. There are many serious issues here – sexual assault being one of them as Lauria points out. But they are unproven and alleged against a 17 year old. So the discussion shifted to temperament and respect for Senators. Do they deserve respect? I do not think so. And now on to drinking habits of the high school and college boy. Down, down, down.

What is motivating 99% of the people glued to this issue? It is Partisan Identity Politics – in fact worse, it is Tabloid Identity Politics. Meanwhile tensions are soaring on the Russian border, in Middle East and in the South China Sea; mass incarceration stares us in the face; health care degenerates ever further -and we have to debate Kavanaugh's alcoholism and "temperament." What a sad excuse for real political discussion. In fact I find I am getting annoyed at myself for even weighing in on this. I

irina , October 2, 2018 at 10:44 pm

Exactly. We are now reading in the 'papers of record' articles which not long ago
would have appeared in supermarket checkout tabloids. But since they are in
the Big Papers, they now have an aura of authenticity lacking in tabloid spreads.

It's practically impossible to find useful information on any topic in the Big Papers.

Deltaeus , October 2, 2018 at 4:38 pm

Wow. I'm saddened that so many people carelessly toss aside the best parts of our civilisation such as the presumption of innocence.
Accusers have to prove their charges.

Imagine Joe Lauria is accused by someone of something heinous. Anyone who doesn't like Joe can now comment on social media about how he looks like the type of guy who would do that. Anyone who disagrees with him might be motivated to do that. They can suggest psychological reasons for his atrocious behaviour. The accuser does not need to prove anything – just some lurid details and a tearful interview are enough, and the rest of us can no longer see his by-line without remembering all of the innocent children he molested.
See? What I just insinuated is completely untrue. Joe is an honest and good man, but anyone can smear him at any time and ruin his livelihood. Its easy. And Joe just made it easier with this article.

Please, think about what it is like to be unfairly accused. Perhaps in the abstract you can shrug, but talk to anyone who has actually been the victim of false allegations, and you will realise how powerless you are in that situation. Your only protection is the civilised idea that you are innocent until proven guilty, and if you destroy that, well, that would be a shame.

irina , October 2, 2018 at 10:53 pm

Have you ever experienced a false accusation ? I have, and I didn't even know it.

For many years, my mother in law sincerely believed that her grandson was not her son's child. This was patently untrue, but I was clueless because no one (we lived surrounded by her immediate family) told me, although the women all gossiped behind my back. You can only imagine how this affected all my familial relationships. She never did come clean about this situation (her thinking was affected by long term steroid use) but did eventually apologize to me (without precisely stating why) the year our son turned thirteen, at which point he started strongly resembling his dad (her son).

False accusations are a very serious thing, and we are accepting them all too glibly.

Hans Zandvliet , October 2, 2018 at 4:06 pm

I think the whole Kavanaugh back-and-forth-mud-slinging excersize is just an irrelevant side-show to distract us from what really matters.
Justice in the USA is already dead; they only forgot to burry the corpse.
So why fighting over it? That;s the point: it's all a distraction from the twin-brother of "Justice", called "Democracy" who's on life support, too. And by fighting over the already dead corpse of Justice, the Deep State can let the death of Democracy go unnoticed.
In fact, I believe the present USA government system is way beyond repair. Corporate corruption has taken over all government institutions, so there are no institutional proceedings left to fight this corrupt system. The only way left is a revolution to overthrow the corrupt system and start anew.
It will not be pleasant, but that's the ride the USA has embarked on.

GofSMQ , October 2, 2018 at 2:55 pm

I believed Kavanaugh, did not believe Ford. Her fake crying reminded me of Susan Smith. If no woman had ever lied and made false accusations about a man Lauria might have ground to stand on, but sadly it happens, and thus no human being should be automatically given credibility over someone else simply because of their gender, race, or other immutable characteristics.

That said, Kavanaugh is unqualified due to his involvement with the Federalist Society, Starr, and the Bush/Cheney regime. His background shows he is a threat to Constitutional and natural rights. IMO He is as partisan as the people who hope to destroy him.

Joe Tedesky , October 2, 2018 at 12:44 pm

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers give a blow by blow review of Judge Kavanaugh's partisan career.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/10/02/kavanaugh-is-the-wong-nominee/

O Society , October 2, 2018 at 10:51 am

Here is a list of some of the serious allegations about Brett Kavanaugh which have nothing to do with identity politics. When are we going to publicly discuss these issues?

Advocating torture, aiding war criminals, Big Brother-level surveillance the real issues go far beyond whether or not Brett liked to party and drink beer and get aggressive in high school. He's basically a henchman for Bush and will be one for Trump, and far-right authoritarians for years to come.

This is the real problem with Brett Kavanaugh. Why do the Democrats make it all about He Said v She Said identity politics? Is the Democratic party more concerned about firing up the masses for the coming midterm elections than about Kavanaugh's record of assisting authoritarianism? Certainly looks this way

Andrew Dabrowski , October 2, 2018 at 10:53 am

As I said in the McGovern thread:

The reason for that is simple: Democrats have no power to stop Kavanaugh's appointment. That depends entirely on getting a couple Republicans to vote No, and they would not be impressed by the lines of argument you (and others) have suggested.

O Society , October 2, 2018 at 11:22 am

Oh, I think the answer is clear and simple. The Democratic party is in favor of authoritarian imperialism just as much as the Republican party is, and I think this whole circus is a dog and pony show to distract everyone from the fact everyone in the show is a criminal with skeletons. Happy Halloween!

Andrew Dabrowski , October 2, 2018 at 12:27 pm

Well, the difference between the parties is the that the Democrats pretend to opposed to the Plutocracy, while the Republicans brag about promoting the Plutocracy. That is why the Dems know it is useless, when the Repubs are in power, to oppose Kavanaugh on the grounds of his being wholly owned.

Stumpy , October 3, 2018 at 3:28 am

You nailed it. Further, the bonus comes in when the Kavanaugh appointment enrages the groundswell of #metoo assaultees into a even greater force of male career destruction at the hands of vengeful goddesses.

willow , October 3, 2018 at 2:56 am

Actually a Pew Research poll showed that the majority of Americans opposed NSA bulk spying, and interestingly, the largest group of voters in opposition were Independents, followed by Republicans and then the Democrats. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/29/what-americans-think-about-nsa-surveillance-national-security-and-privacy/ft_15-05-29_nsa/

O Society , October 2, 2018 at 12:38 pm

The Democrats aren't really Resisting. They are playing the identity politics. It's the only thing they stand for that's different from the Republicans. Here are examples of their happiness with authoritarianism and imperialism. They even like it when Trump does it.:

https://theintercept.com/2018/01/12/the-same-democrats-who-denounce-trump-as-a-lawless-treasonous-authoritarian-just-voted-to-give-him-vast-warrantless-spying-powers/

https://consortiumnews.com/2018/08/08/giving-trump-carte-blanche-for-war/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2018/06/20/house-and-senate-democrats-vote-68-percent-and-85-percent-for-massive-military-spending/

Sally Snyder , October 2, 2018 at 7:57 am

Here is an article that looks at one of the little-discussed reasons for concerns about a Kavanaugh judgeship:

https://viableopposition.blogspot.com/2018/09/judge-brett-kavanaugh-and-surveillance.html

If Justice Kavanaugh had his way, mass collections of Americans' private data would be routine in spite of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution which protection from unreasonable searches and seizures.

[Oct 05, 2018] Has anybody asked the Judge about his support for John Yoo, the prominent defender of the violations of the US Constitution and Cheney's protege? How about the international law, human rights, torture, illegal wars of aggression? -- Nope. The Dems and other MeToo are not interested in such trifles.

Oct 05, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org

psychohistorian ,

"The Supreme Court justice debacle is another example of so riling up the forces around the sex issue so that the rest of his moral standing that effects all of us is ignored..."

Has anybody asked the Judge about his support for John Yoo, the prominent defender of the violations of the US Constitution and Cheney's protege? How about the international law, human rights, torture, illegal wars of aggression? -- Nope. The Dems and other MeToo are not interested in such trifles.

It is interesting that the name "Dick Cheney the Traitor" is gradually getting a name recognition on a par with Goebbels & Mengele.. What a miserable subhuman being Dick Cheney is.

karlof1 , Oct 5, 2018 8:23:52 PM | link
Anya @61--

You might be interested in what over 2400 professors of law had to say to their Senators as to why Kavanaugh's unfit as a judge at any judiciary level . Not "trifiles" but foundations.

">link

Anya , Oct 5, 2018 8:00:44 PM | link

[Oct 05, 2018] Alcohol, Memory, and the Hippocampus

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... . . . The ability of alcohol to cause short term memory problems and blackouts is due to its effects on an area of the brain called the hippocampus. The hippocampus is a structure that is vital to learning and the formation of memory. ..."
"... Why did no one ask Christine Beasley Ford how much and how often she drank in high school and in college? ..."
Oct 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

anon [107] Disclaimer , says: October 5, 2018 at 1:18 am GMT

Alcohol, Memory, and the Hippocampus
[In adolescents] . . . cognitive processes are exquisitely sensitive to the effects of chemicals such as alcohol. Among the most serious problems is the disruption of memory, or the ability to recall information that was previously learned. When a person drinks alcohol, (s)he can have a "blackout."
A blackout can involve a small memory disruption, like forgetting someone's name, or it can be more serious -- the person might not be able to remember key details of an event that happened while drinking. An inability to remember the entire event is common when a person drinks 5 or more drinks in a single sitting ("binge").

. . . The ability of alcohol to cause short term memory problems and blackouts is due to its effects on an area of the brain called the hippocampus. The hippocampus is a structure that is vital to learning and the formation of memory.

Thus without a properly functioning hippocampus learning and memory become problematic. https://sites.duke.edu/apep/module-3-alcohol-cell-suicide-and-the-adolescent-brain/content-alcohol-memory-and-the-hippocampus/

Christine Ford claims her difficulties in her first years in college were due to "trauma" from the attempted rape. A professor of psychology, Ford used impressive big words, (iirc) stating that endocrine imprints such traumatic memories on the hippocampus.

So does alcohol.

Why did no one ask Christine Beasley Ford how much and how often she drank in high school and in college?

[Oct 05, 2018] Blasey Ford's FBI Polygraph Buddy Pressured Woman From Mystery Groping Party To Change Story

Notable quotes:
"... Leland Keyser, who Ford claims was at the infamous high school "groping" party, told FBI investigators that mutual friend and retired FBI agent, Monica McLean, warned her that Senate Republicans were going to use her statement to rebut Ford's allegation against Kavanaugh, and that she should at least "clarify" her story to say that she didn't remember the party - not that it had never happened. ..."
"... So we have Dr. Blasey-Ford in Rehoboth Beach, DE, on 26th July 2018. We've got her life-long BFF, Monica L McLean, who worked as attorney and POI in the DOJ/FBI in Rehoboth Beach, DE . Apparently at same time she wrote letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein. ..."
Oct 05, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

A former FBI agent and lifelong friend of Brett Kavanaugh accuser Christine Blasey Ford allegedly pressured a woman to change her statement that she knew nothing about an alleged sexual assault by Kavanaugh in 1982, reports the Wall Street Journal .

Leland Keyser, who Ford claims was at the infamous high school "groping" party, told FBI investigators that mutual friend and retired FBI agent, Monica McLean, warned her that Senate Republicans were going to use her statement to rebut Ford's allegation against Kavanaugh, and that she should at least "clarify" her story to say that she didn't remember the party - not that it had never happened.

The Journal also reports that after the FBI sent their initial report on the Kavanaugh allegations to the White House, they sent the White House and Senate an additional package of information which included text messages from McLean to Keyser .

McLean's lawyer, David Laufman, categorically denied that his client pressured Keyser, saying in a statement: "Any notion or claim that Ms. McLean pressured Leland Keyser to alter Ms. Keyser's account of what she recalled concerning the alleged incident between Dr. Ford and Brett Kavanaugh is absolutely false."

Ms. Keyser's lawyer on Sept. 23 said in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee that she had no recollection of attending a party with Judge Kavanaugh , whom she said she didn't know. That same day, however, she told the Washington Post that she believed Dr. Ford . On Sept. 29, two days after Dr. Ford and the judge testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ms. Keyser's attorney sent a letter to the panel saying his client wasn't refuting Dr. Ford's account and that she believed it but couldn't corroborate it. - WSJ

Keyser's admission to the FBI - which is subject to perjury laws - may influence the Senate's upcoming confirmation debates. Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) said that he found the most significant material in the FBI report to be statements from people close to Ford who wanted to corroborate her account and were "sympathetic in wishing they could, but they could not."

In his testimony last week, Judge Kavanaugh sought to use Ms. Keyser's initial statement to undercut his accuser. " Dr. Ford's allegation is not merely uncorroborated, it is refuted by the very people she says were there, including by a long-time friend of hers ," he said. " Refuted ."

Two days later, Ms. Keyser's lawyer said in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee: "Ms. Keyser does not refute Dr. Ford's account, and she has already told the press that she believes Dr. Ford's account." Mr. Walsh added: "However, the simple and unchangeable truth is that she is unable to corroborate it because she has no recollection of the incident in question. " - WSJ

In last week's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Ford claimed she never told Keyser about the assault, saying "She didn't know about the event. She was downstairs during the event and I did not share it with her," and adding that she didn't "expect" that Keyser would remember the "very unremarkable party."

"Leland has significant health challenges, and I'm happy that she's focusing on herself and getting the health treatment that she needs, and she let me know that she needed her lawyer to take care of this for her, and she texted me right afterward with an apology and good wishes, and et cetera." said Ford.

About that polygraph

On Wednesday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) fired off an intriguing letter to Christine Blasey Ford's attorneys on Tuesday, requesting several pieces of evidence related to her testimony - including all materials from the polygraph test she took, after her ex-boyfriend of six years refuted statements she made under oath last week.

Grassley writes: "The full details of Dr. Ford's polygraph are particularly important because the Senate Judiciary Committee has received a sworn statement from a longtime boyfriend of Dr. Ford's, stating that he personally witnessed Dr. Ford coaching a friend on polygraph examinations. When asked under oath in the hearing whether she'd ever given any tips or advice to someone who was planning on taking a polygraph, Dr. Ford replied, "Never." This statement raises specific concerns about the reliability of her polygraph examination results."

McLean issued a Wednesday statement rejecting the ex-boyfriend's claims that she was coached on how to take a polygraph test.

A closer look at McLean

Enjoying the tastes are In back (l-r) Kelly Devine and Nuh Tekmen. In front, Monica McLean , Karen Sposato, Catherine Hester, Sen. Ernie Lopez, R-Lewes, and Jennifer Burton. BY DENY HOWETH

An intriguing analysis by "Sundance" of the Conservative Treehouse lays out several curious items for consideration.

First, McLean signed a letter from members of the Holton-Arms class of 1984 supporting Ford's claim.

Next, we look at McLean's career:

Monica Lee McLean was admitted to the California Bar in 1992, the same year Ms Ford's boyfriend stated he began a six-year relationship with her best friend . The address for the current inactive California Law License is now listed as *"Rehoboth Beach, DE". [*Note* remember this, it becomes more relevant later.] - Conservative Treehouse

Sundance notes that "Sometime between 2000 and 2003, Ms. Monica L McLean transferred to the Southern District of New York (SDNY), FBI New York Field Office; where she shows up on various reports, including media reports, as a spokesperson for the FBI." and that " After 2003, Ms. Monica L McLean is working with the SDNY as a Public Information Officer for the FBI New York Field Office, side-by-side with SDNY Attorney General Preet Bharara :"

Here's where things get really interesting:

Ms. Monica Lee McLean and Ms. Christine Blasey-Ford are life-long friends; obviously they have known each other since their High School days at Holton-Arms; and both lived together as "roommates" in California after college. Their close friendship is cited by Ms. Fords former boyfriend of six years.

Ms. Monica McLean retired from the FBI in 2016; apparently right after the presidential election. Her current residence is listed at Rehoboth Beach, Delaware ; which aligns with public records and the serendipitous printed article.

Now, where did Ms. Blasey-Ford testify she was located at the time she wrote the letter to Dianne Feinstein, accusing Judge Brett Kavanaugh ?

[Transcript]

So we have Dr. Blasey-Ford in Rehoboth Beach, DE, on 26th July 2018. We've got her life-long BFF, Monica L McLean, who worked as attorney and POI in the DOJ/FBI in Rehoboth Beach, DE . Apparently at same time she wrote letter to Senator Dianne Feinstein. - Conservative Treehouse

Thus, it appears that Blasey Ford was with McLean for four days leading up to the actual writing of the letter, from July 26th to July 30th.

Not only did Ms. McLean possesses a particular set of skills to assist Ms. Ford, but Ms. McLean would also have a network of DOJ and FBI resources to assist in the endeavor. A former friendly FBI agent to do the polygraph; a network of politically motivated allies?

Does the appearance of FBI insider and Deputy FBI Director to Andrew McCabe, Michael Bromwich, begin to make more sense?

Do the loud and overwhelming requests by political allies for FBI intervention, take on a different meaning or make more sense, now?

Standing back and taking a look at the bigger, BIG PICTURE .. could it be that Mrs. McLean and her team of ideological compatriots within the DOJ and FBI, who have massive axes to grind against the current Trump administration, are behind this entire endeavor? - Conservative Treehouse

Were Ford and McLean working together to take out Kavanaugh?

In September we reported that an audio recording purportedly from a July conference call suggests that Christine Blasey Ford's sexual assault accusation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh wasn't simply a reluctant claim that Diane Feinstein sat on until the 11th hour.

The recording features Ricki Seidman - a former Clinton and Obama White House official and Democratic operative who advised Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas hearings, and who was revealed on Thursday as an adviser to Ford by Politico .

Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who has accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when they were both teenagers, is being advised by Democratic operative Ricki Seidman .

Seidman, a senior principal at TSD Communications, in the past worked as an investigator for Sen. Ted Kennedy, and was involved with Anita Hill's decision to testify against Supreme Court Nominee Clarence Thomas. - Politico

"While I think at the outset, looking at the numbers in the Senate, it's not extremely likely that the nominee can be defeated," says Seidman. "I would absolutely withhold judgement as the process goes on. I think that I would not reach any conclusion about the outcome in advance."

What's more, the recording makes clear that even if Kavanaugh is confirmed, Democrats can use the doubt cast over him during midterms.

"Over the coming days and weeks, there will be a strategy that will emerge, and I think it's possible that that strategy might ultimately defeat the nominee... whether or not it ultimately defeats the nominee, it will help people understand why it's so important that they vote and the deeper principles that are involved in it. "

https://www.youtube.com/embed/zRttpJxj59A

[Oct 05, 2018] Christine Blah-Blah Ford Her Hippocampus by Ilana Mercer

Notable quotes:
"... has been writing a ..."
"... paleolibertarian ..."
"... since 1999. She is the author of " ..."
"... (2011) & " ..."
"... (June, 2016) &. She's on ..."
Oct 05, 2018 | www.unz.com

Unfortunately, scientific research negates the notion that forgotten memories exist somewhere in the brain and can be accessed in pristine form.

Granted, we don't know whether She Who Must Never Be Questioned recovered the Judge-Kavanaugh memory in therapy. That's because, well, she must never be questioned.

Questioning the left's latest sacred cow is forbidden. Bovine Republicans blindly obey.

I happened to have covered and thoroughly researched the "recovered memory ruse," in 1999. Contrary to the trend, one of my own heroes is not Christine Blah-Blah Ford, but a leading world authority on memory, Elizabeth Loftus.

Professor Loftus, who straddles two professorships -- one in law, the other in psychology -- had come to Vancouver, British Columbia, to testify on behalf of a dedicated Richmond educator, a good man, who had endured three trials, the loss of a career and financial ruin because of the Crown's attempts to convict him of sexual assault based on memories recovered in therapy.

I attended. I was awed.

Over decades of research, Loftus has planted many a false memory in the minds of her research subjects, sometimes with the aid of nothing more than a conversation peppered with some suggestions.

"A tone of voice, a phrasing of a question, subtle non-verbal signals, and expressions of boredom, impatience or fascination" -- these are often all it takes to plant suggestions in the malleable human mind.

Loftus does not question the prevalence of the sexual abuse of children or the existence of traumatic memories. What she questions are memories commonly referred to as repressed: "Memories that did not exist until someone went looking for them."

Suffice it to say, that the memory recovery process is a therapeutic confidence trick that has wreaked havoc in thousands of lives.

Moreover, repression, the sagging concept that props up the recovered memory theory is without any cogent scientific support. The 30-odd studies the recovery movement uses as proof for repression do not make the grade. These studies are retrospective memory studies which rely on self-reports with no independent, factual corroboration of information.

Sound familiar? Dr. Ford (and her hippocampus), anyone?

Even in the absence of outside influence, memory deteriorates rapidly. "As time goes by," writes Loftus in her seminal book, "The Myth of Repressed Memories," "the weakened memories are increasingly vulnerable to post-event information."

What we see on TV, read and hear about events is incorporated into memory to create an unreliable amalgam of fact and fiction.

After an extensive investigation, the British Royal College of Psychiatrists issued a ban prohibiting its members from using any method to recover memories of child abuse. Memory retrieval techniques, say the British guidelines, are dangerous methods of persuasion.

"Recovered memories," inveighed Alan Gold, then president of the Canadian Criminal Lawyers Association, "are joining electroshock, lobotomies and other psychiatric malpractice in the historical dustbin."

Not that you'd know it from the current climate of sexual hysteria, but the courts in the U.S. had responded as well by ruling to suppress the admission of all evidence remembered under therapy.

Altogether it seems as clear in 2018, as it was in 1999 : Memories that have been excavated during therapy have no place in a court of law. Or, for that matter, in a Senate Committee that shapes the very same justice system.

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She is the author of " Into the Cannibal's Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa " (2011) & " The Trump Revolution: The Donald's Creative Destruction Deconstructed " (June, 2016) &. She's on Twitter , Facebook , Gab & YouTube


anon [107] Disclaimer , says: October 5, 2018 at 2:48 am GMT

@Abel

It is idiotic to write a piece talking about recovered memories in this context.

Agree: Mercer's approach to Ford's hippocampus is idiotic.

Also appears to be neurologically off-base; there's a much stronger refutation to Perfesser Ford's dazzling psychological explanation: alcohol wreaks havoc on the hippocampus –

https://www.unz.com/freed/kavanaugh-gang-rapes-collie-in-satanic-ritual/#comment-2554935

She can't remember the house she was in or how she got there/got home because her hippocampus was suffering alcohol poisoning.

She did poorly in subsequent high school and in early years in college because her hippocampus was pickled.

Alcohol, Memory, and the Hippocampus
[In adolescents] . . . cognitive processes are exquisitely sensitive to the effects of chemicals such as alcohol. Among the most serious problems is the disruption of memory, or the ability to recall information that was previously learned. When a person drinks alcohol, (s)he can have a "blackout."
A blackout can involve a small memory disruption, like forgetting someone's name, or it can be more serious -- the person might not be able to remember key details of an event that happened while drinking. An inability to remember the entire event is common when a person drinks 5 or more drinks in a single sitting ("binge").

. . . The ability of alcohol to cause short term memory problems and blackouts is due to its effects on an area of the brain called the hippocampus. The hippocampus is a structure that is vital to learning and the formation of memory.

-- -

Mercer's assessment seems to have been skewed in order to promote Mercer's 1999 work on the Loftus case...

Anonymous [348] Disclaimer , says: October 5, 2018 at 4:30 am GMT
The whole hippocampus explanation made her sound like she's been talking to a therapist, but then she herself is a psychologist so she probably doesn't need a therapist to help her 'recover' that memory.

I think the key thing here are the witnesses. None recalled such a party ever taking place. Her best friend said not only did she not remember the party, but she had never met Kavanaugh. If she had been ditched by Ford that night and was left in a house with 2 potential rapists, don't you think she'd remember and talked it over with her the next day? That just made her story fall apart.

Bill H , says: Website October 5, 2018 at 5:19 am GMT
Interesting photographic choice for such an article. Trial, whether in a court of law, or merely in terms of destroying someone's life in the media, cannot be about what someone believes, or can be made to believe, but must be about what the evidence can reveal to be true. Where, when and why did we ever lose sight of that?
Ronald Thomas West , says: Website October 5, 2018 at 7:20 am GMT
It is amazing to me how it is these constitution loving, immigrant pundits drop the ball and have no clue what all of the smokescreen is about:

https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2018/07/12/kavanaugh-the-royal-nonsuch/

The Dems (dims) wouldn't dare attack the criminal Kavanaugh on the actual facts because it would implicate their goddess Hillary. There are no clean hands at the worm farm at DC, that just doesn't happen.

Ilyana_Rozumova , says: October 5, 2018 at 11:48 am GMT
@renfro Garbage! Who cares what you remember, or do not remember.
Main thing here is that she remembered to the rest of her life to be careful about the water.
And also Miss Ford (If she did not lie) must have noticed the house that she would not go into that house ever,
anarchyst , says: October 5, 2018 at 1:29 pm GMT
Let's not forget the "false memory" debacles of the 1990s with the McMartin preschool and Wenatchee Washington preschool cases where innocent people were convicted of crimes that they could not have possible committed.
In the McMartin case, the problem was overzealous parents who believed their childrens' fantasies, and got overzealous "child protective services" caseworkers involved. Questionable tactics to elicit "correct" responses from the children were used. Rewards, such as ice cream were used when the children gave the "correct" response. The children were badgered by these "professionals" until the proper answers were given. Many innocent peoples' lives were ruined as a result.
The Wenatchee debacle was fueled by a rogue detective, who saw child abuse under every rock and was determined to get convictions, the truth be damned.
The same tactics as in the McMartin case were used to elicit the correct responses from the children.
In both cases, the mantra that "children cannot lie" was used, along with tactics that would be unacceptable today (but are still being used).
anon [401] Disclaimer , says: October 5, 2018 at 1:32 pm GMT
After a long conversation last night with drunken friends, me being the sober one of course, I had only one beer cuz I'm a good girl, but I can't recall what was said or how many of us were in the room. Wait, oh yeah.

We all decided that the seeming wussy response by Republicans was a strategy. Weren't they all also being accused? If Grassley hadn't bent over backwards to accommodate Ford and her increasingly violent democrat extremist enablers and all of their ethically challenged dumb followers, they would have appeared uncaring. They gave the Feinstein and Ford crowds serious consideration – no one can truthfully say otherwise.

There really isn't much one can say about a woman, or a man, who claimed they were assaulted or abused. Proper respect must be given and investigations must be made. We all know Ford is a liar now. Almost any real victim of sexual assault can recall the details of the assault.

I think Republicans played it right all along. If she was not deceptive, it would have come out.

The whole affair was the same as watching Justice Channel homicide detectives patiently wait for their prime suspect to speak until she slipped up and incriminated herself. No dna test for Ford though. In fact, no evidence at all. In the end, she proved herself incredible and all of her apoplectic supporters went off the rails and are making things worse for real victims of sexual abuse.

The little girl act made Ford look insane.

Now, the unfunniest comedian in the world, Amy Shumer, who, let's face it, only got fame due to her Uncle Chuck, is rallying the rest of the moonbats, reactionaries, and liars, aka Democrat nutcases to rally and resist. Resist. Bunch of clowns think they have something to resist rather than working to rebuild a party and find solutions to their problems. Hopefully the democrat party will splinter apart and crawl away like the worms they are.

Anyone on the fence about Trump has now almost definitely jump to one side or the other. Elections will show most people will deny democrats their ambition to destroy what's left of the Republic.

anonymous [333] Disclaimer , says: October 5, 2018 at 2:02 pm GMT
The 'recovered memory' witch trials back then ruined many lives. The hysteria featured a wide cast of characters including reckless and totally irresponsible 'therapists' who, for whatever weird reason pushed gullible customers into believing these false induced illusions, the troubled women (all women?Why?) who went on to make false accusations and all the true believers in the form of prosecutors, police, judges and members of the public who accepted this lunacy. Loftus deserves credit for having been one of the few people willing to stand up and take the heat, going against this wave of hysteria. Seems like the US always has had these bubbles of hysteria and panic since the days of the Salem witch trials. This person Ford has been getting all this unwarranted fawning treatment, being continually called 'Doctor' and 'Professor' which, while true, isn't the usual treatment accorded to people who have a Phd in one of the social 'sciences' or have jobs as professors. Nobody I've ever met with those qualifications cared to be continually addressed by title. On the one hand this person is some empowered example to all women, an esteemed 'Doctor Professor' who jets around the world to surf the waves at exotic locales yet claims to have some fear of lying when called in and starts to cry when she recalls being laughed at almost four decades ago. Looking at it briefly she leaves the impression of being just plain screwy as well as being a person who lies a lot where lies and facts are interwoven so that one can't be sure what's what. What a circus this is.

[Oct 05, 2018] Bret Kavanaugh is a Liar, a Perjurer and Belongs in Jail Instead of on the Supreme Court by David William Pear

Oct 05, 2018 | www.unz.com
Brabantian says: October 4, 2018 at 9:23 pm GMT

How Brett Kavanaugh helped Hillary & Bill Clinton cover up evidence that Hillary's law partner Vince Foster had been murdered

'My sinister battle with Brett Kavanaugh over the truth', by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard :

lysias says: October 5, 2018 at 12:15 am GMT

I agree Kavanaugh is a warmonger and has probably committed perjury many times. The trouble is, if he is denied confirmation in the present circumstanes, it will amount to a victory for the feminists' witch hunt against men, and it will do nothing to defeat the war agenda. The next nominee will be just as much a warmonger.

SolontoCroesus says: October 5, 2018 at 3:09 am GMT

@David William Pear

1. The judgment of anyone who believes Christine Ford has to be questioned. Her senate performance was a series of holes held together with emotion. If she had been questioned as aggressively as Kavanaugh, she would have melted quicker than brie at a beach party.

2. That she is a fraud does not in any way mean that Kavanaugh was/is honest or that he is appropriate material for Supreme Court; I agree: he is not, he is deeply flawed. The pity and the tragedy is that his flaws are not being discussed on their merits: the fact that he made his living as a lawyer and a citizen by supporting the George Bush administration, which participated in war crimes, is enough to disqualify him.

3. But US government, from Supreme Court to presidency to the entire Congress, have been havens for liars who lied to the American people in order to wage war; they get monuments and institutes, not jail cells:

–> Woodrow Wilson was a notorious womanizer, and a weak toady. One of his liaison's threatened to release love letters unless he paid her $40,000. Zionist fanatic Samuel Untermeyer paid the sum, in exchange for the appointment of Louis Brandeis to Supreme Court.

Brandeis "lied" insofar as he used his elevated stature to promote the Zionist cause.
Wilson was manipulated into signing off on the Balfour Declaration, then drawing USA into WWI.

–> FDR (who was in the company of his lover when he died) lied to get USA into WWII.

–> George H W Bush sanctioned lies to involve USA in Persian Gulf war: "babies in incubators . ."

–> George W Bush had Condi Rice and Colin Powell to do his lying for him, to involve USA in war against Iraq.

–> Schumer pledged he would harry Trump "six ways 'til Sunday" -- to force him to wage war on Iran. Schumer and the Israel firsts don't give a tinker's dam about Kavanaugh OR Ford; their method is to keep Trump on a short leash and to make it impossible to rule other than in a way that achieve their goals, which are similar to Wilson and FDR: with them, the zionist goals were to destroy Germany and Palestinians for the sake of Zionists; wrt Trump, the goal is to complete the fragmentation of the ME and destroy Iran, for the sake of Israel.

[Oct 04, 2018] The back and forth escalated as Swetnick's claims have increasingly come under fire as her own credibility has been undermined by both recent interviews and her own past actions

Notable quotes:
"... Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy on Tuesday recommended an FBI investigation into Swetnick for making false statements about Judge Kavanaugh. ..."
"... in keeping with his "shock" approach to the practice of law, moments ago Avenatti released a sworn, redacted statement with from yet another witness claiming to have seen Brett Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge "drink excessively and be overly aggressive and verbally abusive toward girls." ..."
Oct 04, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

The back and forth escalated as Swetnick's claims have increasingly come under fire as her own credibility has been undermined by both recent interviews and her own past actions. So much so, in fact, that Louisiana Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy on Tuesday recommended an FBI investigation into Swetnick for making false statements about Judge Kavanaugh.

U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy, M.D. 0

@SenBillCassidy

A criminal referral should be sent to the FBI/DOJ regarding the
apparently false affidavit signed by Julie Swetnick that was
submitted to the Senate by @MichaelAvenatti.

12:37 PM-Oct 2, 2018

Q? 25.9K Q 13K people are talking about this О

The threat of a probe into his own client did not daunt the pop lawyer, who on Wednesday morning tweeted that "we still have yet to hear anything from the FBI despite a new witness coming forward & submitting a declaration last night. We now have multiple witnesses that support the allegations and they are all prepared to be interviewed by the FBI. Trump's "investigation" is a scam."

And, in keeping with his "shock" approach to the practice of law, moments ago Avenatti released a sworn, redacted statement with from yet another witness claiming to have seen Brett Kavanaugh and his friend Mark Judge "drink excessively and be overly aggressive and verbally abusive toward girls."

[Oct 04, 2018] What if this whole thing was just carefully managed theater designed to entertain the rubes? The Deep State allowed this spectacle, probably to embarrass Trump

Notable quotes:
"... It's unlikely that Kavanaugh would have faced a genuine threat of criminal sanction if Blassey had complained at the time of the alleged incident: it would have been chalked up to juvenile japes and what-not. It's also true that adolescent indiscretions (albeit potentially disturbing for the victim) are no basis on which to evaluate fitness as a candidate for senior court apparatchik; a drunken fumbling grope attempt at 17 says nothing about one's judgement 30-odd years later. ..."
"... Assuming arguendo that the SCOTUS-J role is what the demos [mis]perceives (i.e., an impartial arbiter and keen legal scholar), then Kavanaugh's histrionics during the hearing show that he does not have the mental, cognitive or temperamental fortitude for the role. ..."
"... I have a very jaundiced view of courts generally, and the US Supreme court in particular. They are power's handmaidens – BlackRobes who engage in gravitas-laden[1] theatrics to try to put lipstick on the State pig. ..."
"... As I have pointed out in that past comment, Ford is not suffering from any "sexual harassment" abuse. She is suffering from a long, entrenched and ever growing case of embitterment from her childhood years. This hatchet job on Kavanaugh is nothing more than a case of revenge from Ford. Brett Kavanaugh's mother presided over her parents' divorce and that led to a bitter house foreclosure that obviously had a lingering affect upon Ford and has now chosen to take this moment for revenge. ..."
"... Now we see that Ford was lying about everything! She is not afraid of flying, she lied about her polygraph experience and expertise and lied about knowing Kavanaugh, when it is clear she did! ..."
"... What strikes me most in the whole Kavanaugh Show is that US politicians, the press and assorted figures, including many of the common citizenry, apparently care so much about the moral aspects of someone's behavior during puberty and adolescence. At the same time, these same politicians, press and citizens don't seem to have any compunctions about invading, killing and maiming people all over the world, on a continuous basis. ..."
"... Clearly the US, like other countries, is governed by a clique of psychopaths. I just never realized that psychopathy is contagious. ..."
"... you also go too far in presuming to characterise SCOTUS judges as lackeys of the appointing parties, or anyone. You should just think of the advantages of tenure, put it together with a general knowledge of human nature and then consider as well how unlikely it would be that successful tenured products of (typically) Harvard and Yale Law Schools are going to pay any attention at all to politicians after a couple of years becoming comfortable with their Olympian elevation, let alone 15 years and more. ..."
"... Michael Savage has revealed that Ford's father and grandfather were both CIA. Additionally, Ford was responsible for psychologically screening CIA interns at Standford. She claims that she remembered the "sex offense" during some kind of psychological hypnosis. She talked like a teenager during the hearing, and wore the same kind of problem glasses that she is wearing in pictures from her early teens. She was trained in how to fool lie-detector examinations. She was born about 1966 to a CIA operative father. ..."
Oct 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

Kratoklastes says: October 2, 2018 at 1:58 am GMT 600 Words Oh, and as to substantive matters

Kavanaugh is not being accused of rape (at least, not by Ford).

He is having a job interview for a government sinecure, and someone he went to school with claims that he did things to her that would meet the criteria for attempted rape.

In a prurient and shallow swamp of false-piety and sanctimony (i.e., US society and its political class in particular), that is thought to be germane to his fitness for the job (of which, more in a few sentences' time).

I don't have a dog in this fight: I have a very jaundiced view of courts generally, and the US Supreme court in particular. They are power's handmaidens – BlackRobes who engage in gravitas -laden[1] theatrics to try to put lipstick on the State pig.

That has corollaries:

So for me, if someone from A gets to be B, then any ill that befalls them is nothing more than light entertainment.

It's unlikely that Kavanaugh would have faced a genuine threat of criminal sanction if Blassey had complained at the time of the alleged incident: it would have been chalked up to juvenile japes and what-not. It's also true that adolescent indiscretions (albeit potentially disturbing for the victim) are no basis on which to evaluate fitness as a candidate for senior court apparatchik; a drunken fumbling grope attempt at 17 says nothing about one's judgement 30-odd years later.

But here's the thing: this dude wants to be part of a life-tenured clique that arrogated to itself the right to call the shots on the final jurisprudential stage in the US system up to and including matters of constitutional import. As a group the BlackRobes have gotten it objectively wrong many times (Dredd Scott v Sanford; Ableman v. Booth; Buck v Bell; Plessy v Ferguson; Herrera v Collins) and morally wrong even more often (South v Maryland; Bush v Gore; Wickard v Filburn). The hubris involved in wanting to be on that court is an invitation to nemesis .

And to quote Brick Top (from the movie "Snatch"):

Do you know what 'Nemesis' means? A righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent – personified in this case by a 'orrible cunt: me.

If this was going to play out Hellenically, this controversy will result in the nomination failing, and Kavanaugh will move on to catharsis and eventually metanoia ; but this being 21st century America, he will be confirmed and will go on to do his masters' bidding.

Now the question of actual fitness for purpose.

Assuming arguendo that the SCOTUS-J role is what the demos [mis]perceives (i.e., an impartial arbiter and keen legal scholar), then Kavanaugh's histrionics during the hearing show that he does not have the mental, cognitive or temperamental fortitude for the role.

However, since the SCOTUS-J role is just to be a lifetime lackey for the party what brung you to the dance he's exactly what his side of politics ordered.

[1] Like de la Rochfoucauld (especially Maxim 237), Stern and Shaftesbury, I have an extremely dim view of gravitas . As Shaftesbury said Gravitas is the very essence of imposture . ( Characteristics , p. 11, vol. I.)

Low Voltage says: October 2, 2018 at 2:45 am GMT

What if this whole thing was just carefully managed theater designed to entertain the rubes? We must never be allowed to forget there is a government in our lives to the point where it starts to feel like a family member.
Biff , says: October 2, 2018 at 5:37 am GMT
There are two things I cant stand: Cockroaches, and prep school pricks that go on to be frat boy fucks, and then on to lawyers, who then become so self entitled that they honestly believe they are chosen by god to decide for others. Nasty creatures all of them.
Realist , says: October 2, 2018 at 9:03 am GMT
@Kratoklastes

As a group the BlackRobes have gotten it objectively wrong many times (Dredd Scott v Sanford; Ableman v. Booth; Buck v Bell; Plessy v Ferguson; Herrera v Collins) and morally wrong even more often (South v Maryland; Bush v Gore; Wickard v Filburn).

You left out.

Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1976 and exacerbated by continuing dumb shit SC decisions First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission

Rurik , says: October 2, 2018 at 2:55 pm GMT
@Kratoklastes This was a beauty of a comment.

Kudos, and muchas gracias

I have a very jaundiced view of courts generally, and the US Supreme court in particular. They are power's handmaidens – BlackRobes who engage in gravitas-laden[1] theatrics to try to put lipstick on the State pig.

Very eloquently and succinctly stated!

  • anyone selected as a candidate for that job is a set of 'safe hands' from the perspective of the party doing the candidate selection;
  • anyone who wants to be a candidate is a disgraceful sack of shit.

So for me, if someone from A gets to be B, then any ill that befalls them is nothing more than light entertainment.

agree

There is one aspect of this farce that does deserve some merit, from my perspective. And that is the part where we get to watch more of the unhinged, apoplectic, butt-hurt, aneurysm-popping hysterics of the progressive left. It's like more of those tears of existential angst from all those castrating Hillary supporters anticipating their big win, only to have it snatched away at the crucial moment by the big, blonde white guy who likes women and cruelly mocks their messiah.

Watching Hillary psychologically implode is still one of my most sublime pleasures, even today. It's the gift that keeps on giving

Carlton Meyer , says: Website October 2, 2018 at 8:21 pm GMT
From my blog:

Oct 1, 2018 – The Kavanaugh Circus

This is a curious and confusing spectacle. I don't think he's a good pick since like all Supreme "Justices" he's a Deep State sponsored toady with little respect for the US Constitution. But the Deep State allowed this spectacle, probably to embarrass Trump, who they are tying to oust even though he does whatever they demand. Perhaps they worry that Trump may suddenly rebel.

One wonders why Republican Senate leaders allowed this circus to form. When allegations of drunken misconduct arose shortly before the vote, they should have dismissed the matter and moved on, noting there were no police reports or arrests involved, and all this occurred when he was a minor. Case closed! Most Americans consider groping and unwanted kisses by teenagers to be of poor taste remedied with a slap or kick in the shin. It is not "sexual assault."

Or perhaps they chose to allow the looney part of the Democratic Party to run wild knowing they would unwittingly hurt the Democrats in the upcoming November elections. Or maybe this is a Deep State media diversion to keep the social justice warriors busy with an unimportant issue, so they don't protest Deep State wars, ever growing military spending, soaring budget deficits, or our dysfunctional health care system. Encourage them debate and protest what some guy did as a drunken teenager for the next few weeks and fill our "news" programs with related BS so real issues are avoided during the election campaigns.

ThreeCranes , says: October 2, 2018 at 9:15 pm GMT
@Carlton Meyer "all this occurred when he was a minor"

Yeah. Liberals make much of the virtue of erasing a minor's record once they turn 18. "It's a clean slate. A chance to start over again with a reputation unblemished by youthful folly and mistakes. How can young Trey'Trayvontious grow up to become an aeronautical engineer if, upon entering adulthood, he is handicapped by the burden of felonious assault, burglary and attempted murder convictions?"

But when it comes to Kavanaugh??? No way. No forgetfulness, no forgiveness. What he did as a minor, he will wear as a badge of shame throughout his adult life.

Is it even legal to consider what he did as a minor as having any bearing on his fitness for this job? I'm seriously asking any parole officers or social workers out there who work with youth.

KenH , says: October 2, 2018 at 11:36 pm GMT
@Kratoklastes

As a group the BlackRobes have gotten it objectively wrong many times (Dredd Scott v Sanford; Ableman v. Booth; Buck v Bell; Plessy v Ferguson; Herrera v Collins) and morally wrong even more often (South v Maryland; Bush v Gore; Wickard v Filburn).

Then you must be a leftist ideologue.

In the Dredd Scott case the naturalization act of 1790 only extended citizenship to "free white persons", so the court got it objectively right since they ruled in accordance with existing law and didn't strike down or make law from the bench as too many power mad federal judges do today.

Plessy v Ferguson is a closer call (because of the 14th amendment) but IMO the court got it objectively right because the court only upheld de jure segregation with the stipulation that public facilities must be equal in quality. And in doing so the court ruled that the desires and wishes of blacks don't automatically supersede those of whites like federal courts reflexively do today.

The great irony is that today blacks, not whites, are demanding racially segregated dormitories, student orientations, facilities, graduations, schools, clubs, etc. and leftists have no issue with that but will scream themselves hoarse about racism and white supremacy if whites do.

In Bush v Gore I'm not sure what pressing moral issue was at stake other than you didn't like the court's decision, hence it was "immoral." Was SCOTUS supposed to allow Florida to keep counting votes until Christmas?

Kratoklastes , says: October 3, 2018 at 12:00 am GMT
@The Anti-Gnostic

I'd rather it be a bourgeois white guy with social markers indicating that he, like me, has been a red-blooded American teenager rather than a foppish Bubble-boy nerd with no theory of mind or a bitter lesbian hag

It's not the teenage indiscretions that should concern people – it's the obvious temperament problem that manifested itself during his testimony.

Anyone who 'arcs up' the way Kavanaugh did, has no place in any judiciary, be he ne'er so white and red-blooded: it shows that he is a narcissist.

I don't think he actually uttered the words " How dare you !", but it would not surprise me if he had done so.

So I would prefer a non-narcissist lesbian hag or "Bubble-boy nerd" (as if Kavanaugh did not grow up in a protective bubble! He exudes contempt for anyone outside of his class nothing wrong with that, except if you're hearing death penalty appeals or adjudicating on reproductive or sexual rights).

By way of stark contrast, I have a very good example of a decidedly non-bourgeois person (who will be Chief Justice in my jurisdiction before he retires)

One of my close friends from university was made a judge of the Supreme Court (of Victoria, Australia) in 2013.

He was a first-rate advocate (specialising in criminal defence) – another contrast with Kavanaugh, who is a lifetime party/government apparatchik who has never tried a case.

Michael (for that is my old mate's name) was also a former logging truck driver who returned to study in his mid-30s (having already had a family). He went to government schools for his entire education – the first Supreme Court justice to have done so, a fact that the Chief Justice remarked upon at his inauguration.

Despite having no pedigree, no connections, no Old Boys' (or Masonic) connections, he was made QC at the earliest possible date (i.e., 10 years after he was called to the Bar).

He is also a witty bugger, and his default expression is a kind of half-smile, even now. He was (and is) talented enough that he does not have to rely on gravitas : on several instances he has cried in open court while recounting the facts of particularly tragic cases, even as he was sentencing the perpetrators to jail. This is not a display of weakness: it's a display of empathy – a weak man would be scared of the public reaction.

His robes sit heavy, but he still played "old-blokes' footy" after his elevation to the bench.

And although I think he has some leftish tendencies, I could not say with any certainty where his politics lie: when we were students together his economics was first-rate and "rationalist" (he and I both got Reserve Bank cadetships – only 4 of which were awarded Australia-wide in our year).

Now the reason I drop his name into the mix is that I can declare with absolute confidence that if he was involved in a hearing of this type, there would be no displays of righteous indignation, no partisan political commentary, no facial contortions, no spittle-flecked lips in short, no displays of behaviour that indicate that he thinks that he is above reproach simply by virtue of his background or his current station .

That 's the guy you want in your judiciary: you can't tell me that a nation of 300 million people – and a surfeit of lawyers – doesn't have a single lawyer like Michael Croucher.

OK, so that was a rhetorical trick on my part, because the US Supreme Court is only open to people who went to Harvard or Yale Law (although Ginsberg got her JD at Columbia, she was a transfer from Harvard).

And, of course, they must have a lifetime track record of opinions that align with the party in power at the time of their nomination.

The Anti-Gnostic , says: Website October 3, 2018 at 1:11 am GMT
@Kratoklastes Judges frequently "arc up" on the bench. And I couldn't care less about your friend.
Disclaimer , says: October 3, 2018 at 1:21 am GMT
@Kratoklastes

>>>>>>>>>>He is having a job interview for a government sinecure, and someone he went to school with claims that he did things to her that would meet the criteria for attempted rape. <<<<<<<<<<

She was two grades behind him and attended an all girl school in a different part of town. So how is she someone he went to school with? I went to an all girl school (Catholic) and can't recall any boys I went to school with. As a mother, I was interested in the distance of her home from the place of the party.

I gathered it was too far to walk to and walk home from, (especially at night). What did she tell her parents were she had been? Her parents did not care she ran around at night like that? At age 15. Not that Kavanaugh would be my choice.

Biff , says: October 3, 2018 at 1:28 am GMT
@The Anti-Gnostic Outliving the dinosaurs, and the upcoming nuclear war that deep state Kavanaugh butt buddies initiate does in fact stir my envy.
Sin City Milla , says: October 3, 2018 at 5:07 am GMT
Rape is a social construct. Some languages don't even have a word for it. Re Kavanaugh, who knew that he was a serial gang rapist whose coast to coast crime wave has kept the country secretly cowering in fear for the past 40 years? And thank goodness that we discovered just in time that he also possesses emotions n a point of view. We can't have that on the SCOTUS! I mean, where would we be if other Justices decided to have points of view n even did interviews? Thank goodness that never ever happens, n all the current justices keep their lips sealed n are completely neutral.
Liza , says: October 3, 2018 at 6:14 am GMT
@Anonymous We don't know that her parents "did not care she ran around at night like that at age 15″.

Teenagers and even younger children disobey their parents' instructions, orders and warnings all the time. Maybe Ms Ford was chronically disobedient, a difficult child from Day One, and maybe (just opining here) that's why she was sent to an all-girls private school. I sure know of such cases. Such attendance doesn't change the child's behavior or character, but it gets them away from their peers in public school, which makes the parents believe everything will now be alright with their naughty child.

Not everything is the parents' fault. Nurture can't always undo Nature. Indeed, it rarely does in any deep, permanent sense. Just threaten and/or punish your children enough and then they'll obey you – for the wrong reasons.

Dorian , says: October 3, 2018 at 7:01 am GMT
I Told You So: Ford Is Lying And Needs To Go To Prison

As I stated in a previous comment, Ford is just another hysterical man hating wobaby (woman baby), that has lied in her testimony and public shameful denunciation of Kavanaugh.

Her lies are now coming back to haunt her: Ford delusional story unravelling rapidly . Ford is now facing prison, not Kavanaugh.

As I have pointed out in that past comment, Ford is not suffering from any "sexual harassment" abuse. She is suffering from a long, entrenched and ever growing case of embitterment from her childhood years. This hatchet job on Kavanaugh is nothing more than a case of revenge from Ford. Brett Kavanaugh's mother presided over her parents' divorce and that led to a bitter house foreclosure that obviously had a lingering affect upon Ford and has now chosen to take this moment for revenge.

Some people like Nicephorus , took Ford's trauma to be some sort of psychological mental disorder or emotional distress. As I pointed out this was just hogwash, Regarding Nicephorus and Reality: Specifically the truth is much simpler: revenge .

Now we see that Ford was lying about everything! She is not afraid of flying, she lied about her polygraph experience and expertise and lied about knowing Kavanaugh, when it is clear she did!

Once again, proof, facts and evidence, shows us all that you can't trust what people say, especially hysterical women! History is replete with examples of how hysteria, especially by women with a grudge, can destroy men lives. This nonsense, and it is ABSOLUTE NONSENSE, by Ford and her followers is nothing more than a bunch of pathetic individuals who've nothing in their lives other than to be jealous and embittered of others all because they are all failing in their own miserable, misbegotten lives. This is not about social justice, it is just about people who can't accept their irrelevant position in society and need to destroy others whom are make something of themselves.

Christine Ford is that lowest thing of womanhood; a bitter, delusional, man-hating female. When in reality the only thing she really hates, is herself. Now she will get her well over due comeuppance.

And what of Senator Feinstein? That modern incarnation of Reverend Samuel Paris (alla Salem Witch Trials), what of her? She should be thrown out of the Senate, and allowed to wither in the backwaters of the Deep Swamp, where she belongs!

Senator Feinstein you are a disgrace to Justice, the Senate, to Women, and above all, to the Human Race! Go back to murky slimy depths of the swamp, where you belong!

Hans Vogel , says: October 3, 2018 at 7:03 am GMT
@Kratoklastes Wholeheartedly agree with all your comments and adstructions. However, it would seem to me that in 99% of cases, it really does not matter who gets elected or appointed to any office, in the US or whichever other country.

What strikes me most in the whole Kavanaugh Show is that US politicians, the press and assorted figures, including many of the common citizenry, apparently care so much about the moral aspects of someone's behavior during puberty and adolescence. At the same time, these same politicians, press and citizens don't seem to have any compunctions about invading, killing and maiming people all over the world, on a continuous basis.

Clearly the US, like other countries, is governed by a clique of psychopaths. I just never realized that psychopathy is contagious.

Wizard of Oz , says: October 3, 2018 at 8:05 am GMT
@Kratoklastes I don't know Michael Croucher J but I know and have a high regard for the conservative Attorney-General who appointed him (also, you may be interested to know the product only of radically unfashionable non-government schools). I Googled for Michael Croucher and was surprised to find how many of the items on the first page had him tearing up on the bench. I suspect that he fits pretty well with his appointer's pretty strong law and order approach though I don't remember what the attitude of the latter was to the introduction of victim impact statements, inevitably not subject to cross examination for obvious enough reasons. (Moi: I was never a fan for several reasons).

While internet anonymity frees us up to say more than we can know with arrogant confidence I am surprised that you don't make the distinction between US judges with a Bill of Rights to maximise the likelihood of value differences infecting their judgments (bolstered by life tenure) and Australian judiciary much of which still honours Dixon CJ's "strict and complete legalism" in the sense in which he meant it (in answer to complaints of "excessive legalism") and maybe Blackburn J's excellent 1970s article on Judicial Method.

But you also go too far in presuming to characterise SCOTUS judges as lackeys of the appointing parties, or anyone. You should just think of the advantages of tenure, put it together with a general knowledge of human nature and then consider as well how unlikely it would be that successful tenured products of (typically) Harvard and Yale Law Schools are going to pay any attention at all to politicians after a couple of years becoming comfortable with their Olympian elevation, let alone 15 years and more.

steinbergfeldwitzcohen , says: October 3, 2018 at 9:32 am GMT
No evidence just accusations. IOW no substance just shit-throwing. In the past this Perjuring whore ( http://thefederalist.com/2018/10/02/christine-blasey-fords-ex-boyfriend-told-senate-judiciary-witnessed-coach-friend-polygraphs/ ) would have been tossed in the gutter. But Feminism. I demand to be heard (Even though I lie).

... ... ...

animalogic , says: October 3, 2018 at 9:56 am GMT
@Kratoklastes Another excellent comment, Krat' !
Re: Kav' "arc'ing up" I wonder whether that may have not been a carefully contrived piece of theatre, directed at the so-called Trump "base" ? I don't know.
Re: the judge himself. I recall his public nomination. His intro by Trump, his evident pleasure at nomination etc. However, his acceptance quickly segued into a modern version of Mr Smith goes the Washington. He seriously emphasised what a great family man he is. His little jokes with his daughters, coaching their basket ball team etc. The performance was just so sincere, so real indeed, so slick & polished . What a great guy ! I thought. Then I woke up – I'd been played .We're not talking about a great guy, we're talking about a judicial job application for the highest court in the US.
Literally, a job for life.
The "sex" business, whether true or false has completely distracted US from the substantive issue of whether this Judge, qua Judge is suitable for this role.
Your references to his whole "silver spoon"
history is largely indicative of the sex aspect. It goes to "character" at the least. It should be considered but not as, in itself, determative.
Heros , says: October 3, 2018 at 10:29 am GMT
Michael Savage has revealed that Ford's father and grandfather were both CIA. Additionally, Ford was responsible for psychologically screening CIA interns at Standford. She claims that she remembered the "sex offense" during some kind of psychological hypnosis. She talked like a teenager during the hearing, and wore the same kind of problem glasses that she is wearing in pictures from her early teens. She was trained in how to fool lie-detector examinations. She was born about 1966 to a CIA operative father.

This bitch just reeks of MKUltra. It not only would explain so much of her recent actions, it would also explain why she had 57 sex partners before starting college.

Most likely Ford was a MKUltra beta sex kitten, and that would also explain her current positions at Standford. Stanford was a major center for MKUltra research and programming, with Keasey and Owsley Stanley both being heavily involved in LSD research there as well as in the forming of the mind-control masters of the Grateful Dead.

Ilyana_Rozumova , says: October 3, 2018 at 10:51 am GMT
I do not think that even Bill Cosby raped anybody. All he had to do is promise the girl role in next episode. And so by the time when Bill turned around and headed to liqueur cabinet there she was on the bed naked with the feet pointing to the Heavens. Basically the same story was with Weinstein. You know women do not use their pussy only as a payment for full, they also use pussy as a deposit.
White Refugee , says: October 3, 2018 at 11:22 am GMT
I really hate Trump and this country. He said it's a scary time for young men in this country. I'm a young man and I've never met anyone in real life who was falsely accused of sexual misconduct. The prospect isn't even on anyone's mind. No normal woman would do that. Some politicians might get falsely accused, but that isn't something regular guys fear.

But I'll tell you who is under attack: white people, both men AND women. There were hardly any white girls at my high school. Hot white girls are a disappearing breed in many cities and towns all over this country because of mass immigration. And what has a fraud like Trump done about that? Absolutely nothing. His immigration failures are the real war on white women.

But the little manbabies of the right will continue their hysteria and petty squabbles with white women and even ally with non-white men against their own women. White people divide and conquer themselves. The enemy doesn't have to do anything but sit back and enjoy the show as whites fight each other instead of their own colonization and dispossession by the Third World.

Disclaimer , says: October 3, 2018 at 11:24 am GMT
@The Anti-Gnostic Said the pinko.

Envy as the Foundation of Capitalism

http://www.articlesfactory.com/articles/business/envy-as-the-foundation-of-capitalism.html

Carroll Price , says: October 3, 2018 at 12:07 pm GMT
In the small high school I attended and from which graduated in 1960 were 4 girls who took-on the entire football team more than once. There's no reason for me to believe the school I attended was much different from any other public or private school. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. The truth is that quite a few girls and women who are mentally disturbed will do practically anything to acquire attention from males. It's always been that way, and always will.
Ilyana_Rozumova , says: October 3, 2018 at 1:05 pm GMT
I used to live in Communist country, where social scientist were pushing the idea that first organized tribal societies were matriarchal. Than that today society is patriarchal. Prevailing theories were that patriarchal society inevitably must revert back to matriarchal society. I did not pay too much attention to it, and did seem to me that it was something strange. Is this happening in US? I do not know!
George , says: October 3, 2018 at 1:10 pm GMT
Is Kavanaugh a true believer in the Bush II mission to save the world or was he just a water carrier?
chris , says: October 3, 2018 at 2:14 pm GMT
Excellent article on the beautiful circus lifting the curtain on American politics. It's always been this way, we just got loge seats this time.

Regarding the "facts" being brought to bear, it seems that if you're a woman and want your 15min of fame, all you have to do is describe your wildest sexual fantasy as long as you end your statement with the seal of quality: "100% Kavanaugh."

And whether he lied about not being a lush and she about everything else the most pertinent question is: where can you finally see more adults lying through their teeth than in the US.gov? Indeed, the show must go on, and even Fred can't make this any funnier that it already is.

[Oct 03, 2018] Christine Blasey Ford's Credibility Under New Attack by Senate Republicans

Looks like here are are dealing with two pretty unpleasant people. Kavanuch might have or used to have a drinking problem and might became agreessve in intoxicated state.
She remembers one can of ber she drunk (to protect her testimony from the case of completly drunk woman assalu, whuch is still an assalt) but do not remeber who drove her to the house, location and who drove her back. That's questionable.
Dr. form used somebody else creadit card and lied about poligraph test.
Looks there three scoundrels here: Senator Feldstein (violating the trus a leaking form letter), Klobuchar (trying to exploit fraudulent Swetnick testimony for political purposes), Kavanaugh (inability to take punches calmly, low quality of defence (this supposed to be the best legal mind the county can find), possible past drinking problems, possible aggressive behaviors when drunk), and Dr. Ford (heavy drinking in high school and college, possible promiscuity, possible stealing funds by abusing former boyfirnd credit card (he left her, not vise versa), using questionable methods to rent part of her house, and even more questionable method to justify this, etc)
Notable quotes:
"... "Christine Blasey Ford's Credibility Under New Attack by Senate Republicans" This is an interesting headline for an article that is actually about a former boyfriend who submitted a letter refuting many of Ford's claims. ..."
"... We heard the same thing with Tawana Brawley, Sarah Ylen, Jackie Coakley at UVA and Crystal Gayle Mangum -- to subject their stories to any critical analysis was revictimization. When they were shown to be frauds, the argument became that one may not criticize proven liars and frauds because that may "revictimize" other, unnamed, hypothetical victims of sexual assault. ..."
"... But evidently the letter wasn't considered actionable by Senator Feinstein. Dr. Ford indicated that she had discussed her letter with persons she knows. Likely, then, someone she knows outed her. Civic duty calls for follow up, which could protect Dr. Ford's evident desire for privacy by remaining confidential communication with the Judiciary Committee. But she chose otherwise. Armed with two attorneys, she chose to politicize her experience, evidently exploiting the #MeToo atmosphere for the sake of embarrassing Republicans. ..."
"... I don't see why McClean or Ford's supporters are complaining about the ex-boyfriend's allegation. Allegation is the new standard of proof, right? Allegations don't require any support at all. In fact, as we have learned here in NYT, an allegation that is refuted by everyone alleged to be present is still to be believed if it goes along with an earnestly told story. It's earnest denials that no longer count. ..."
Oct 03, 2018 | www.nytimes.com

Jay Lincoln NYC 5h ago

Why does the Times always have to spin news with a ludicrously liberal slant? Ford's credibility was attacked by her ex boyfriend of 6 years, who lived with her, saw her prep her friend for polygraph tests, flew with her on small propeller plans among the islands of Hawaii, and had his credit card fraudulently charged by her.

The source is her ex-boyfriend. Yet the title implies it's Senate Republicans launching a partisan attack. Give me a break.

Also, she's hurting her own credibility by claiming to remember having EXACTLY one beer 36 years ago. When she can't even remember where she was or how she got home after supposedly being nearly raped and killed.

JDO Kensignton, MD 5h ago

The longer this Freak Show continues, more and more of Ford's bones will be pulled from the closet. Time to vote, time to move on. If Democrats want to pick judges, they need to win elections.

Bearn Atlanta, GA 3h ago

"Christine Blasey Ford's Credibility Under New Attack by Senate Republicans" This is an interesting headline for an article that is actually about a former boyfriend who submitted a letter refuting many of Ford's claims.

I am not sure how the Senate Republicans asking Ford's counsel for corroborating evidence, that Ford herself brought up in the hearing, is equivalent to them attacking her credibility? Maybe this article was actually meant to be in the opinion section written by the editorial board?

I am no expert, but isn't it the purpose of journalism to get down to the unbiased truth? The Times should go pursue this ex-boyfriends story and try to find whether or not he is credible rather than spewing out misleading headlines.

RobinR California 5h ago

Its absurd that people are up in arms about this. It's a known fact that polygraphs are unreliable, can be cheated and can create false positives. Even the person who invented the test claimed they are faulty. Why she bothered to do one at all is a mystery, since she probably knows they're unreliable. Did Kavenaugh do one?

Ginny Virginia 4h ago

How is investigating the allegations attacking her? She made statements in her testimony that this letter form the ex-boyfriend has insight about. He shared what he knows. Should this not be investigated? Does the NYT expect that only information about Kavanaugh should be investigated?

She has made allegations. Should not the credibility of those allegations be looked into when there is evidence that perhaps she was not truthful? How is it right to only investigate one side of the story, especially when there is no evidence and there are no witnesses to the alleged event! To simply accept that she is telling the truth and say she is being attacked when anyone questions her story is outrageous. But then this is a story in the NYT, so of course the headlines are salacious and misleading to better advance your agenda. I believe in free press and understand its place in a free society. But these kinds of stunts are yellow journalism, and not healthy for our nation, or for the TImes in the long run. You are destroying your reputation as honest journalism each and every time you do something like this.

Reply 33 Recommend
Pono Big Island 2h ago Times Pick

Why shouldn't her credibility be established? She is making damning accusations dating back 36 years. Regardless of the genders of the parties involved and the nature of the incident, with no corroborating witness, this still boils down to "she said , he said". To be fair there is really not much else you can do but try to establish the relative veracity of the two people involved.

It seems that "fairness" is not the goal of extremists on either side. It's strictly about the outcome going their way.

Jessica Evanston, IL 5h ago

@Psst Ms. Mitchell was right to ask about the test, based on Dr. Ford's expertise as a psychologist. When I hearing that she took and passed a polygraph, I thought, "She's a psychologist, doesn't she know how those work?"

Ralphie CT 4h ago

I'm sorry, but those who "believe" Ford need to understand that polygraphs are not valid and they are not reliable. The psych literature is full of research papers on this. Here is a quick summary from the American Psych Association.

https://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx

Polygraph tests are widely used in psych classes as examples of modern day pseudoscience, akin to phrenology.

People who believe their story, who have been trained, who don't care or who are psychopaths can easily pass a polygraph even when lying.

Dr. Ford, as a psychologist knows this. So her story about taking the polygraph and finding it distressing are ridiculous. She took it as a stunt knowing she could easily pass because polygraph's don't detect lies. The whole charade further undermines her story, as much her professed fear of flying or her statement that she didn't tell anyone about this except husband and therapist until she came forward -- which later morphed to, she discussed it with her beach friends.

I don't know what Ford's game is, she may believe her tale, or she may have deliberately come forward with a false accusation to stop a conservative from ascending to the highest court in the land. She is a committed dem activist.

Polygraphs are bogus -- they only work through intimidating naive individuals.

Brookhawk Maryland 3h ago

I never told boys or men I was dating about my experiences with sexual abuse. Why would I? Dating someone does not require you to open your soul. I never told my parents about two of the three episodes I was victim to. I was too stunned, shocked and ashamed. I'm a woman. That's what I was taught to be. I was taught it was my fault if I was abused. I was taught that by the whole society we live in. Why in heaven's name would I ever mention my history to someone I was simply dating?

JB Chicago 5h ago

Finally we get some information about Kavanaugh's main accuser. For a while it seemed as if she had just sprung into existence and had no history beyond her claims of sexual assault.

Robin Cambridge 2h ago

"Still, Rachel Mitchell, the Arizona sex crimes prosecutor who questioned Dr. Blasey at last week's hearing, seemed to know to ask her about whether she had ever advised anyone about taking a polygraph test."

So it's very likely the Republicans knew in advance of Mr Merrick's statement but chose to withhold it. Given their criticism of Democrats' conduct about Dr Ford's statement they seem a little hypocritical. Sen. Grassley's charging a "lack of candor" is risible.

Even if Dr Ford had 20 years ago coached someone in techniques to pass a polygraph test and exaggerated her claustrophobia - both of which I doubt - big deal. "Central to the credibility of her testimony " pace Sen Grassley, it is not. It is on the periphery.

One can only surmise what Mr Merrick's motivation is but it seems overwhelmingly likely he's providing this to support the Republican cause or for money or (contrary to what he says) because he's ill disposed to Dr Ford (or a mixture of the three).

Why else would he interfere? She's not the one applying for the job (if she had been, any intelligent committee would have seen she's far better qualified, temperamentally and intellectually).

freddy 16 harrisburg 4h ago

I did not vote for Trump but it is obvious that the New York Times is out to destroy him and his programs. Remember Clinton's statements about the economy, " It is the economy, stupid. " You have to give Trump credit for a very strong economy, low unemployment, and a vibrant stock market. Voters will get it, the New York Times may not.

P.S. I believe that the media is responsible for the anger in our country. Would be much better if the media sought to build a consensus, trust, achievement, not division.

GWPDA Arizona 4h ago

This is an obscenity. That the nomination of a marginally qualified apparatchik to the Supreme Court would result in the corruption of the institution and the rule of law as the foundation of the United States is obscene. Any further move other than the nomination's withdrawal will be catastrophic. Any further political involvement in this nomination will be deliberately destructive.

India midwest 4h ago

So it's okay to "smear" Judge Kavanaugh by publicizing allegations from former college "friends" etc, but it is deeply unfair to even mention that Dr Ford might just not be Joan of Arc. I seem to see a bit of a double standard here.

Mark Greenwich 4h ago

People who use others credit cards are liars. Selective honesty is not possible. She is dishonest. Doesn't mean Kavanaugh is honest but she is a pawn and loves the attention.

KBronson Louisiana 4h ago

Every psychologist knows that polygraphs are unreliable and can be faked. It is even an official position of the American Psychological Association. Why would any psychologist have a polygraph test other than to scam someone? If any of this is true, a lot of people have just been duped by a great actress, which the best deceivers always are. But like cultists, having emotionally committed themselves few will have the courage to admit it.

Melissa Massachusetts 3h ago

@Charlie No, that's not clear at all.

Fear of flying and claustrophobia start in adulthood. Ford and this man started dating when she was just out of college, whereas fear of flying's average age of onset, according to online sources is 27 and it worsens with age -- especially after marriage and kids as people emotionally have more to lose.

I had an employee years ago who was fine flying for work in his mid-20s, but as he approached 30 he started to experience terrible anxiety about flying. He also became quite claustrophobic and couldn't get in the elevator if it was crowded. We had to adjust his job around it.

Ford also stated under oath that the attack she alleges was not the only cause of her anxiety/claustrophobia. She alluded to other predispositions. Go back and listen to the testimony.

Harvey NC 3h ago

From this article "The former boyfriend told the Judiciary Committee that he witnessed Dr. Blasey helping a friend prepare for a possible polygraph examination, contradicting her testimony under oath. Dr. Blasey, a psychology professor from California who also goes by her married name Ford, was asked during the hearing whether she had "ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test." She answered, "Never."

... ... ...

Rosie James New York, N.Y. 4h ago

Oh, I was under the impression that only The Media could attack (Kavanaugh, that is.) Almost everything I have read in the news (other than the Wall Street Journal) is based on speculation, written by Left Wing Activists (see article from yesterday's NY Times).

Dr. Ford (or probably her attorneys) have mislead and lied directly to the american people about Dr. Ford's "Fear of Flying" when she flies all over the place. When the Senate Committee offered to interview her privately in her California home or anywhere private she wanted she knew nothing about it.

Either she is lying or her attorneys are lying to her or keeping information that doesn't advance their narrative. Either way this whole thing stinks!

roane1 Los Angeles, Ca 3h ago

You accept flat-out what this ex-boyfriend says without question, and thus paint Dr. Blasey Ford as a "liar"? What about Kavanaugh's "selective honesty"? And how you get to being a pawn and loving attention from her extreme reticence is a total mystery. It appears you accept whatever the Senate Committee majority puts out without critical examination or waiting to see if there is any rebuttal.

Wine Country Dude Napa Valley 2h ago

Read: women should not be challenged when they lob career-ending accusations at men. They should be taken at their word and not subjected to any type of opposition. Because, heck, doing so would re-victimize the victim (even though her status as victim is very far from established).

We heard the same thing with Tawana Brawley, Sarah Ylen, Jackie Coakley at UVA and Crystal Gayle Mangum -- to subject their stories to any critical analysis was revictimization. When they were shown to be frauds, the argument became that one may not criticize proven liars and frauds because that may "revictimize" other, unnamed, hypothetical victims of sexual assault.

What women propose is an end run around fundamental principles of fairness, to say nothing of the judicial principles that have governed us for centuries. And to say nothing of the proposition that they are adults themselves, have willingly entered the big bad government and financial worlds and proclaimed that they can handle themselves ferociously, just like men, thank you very much.

zb Miami 3h ago

The evidence clearly corroborates that Kavanagh was a drunken abusive lout in high school and college. His testimony in Congress proves he still is. At this point it really doesn't matter what Miss Ford said or did not say; what matters is what Cavanaugh has said and done.

Soxared, '04, '07, '13 Boston 3h ago

Charles Grassley knew about this lie and fed it to Rachel Mitchell to entrap Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. Who can't see through the blatant partisan desperation?

Lee California 4h ago

Isn't it glaring to anyone that not her parents nor her brothers have come out to speak for her? I don't believe they attended the hearing.

Something just isn't right here. I know I would upfront and personal with anyone who would doubt my daughter.

Son of Liberty Fly Over Country 3h ago

I've seen and heard so many of my friends on the left say with great conviction: "I believe her!" But if you're willing to analyze with a fair mind all the accusations flying around, you'll agree there isn't a shred of corroboration.

This credulous yet firmly-held faith in Dr. Ford is just that "Faith" - belief without objective evidence.

In fact, there's more reason to believe in Santa Claus than in Dr. Ford. At least with Santa, the cookies and milk we left for him before bed were gone in the morning and were replaced by presents. Now that's real corroboration - at least in the mind of a credulous child.

gary e. davis Berkeley, CA 3h ago

"Civic duty" doesn't entail going public. It involves providing further information to relevant decision makers, i.e., Judicial Committee members. But going public does serve political interests. It does not serve interest in truth.

Dr. Ford was outed as the author of a letter to Senator Feinstein because the outing party wanted to see action shown, in light of the letter, that had not been publically shown.

But evidently the letter wasn't considered actionable by Senator Feinstein. Dr. Ford indicated that she had discussed her letter with persons she knows. Likely, then, someone she knows outed her. Civic duty calls for follow up, which could protect Dr. Ford's evident desire for privacy by remaining confidential communication with the Judiciary Committee. But she chose otherwise. Armed with two attorneys, she chose to politicize her experience, evidently exploiting the #MeToo atmosphere for the sake of embarrassing Republicans.

That looks like duplicity that gels with the implausible character of her accounts.

XLER West Palm 2h ago

So there you have it. She lied under oath at least twice. And now we know that her "second door" was added in 2009, not 2012 as she claimed, based on oermitnhistory and used as an entrance to a rental unit they built. She also lied about credit card fraud until her ex threatened to prosecute her. Add that to the multiple memory lapses" and no evidence to back up her story this woman is simply not credible. I was also bothered that she stated her friend Leland didn't remember the party because she currently had health issues. Why would that make any difference?

Jonathan Northwest 2h ago

The ex-boyfriend dated Dr. Ford from 1992-1998 and that corresponds to when McClean was hired by the FBI. Conversely what does the ex-boyfriend get out of this -- grief from the press for daring to question Dr. Ford? Dr. Ford's claims are so full of inconsistencies it is absurd. The polygraph issue is just one aspect of the ex-boyfriend's letter -- there are other deliberate lies that Dr. Ford is being accused of presenting in her testimony. Time for the press to examine where Dr. Ford lived when the ex-boyfriend asserts she was living in a 500 square foot apartment with ONE door.

Holly Los Angeles 3h ago

@Ora Pro Nobis I disagree that it was unfair. Rather, in the testimony, Kavanaugh revealed his extreme partisanship, lack of respect, lack of decorum, lack of honesty, lack of ability to handle pressure, unwillingness to answer questions and his immaturity -- all of these extremely important to consider in weighing his fitness for a seat on the Supreme Court. Dr. Ford did the nation a tremendous service in presenting an opportunity for Kavanaugh to let us know what he's made of.

Ora Pro Nobis A Better Place 3h ago

I guess I need to revise a comment I made earlier. I called Dr. Ford's allegations baseless. That was incorrect. They were worse and weaker than baseless. Her allegations were refuted under oath by numerous people and now further undermined by the latter released by her ex-boyfriend. This is what you get when you allow hearsay and uncorroborated allegations into the process.

J c Ma 1h ago

A whole lot of peopleare jumping to coclusions on both side. The point of Dr Ford's testimony was not that Kavanaugh is definitely a bad guy, we probably cannot know that for sure, barring further investigation.

The problem is not that, though. It's that Kavanaugh behaved so badly for so long that this kind of accusation was even possible. He is unfit based on his already admitted undisciplined, unmoored, and irresponsible behavior in drinking and, more disturbingly, in money. This guy could be blackmailed, easy.

Chris CT 2h ago

Don't participate in victim-shaming, New York Times, by publishing victim-shaming letters. From wikipedia:

"In efforts to discredit alleged sexual assault victims in court, a defense attorney may delve into an accuser's personal history, a common practice that also has the purposeful effect of making the victim so uncomfortable they choose not to proceed." Of note, past sexual history, such as cheating, is often raised to discredit the victim. Sound familiar??

rick chicago 3h ago

I don't see why McClean or Ford's supporters are complaining about the ex-boyfriend's allegation. Allegation is the new standard of proof, right? Allegations don't require any support at all. In fact, as we have learned here in NYT, an allegation that is refuted by everyone alleged to be present is still to be believed if it goes along with an earnestly told story. It's earnest denials that no longer count.

I thought Ford's description of the assault was quite plausible. However, it's implausible that she didn't know Grassley had offered to interview her at home, that fear of flying was the cause of her delays, that she doesn't know who drove her home-but is sure she drank exactly one beer, and that she needed to study her invoices to figure out that her legal services and polygraph are free.

kona ma 2h ago

I no longer care about whether Kavanaugh or Ford are telling the truth. What I do care about is the blatant partisanship, half truths and revenge evidenced in Kavanaugh's testifimony. 'WHAT GOES AROUND COMES AROUND". If America thinks this behavior and thinly veiled threat is an acceptable mindset for a supreme court justice, I need to start investing in real estate in Canada.

kfm US Virgin Islands 3h ago

Kavanaugh's quote is "We're loud obnoxious drunks, with prolific pukers among us." You know, that sensitive stomach that reacts to spicy foods, that he swore under oath was the reason for his well-documented vomiting.

Also, "[A]ny girls we can beg to stay there are welcome with open..." What exactly is it you mean here, church-going, studious St Brett?

Randall Bachmann port st lucie 1h ago

My predictions were that Ford would not deliver the therapist's notes. She claimed, as did many here, that hey were the evidence that proved the story. Then she insisted that they were 'private' after the discrepancies were noted in her stories from the letter to Feinstein to the WaPo story.

Now we've learned that the second door was actually for the addition to the house, along with a bathroom and kitchenette. A room that was rented out. Not another WAY out.

In the notes, I'm sure that there is no mention of the need for another door due to the 'fear' Ford claimed. Especially since the permit for that addition with a door was pulled in 2008. Not in 2012. The therapist notes also are almost certainly from the 'counselor' who rented the apartment/office initially, who they also bought the house from and is now refusing to discuss it further.

I was clear in my earlier posts that as a psychologist, especially a teaching psychologist, Ford would have to know about polygraphs and how they work. https://www.apa.org/research/action/polygraph.aspx

And how to evade them: https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/09/25/nsa-whi...

Of course the person she helped is going to deny it. First, she would be in trouble with the FBI (she can count on an inquiry) and second, to admit it would prove that her friend whom she supported is a liar and perjurer.

Kayle Simon Seattle WA 1h ago

When Mitchell asked Ford whether she had ever helped anyone prepare for a polygraph, my first thought was, they have something. Then it took them a week to use it. I wonder when he contacted them, or how many of her ex boyfriends they called.

Allen Ny 2h ago

@Steve
He said she never showed any sign of claustrophobia living in a 500 square foot apartment. We now know the second door to her home was not another exit but an entrance for tenants installed years before she claims to have mentioned her trauma in therapy. He said she showed no fear of flying, ever, not even in smaller prop planes. We know that despite her statement about being afraid of flying she flew frequently and went long distances. These facts corroborate his statements and there is a growing list of lies and half-truths she has been identified uttering. She is not credible.

Rolf Grebbestad 2h ago

That woman appears to be deeply troubled. She has zero credibility.

Chico New Hampshire 2h ago

It's strange that "Bart" Kavanaugh was shown to lie, be confrontational, bullying and evasive, yet the Senate Republican's do not seem to have a problem with it.

When you have the FBI being restrained from talking to witnesses and following leads is outrageous, not interviewing Dr. Ford and "Bart" Kavanaugh makes this a joke investigation and will taint this Supreme Court pick forever.

Scrumper Savannah 2h ago

This Merrick goes on to say "During our time dating, Dr. Ford never brought up anything regarding her experience as a victim of sexual assault, harassment, or misconduct," he wrote. "Dr. Ford never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh."

My ex wife had been the victim of an attempted rape in her teens yet in ten years of knowing her she never mentioned it once. My Grandfather fought in WWII and witnessed horrific stressful things yet never spoke about them either. So we can discount the assertion in Merrick's letter.

Murphmurph Murphmurph 2h ago

Polygraph tests are inaccurate - statistically, they're slightly better than just guessing. They're not lie detectors; we'd be better off calling them anxiety detectors. If you're evaluating Ford's testimony, feel free to just throw the whole polygraph out, if that makes you more confident about your opinion.

If you believe what Mr. Merrick says is true, understand that an M.A. in psychology is going to tell you what any good friend would tell you before taking a polygraph test: Relax, be calm, tell the truth. You're a good person, you have no reason to be worried.

If you asked me if I *ever* gave advice on a polygraph test, and it turns out me and my roommate talked about it once twenty-five years ago, please don't hold it against me that I responded "no."

Jon Boston 4h ago

He also alleges she committed credit card fraud in grad school. But nobody should have their character judged by something that happened so long ago, right?

James Kirk California 4h ago

@D. Goldblatt
I am an engineer and have actually developed advanced signal processing and machine learning algorithms for this kind of bio-sensory application. New methods very immune to artificial manipulation and someone saying they heard her give advice for 1990 strip chart technology is nuts. But it is not surprising for someone to think this is old technology.
Pretty weak counter-attack. Time to bring in testing of Kavanaugh.

Rob Campbell Western Mass. 3h ago

If it is shown that Ford and/or any of the other accusers have lied and brought forward false accusations, should they be criminally charged?

Charlie Messing Burlington, VT 4h ago

@Jay Lincoln You say the Times had a slant? What would the story sound like standing straight up? Different? Her ex-boyfriend may not be a reliable source - he saw her tell someone what a polygraph test was like - not how to beat one. PS - if you only drink one beer when you drink, remembering that would not be hard to accept. (Did she have many beers at other times? You know anything about it?) Please - take the break you say you need.

Prof Emeritus NYC NYC 37m ago

The NY Times and other Democratic organizations are beginning to panic.

Ford's story is ... falling apart.

Reply 5 Recommend
Anthony Carinhas Austin, Texas 38m ago

I'm so glad I'm a centrist because this bickering has become foolish. Yes the country deserves honorable justices on our courts, there's so much dishonesty coming from both sides that it seems everyone should be cut off in exchange for another nominee. The country's divisions are getting careless and childish that anyone will say anything to get their way. Put someone else on the table already folks.

Regards, LC princeton, new jersey 3h ago

As many observers have noted, the WH has perhaps dozens of qualified candidates to replace Kavanaugh without a stigma of sexual assault hovering over them and who reflect views consistent with those of the Republicans.
Why then continue with a nomination that has ripped the country apart?
The answer is Mr. Trump's inability to acknowledge a mistake and to adopt the posture of Roy Cohen: never backdown; always punish your enemy more painfully than he/she punished you; never show weakness.
So it's another incident in which we have to suffer, often needlessly,
to satisfy Mr. Trump's narcissistic, egomaniacal needs.

Gerwick New York 3h ago

@al Ford is not the one accused of running rape gangs despite having an impeccable much commended judicial service record for 23+ years. He is understandably upset.

Also "innocent holes"? There is no such thing in law. Either you are lying or you are not.

Mor California 2h ago

Polygraph is junk science anyway. At best, it can determine whether the person believes she is telling the truth, not what the truth is. I think Dr. Ford believes her own words. But the more I learn about the circumstances of her testimony, the less inclined I am to believe that the alleged assault happened the way she described it. I suspect it is a classic case of false memory or confabulation. The FBI should interrogate her therapist with regard to the kind of therapy Dr. Ford received. And what about Dr. Ford's husband? Can't he tell us when, exactly, his wife remembered the name of her attacker? And how is the ex-boyfriend who apparently was with Dr. Ford for six years (in another country he would be called a common-law husband) did inot know about the assault that had supposedly blighted Dr. Ford's life? These questions need to be answered. Otherwise the entire thing is just a charade. And for the record, I was bitterly opposed to Kavanuagh nomination because of his position on Roe. Now I wish him confirmed just to end this circus. Trump's other nominee won't be any better on abortion anyway.

javierg Miami, Florida 3h ago

The ex boyfriend commentary brings new meaning to the saying "hell has no fury like a man scorned" (I substituted man for woman). This is what appears to have happen. Never in my lifetime would I have thought that I would witness such division and the airing out of our dirty laundry for the world to see. This makes the famous novel entitled The Beans of Egypt, Maine, by Carolyn Chute, look like a Disney story.

Jacqueline Colorado 2h ago

Seems to me that it's all a bunch of hearsay. At this point I think Kavanaugh is too divisive and shouldn't be confirmed because this process has horribly divided us along partisan lines, however, there can really be no truth known.

It's just all a bunch of hearsay. She said, he said, with no evidence. I dont believe either of them quite frankly. There are always three sides to the story. One sides story, the other sides story, and the actual truth. The actual truth is known through empirical evidence, and I dont think there is anything real. Sworn statements and polygraph tests are not evidence. DNA or a video are evidence, and there is none of that. As such, the FBI cannot get to the truth and never will.

I disagree with this political hit job. The Democrafs are the ones stoking the fires of division in this battle. However, they have succeeded and at this point Kavanaugh is so divisive that I believe it would hurt American institutions if he was nominated.

Gerwick New York 2h ago

@CPR Ford's claims are uncorroborated, even refuted by her own best friend. Where was the defense for Kavanaugh then? Not so much male privilege or power when he is not even given the basic courtesy of being held innocent until proven guilty.

nom de guerre Kirkwood, MO 3h ago

"He also wrote that they broke up "once I discovered that Dr. Ford was unfaithful" and that she continued to use a credit card they shared nearly a year before he took her off the account. "When confronted, Dr. Ford said she did not use the card, but later admitted to the use after I threatened to involve fraud protection," he said."

Small points, but:
They weren't married or engaged and perhaps the relationship had played itself out. I'd venture to say the majority of failing relationships end with the involvement of a third person. If he's trying to assassinate her character, this is a weak attempt. Heck, look at the guy who's in the WH.

They shared a credit card that she "continued to use a year before he took her off the account". This doesn't constitute fraud, her name was on the account at the time she used it. He had no basis for a fraud case.

He claimed she lived a 500sf place with only one door- ok, but it was in California, where space is at a premium. She was obviously on a budget, which dictates what one can afford.

Gerwick New York 3h ago

@Rickske "Klobuchar apologize to Kavanaugh?! Like telling a black person to apologize for taking a bus seat before a white person."

What? This makes no sense whatsoever. Klobuchar went after Kavanaugh over the Avenatti rape gangs claims which are now laughing stock of the whole nation. That's why she must apologize. Especially to his family and daughters.

sandy Chicago 3h ago

@Phyliss Dalmatian Too many holes in the story.
Have you read about the supposed "2nd door" Ford claims to have installed for protection? Well, seems it was really to "host" i.e., rent out the area of her master bedroom to Google interns (prior to that, it was used as a business). Ford also owns a 2nd home. She does not have two doors on that home. She lied about her fear of flying, about never having discussions about polygraphs in the past and she doesn't remember if she took the polygraph the day of her grandmothers funeral or the day after. Seriously? Those are just the lies that stick out to me. The omissions are too many to recall here. Try, please try, to take your loathing of Trump from the equation and realize that this woman lied! I believe her too. But I do not anymore. She's lying. It's frightening. What's more frightening is that the media isn't being honest about their reporting. This is ruining a man's life and that of his family. This isn't fair.

bored critic usa 3h ago

feinstein was holding onto dr. ford as her "ace in the hole". she wasn't going to use it if she didn't have to and she was holding out until the last minute. which also gives rise to the longest delay possible for the confirmation vote. simple dirty politics.

Mike CT 4h ago

@Andy
I graduated college in 1981, a fews years before Judge K but the same era. Drinking was common, altercations happened. No news here.

Do teenaged boys make awkward sexual references? Im not surprised.

It doesn't mean judge K is a predator as he is being portrayed by the Dems.

bored critic usa 4h ago

sounds like muldar from x-files, "I want to believe". so I will believe, regardless of any additional information which should perhaps cast a shred of doubt.

Reply 4 Recommend
bored critic usa 3h ago

but can you explain her lack of memory and the inconsistencies in her story?

Phil NJ 1h ago

There is a simple, effective way to handle all allegations, now or future ones.

First, the timetable is arbitrary.
That gives FBI full authority to impartially investigate all allegations.
To prevent adding allegations, give a time limit to all allegations.
Then conduct the investigation for a reasonable amount of time. No constraints, no limits if material to the accusations that is up to the FBI to decide.
You can still complete this investigation before elections if that is a priority.
Finally if investigations reveal anything against him that would have impacted his support for the court, impeach him if he is on it.

Just by what has transpired, his sneaky lies, partisan attack and blatant threat he is unfit for any court. If he values his family, he would spare them the worst by withdrawing now.

Elections have consequences. In a zero sum game your vote determines the outcome. As a matter of principle Election commission's goal ought to be 100% participation with a mandatory improvement in every election, period.

Ralphie CT 1h ago

@Henry Slofstra The fact is psychologists (Ford is one) know polygraphs are pseudoscience and can easily be beaten if you know how they work.

Gerwick New York 4h ago

@4merNYer What about the senate's conduct? Why was the allegations hidden until after the hearing until the last moment? Instead of a confidential investigation as is due process, and if confirmed charges then disqualification of the man's nomination, again as is due process, he and his family dragged into a media circus. Its only fair he got a little upset at the way it was handled.

His answers were concrete, he categorically and emphatically denied all allegations. There was nothing more to be said.

Gerwick New York 3h ago

@Mercutio

1. You accuse a man of impeccable record and public service to America for 23 years - of running rape gangs. Crucify him in public, drag his family and daughters into this chaos - and then expect him to be unemotional? How's that fair?

2. He's clearly demonstrated what now? where? You're reaching too much.

bored critic usa 4h ago

how is this a desperate smear? and what went on against Kavanaugh was not? who cares if he drank during hs and college. back then most kids did. and he couldn't have been drunk all the time and be as successful in his grades as he was. so focused on all the wrong things.

MB MD 57m ago

I remember a poly I took 40 years ago to work at a convenience store. The tight cuff immediately said "heart rate". So I intermittently calmed down and sped my heart to play a game with the examiner. I passed and remain convinced it's all voodoo.

Mary Edgerton Houston 58m ago

So it is one thing to tell someone that during a lie detector test your vital signs will be monitored as you are asked questions, starting with control questions that have established true or false answers. My Mother told me so at least, and I would not say that she advised me how to take a polygraph examination. There is on the other hand a technique in which people who are to submit to a polygraph examination learn how to raise their blood pressure or breathing rate while being asked control questions that they answer to truthfully. This adjusts your baseline vital signs to a level that would be too close to your vital signs while lying such that the changes in vital signs from truth to lie state are not statistically significant. I would say that training someone to do that is teaching someone how to take (and pass) a polygraph examination. Her boyfriend did not describe this being the case, so I think he and the Republican Senators are making a mountain out of a molehill. Also, I was molested as a child in a movie theater. I did not talk about it until forty years later, not to my serious boyfriends along the way, nor to my first husband. I only spoke about it to my second husband when we began taking our own little girls to the movies and I realized how terrified I was that they would be molested. I could hardly watch the movie, and wanted my husband to bracket them with me. He never understood that, but then he supports Trump (and we are divorced).

mike atlanta 1h ago

@Joan In California
"manly individuals who think this issue will go away after the dust settles better hope their behavior has always been above reproach."

and how many women have lives that are "beyond reproach"? Notice the goal post moving. Now its not only men who have sexually assaulted women who are the enemy its all men if the don't adhere to every single accusation made by any and every woman on the planet. How can any sane person think a gender war is the answer?

and will you only carry female babies to full term? because if one day your son doesn't believe just one woman on the planet (or think that she is mistaken) will you stand in line to scorch his earth too and betray your own motherhood?

DZ Banned from NYT 3h ago

@Brookhawk

They were in a relationship for 6 years and lived together. That doesn't make the boyfriend's account true, but it does explain how selectively the NYT chooses to inform its readers these days. The death of the media is a suicide.

Gerwick New York 3h ago

@rosa Stalin's Russia also sent and punished without any regard for evidence or proof which is the exactly what the left is doing to Kavanaugh right now. Ford's claim has no corroboration, is convieniently dropped 2 days before senate vote, Fienstein recommended lawyers, now exposed lies about fear of flying, polygraph etc...yet Kavanaugh can not demand the basic courtesy of being treated "innocent until proven guilty" from the public and the media? Stalin would be proud right now of this pitch fork mob culture we got going I tell you that much.

Gerwick New York 3h ago

@Henry She lied about fear of flying, lied about polygraph, no corroboration, she was with merrick for 5+ years yet never mentioned this "assault", allegations 2 days before senate vote?

How can anyone not be atleast suspicious?

Reply 2 Recommend
Gaspipe Casso Brooklyn 3h ago

@JenD My mother, my wife, my sister and my daughter's rage boiled over last week too...but at the thought that their father, brother, son and husband could face an uncorroborated charge and have his life ruined without due process.

[Oct 02, 2018] Kavanaugh Gang Bang Accuser Savaged By Ex-Weatherman Over Penchant For Group Sex

Oct 02, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

The Senate Judiciary Committee has released a letter from former meteorologist and former Democratic candidate for Maryland's 8th district, Dennis Ketterer, who claims that Brett Kavanaugh's third accuser and Michael Avenatti client, Julie Swetnick, was a group-sex enthusiast that he initially mistook for a prostitute at a 1993 Washington D.C. going-away party for a colleague.

"Due to her having a directly stated penchant for group sex, I decided not to see her anytmore" -Dennis Ketterer

Ketterer writes that Swetnick approached him "alone, quite beautiful, well-dressed and no drink in hand."

"Consequently, my initial thought was that she might be a high end call girl because at the time I weighed 350lbs so what would someone like her want with me? "

The former meteorologist then said that since "there was no conversation about exchanging sex for money" he decided to keep talking to her, noting that he had never been hit on in a bar before.

Over the ensuing weeks, Ketterer claims that he and Swetnick met at her residence for an extramarital affair that did not involve sex.

"Although we were not emotionally involved there was physical contact. We never had sex despite the fact that she was very sexually aggressive with me.

...

During a conversation about our sexual preferences, things got derailed when Julie told me that she liked to have sex with more than one guy at a time. In fact sometimes with several at one time. She wanted to know if that would be ok in our relationship.

Ketterer claims that since the AIDS epidemic was a "huge issue" at the time and he had children, he decided to cut things off with Swetnick. He goes on to mention that she never said anything about being "sexually assaulted, raped, gang-raped or having sex against her will," and that she "never mentioned Brett Kavanaugh in any capacity."

After Ketterer decided to run for Congress in Maryland, he thought Julie could be of service to his campaign - however he lost her phone number. After contacting her father, he learned that Julie had "psychological and other problems at the time."

Last week we reported that Swetnick's ex-boyfriend,

Richard Vinneccy - a registered Democrat, took out a restraining order against her, and says he has evidence that she's lying.

"Right after I broke up with her, she was threatening my family, threatening my wife and threatening to do harm to my baby at that time ," Vinneccy said in a telephone interview with POLITICO. " I know a lot about her ." - Politico

" I have a lot of facts, evidence, that what she's saying is not true at all ," he said. " I would rather speak to my attorney first before saying more ."

Avenatti called the claims "outrageous" and hilariously accused the press of " digging into the past " of a woman levying a claim against Kavanaugh from over 35 years ago.

And now we can add "group sex enthusiast" to the claims against Swetnick. Read below:

[Oct 02, 2018] Dr. Christine Ford and Judge Kavanaugh have both had their lives greatly damaged. Probably ruined.

Neoliberals have transformed themselves into a collection of Trump mini-mes, with guilty until proven innocent as the new "liberal" mantra. You've got standards.
Notable quotes:
"... I've linked to positive Democratic activism at the local level, and clearly there's a robust grass movement, that's anti-Trump. The problem with that strategy is that it motivates the base, but is unlikely to convert anyone. ..."
"... To do that Dems have to prove that despite a booming economy, the GOP oligopoly needs to be broken, simply to ensure that policies the GOP doesn't support – better health care, protection of social security, etc. aren't forgotten by a GOP congress. There are people trying to make that positive argument for change, but they're being drowned out by Trump's good economic news, and the current Dem position as the party of no. Are you suggesting that women hostile to BK were actually GOP supporters Dems have converted? ..."
Oct 02, 2018 | crookedtimber.org

"Neocon/neolib alliance is flat out of ideas and leadership, and is now rolling around in the sexual accusations mud with the pig – and the pig is winning".

likbez 10.01.18 at 3:18 am 72 I believe Dr. Christine Ford and Judge Kavanaugh have both had their lives greatly damaged. Probably ruined.

For example, Dr. Christine Ford testimony arose a lot of interests in minute and private details of her biography.
https://heavy.com/news/2018/09/christine-blasey-ford-bio/

Rolf Henriks

Her yearbook said she had had 54 consensual sexual encounters. But apparently only the alleged encounter with Kavanaugh was the one that traumtized her. Is she kidding me?

Research is very extensive and unlikely please her, or her husband
https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/09/20/christine-blasey-ford-got-doxed-can-anyone-ever-really-disappear-online/

Despite those efforts, the Palo Alto University psychology professor's fears have come true since she came forward over the weekend: Her lawyers say she's facing harassment and death threats. Supporters and opponents have found pictures of her on the Web and converted them into memes. And her Palo Alto home address was tweeted, forcing her to move out.

In the age of the internet, what's to keep the same thing from happening to any victim of sexual harassment or assault who decides to come forward? Can they -- or anyone -- completely erase their online presences to protect themselves?

"The extremely short and brutal answer is no," said Gennie Gebhart, of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. She does research and advocacy for issues that include consumer privacy, surveillance and security.

ph 10.01.18 at 5:14 am (no link)

I've been wrong before and a month is an eternity, so the prognosis is subject to revision. I've linked to positive Democratic activism at the local level, and clearly there's a robust grass movement, that's anti-Trump. The problem with that strategy is that it motivates the base, but is unlikely to convert anyone.

To do that Dems have to prove that despite a booming economy, the GOP oligopoly needs to be broken, simply to ensure that policies the GOP doesn't support – better health care, protection of social security, etc. aren't forgotten by a GOP congress. There are people trying to make that positive argument for change, but they're being drowned out by Trump's good economic news, and the current Dem position as the party of no. Are you suggesting that women hostile to BK were actually GOP supporters Dems have converted?

Wasn't that the strategy with the access Hollywood tape? How'd that work out?

Good for the Dems isn't good enough. Dems might take the House, which looks very doubtful to me now, and are unlikely to take the Senate. That's the best case, which still leaves Trump and the GOP set up well for 2020. Notice how nobody is pinning their hopes on Mueller at the moment.

Meanwhile, from your canary:

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/when-they-came-for-kavanaugh-kid-chris-britt/

[Oct 02, 2018] Even Bill Maher, currently an outspoken supporter of Hillary's "resistance" and the Democratic insurrectionists has chimed in on this travesty

Notable quotes:
"... They look bad because it is pure character assassination thrown at the nominee in the last possible moment with no actual evidence offered whatsoever. The time to accuse such a malefactor was 35 years ago, when it happened, if it happened. ..."
Oct 02, 2018 | consortiumnews.com

Realist , September 27, 2018 at 10:55 am

Exactly.

Even Bill Maher, currently an outspoken supporter of Hillary's "resistance" and the Democratic insurrectionists has chimed in on this travesty, as reported in the Hill, on Fox News and elsewhere:

"HBO "Real Time" host Bill Maher is no fan of Brett Kavanaugh. But on Friday night's show he conceded that a last-minute attempt to smear President Trump's Supreme Court nominee with accusations of sexual assault is making liberals "look bad."

They look bad because it is pure character assassination thrown at the nominee in the last possible moment with no actual evidence offered whatsoever. The time to accuse such a malefactor was 35 years ago, when it happened, if it happened.

But this accusation without substance seems to be standard operating procedure to justify anything the government, or some faction within the government, wants to do, even to the point of starting major wars. If THAT is permissible, merely destroying one man's career and good name might be considered a trivial price to pay for the Dems to get their way.

If this lynching succeeds, nothing will ever again be decided in a civilised manner according to a set of standard rules and principles again in this country. Tyranny will rule when guilt by accusation becomes the new standard. No one will ever again be safe and secure if a mere denunciation can remove you from the picture. That was called the "Reign of Terror" during the French Revolution. It was a hallmark of the Nazis, the Stalinists and the Maoists.

That these women can feign critical memory loss of most details, but just enough to claim "attempted rape," is preposterous. Fifty years later and I can still remember the exact details of both wonderful dates and times I was stood up by callous females who didn't care what those suddenly useless concert tickets might have cost you. You don't forget when people truly ride roughshod over you.

backwardsevolution , September 27, 2018 at 8:20 pm

Realist – great post! Maher, who I used to always agree with, but hardly ever do now (amazing how you change), is right here. Kavanaugh with accusations and no real evidence, Trump with Russiagate and no evidence at all, chemical weapons attacks with fake evidence, etc.

They just throw stuff out there and hope that it sticks, and their base laps it up. They don't care about evidence; they're too busy shouting for the lynch mob. This is dangerous stuff. I'm not exactly the most conservative person either, but I still see the importance of maintaining the Rule of Law, freedom of speech, sacred and hard-fought-for principles.

Yep, there's mean women out there (just as there are mean men). I remember overhearing women at work talking about going out for dinner with guys who they openly said they didn't even like, but it was a free dinner. When I called them on this, they just laughed, could have cared less. They're probably out there wearing pink pussy hats.

I've got both sexes as children, so I have to stay neutral.

[Oct 02, 2018] Recovered memory is a Freudian voodoo. Notice how carefully manicured these charges are such that they can never be falsified? This is the actual proof she is a liar and this whole thing is staged

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... Their testimony was usually highly emotional and impassioned, leaving an impression very similar to that conveyed last night by Dr. Ford. ..."
"... The "Recovered" (or "False") Memory Syndrome movement emerged in the midst of the steadily radicalizing Feminist Movement in the United States, probably at the very apogee of its extreme evolution, and was a movement in which Freudian therapy was central and Freudian therapists came to play the leading role. ..."
"... It was only after they had been subjected to extensive pseudo-scientific Freudian "therapy," in which sex always lay prominently at the center, that virtually all of these women came forward with these stories. ..."
"... nd, in this dispute the American ultra-Feminists chose to believe and preach the worst, most salacious, and most vicious possible interpretation of Dr. Freud's highly speculative, evidence-less, and – as subsequent study has overwhelmingly shown – completely contrived diagnoses. ..."
"... Beginning with a conviction that cocaine could provide a substantial therapeutic base for solving psychological problems, Freud seems himself to have become for a period a regular consumer of that drug, but subsequently altered the focus of his therapy to hypnosis. After realizing certain limitations to this approach, he shifted again, turning to the so-called "Talking Cure" rooted in provoking word associations, which provided the basis for the classic Freudian method of popular imagination – with the patient reclining on a couch and the good Dr. seated behind with his notebook and pen in hand. This is the method he retained for the rest of his life. ..."
"... The primary fault which has been cited for Freud's methods generally, but which has been particularly critiqued in both hypnosis and the "Talking Cure" as a reason for their invalidation, is the claim that both – at least inadvertently – incorporate the high probability of suggestion from the therapist. ..."
"... Analysis thus follows a circular course, the analyst's theoretical surmise being first subtly communicated to the patient, then confirmed by the patient's casting of his (or, more often her) own ideas within the framework which had been suggested by the analyst. In the end, nothing new is actually discovered. The patient merely replicates the expressed Freudian doctrine. ..."
"... Those women patients, and a few men, became their victims, but in turn became the perpetrators in the savaging of numerous men's lives, as these men were subjected to the most vicious accusations imaginable. Most of these accusations were, in retrospect, clearly fantasies in a ruthless mid-20th century male-witch hunt. ..."
"... Into this popular intellectual desert walks Dr. Ford, both whose personal history and her strange physical mannerisms in testimony before the Senate clearly indicate she has unfortunately suffered some form of serious psychological disturbance. ..."
"... Seemingly alienated from her own parents and most immediate family members, she has made her home as far away from the Washington, DC area ..."
"... In 2012 she underwent some sort of psychological counseling with her husband, though the details as far as I know have not emerged. But, it hardly seems likely coincidental that her first documentable expressions of antipathy to Judge Kavanaugh occurred in that year, when it was announced that Judge Kavanaugh was considered the likely Supreme Court appointee should Mit Romney win the Presidential election. Her expressions of antipathy to him have only grown from there. ..."
"... Use of weapons and tactics, of which the defender is unprepared for, is a good offense. ..."
"... Are Republicans et al. unable to understand basic military strategy? Do we lack the ability to conceive of new tactics and weapons to use against Democrats and Globalists? ..."
"... I realize that it is unacceptable to attack this poor helpless victim so the "it can't be corroborated" card has to be played. However, who else notices how carefully manicured these charges are such that they can never be falsified? This is the actual proof she is a liar and this whole thing is staged. ..."
"... She always takes everybody on some emotional ride right up to the point where she could be exposed but never with enough information so somebody could come out of the woodwork and prove she is a liar. ..."
"... We also have the infamous letter where we are repeatedly reminded she mailed it BEFORE Kavanaugh was picked. Of course, we only have Feinstein's word for that since nobody saw it until after this crap started. The delay was used to push up the story with new revelation about Mike Judge in a grocery store that shied away from her – again with no specific date so Judge could prove she is a liar. ..."
"... We also have all of our own recollections of high school insecurities and male-female interactions. What freshman or sophomore girl didn't get all giddy at the thought of the older guys hitting on her so she could tell all her friends about her older boyfriend ..."
"... Outside doors enter public areas kitchen sunroom living rooms not bedrooms. An outside door into a master bedroom with attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment ..."
"... Your post is very perceptive and just might be how it all went down. With the complications of couples' counseling over her demand for the bizarre double main entry doors. (lulz) Though I would think any family that built an illegal in-law apartment into their Palo Alto house and deployed it, would be ratted out by their neighbors. ..."
Oct 02, 2018 | www.unz.com

Nicephorus says: September 29, 2018 at 7:58 am GMT 2,000 Words

We still have to wait to see whether Judge Kavanaugh's appointment will go through, so the most important practical consequence of this shameful exercise in character assassination is as yet unknown. I'm pretty sure he'll eventually be appointed.

But, I think some critical theoretical aspects of the context in which this battle was waged were definitively clarified in the course of this shameful and hugely destructive effort by the Democrat leadership to destroy Judge Kavanaugh's reputation in pursuit of narrow political advantage. On balance, although Judge Kavanaugh and his family were the ones who had to pay the price for this bitter learning experience, all of us should be the long-term beneficiaries of this contest's central but often hidden issues being brought to light and subjected to rational analysis. I want to show what I think these hidden issues are.

What this sordid affair was all about was the zombie-like return-from-the-dead of a phenomenon exposed and pretty much completely invalidated more than thirty years ago, which never should have been permitted to raise its ugly head before an assembly of rational, educated Americans: the "Recovered Memory" (aka "False Memory") Syndrome movement of the 1980s, in which numerous troubled, frequently mentally off-balance, women (and a few men) came forward to declare that they had been the victims of incestual sexual abuse – most often actual sexual intercourse – at the hands of mature male family members; usually fathers but sometimes uncles, grandfathers, or others.

Their testimony was usually highly emotional and impassioned, leaving an impression very similar to that conveyed last night by Dr. Ford. Many hearers were completely convinced that these events had occurred. I recall having a discussion in the 1990s with two American women who swore up and down that they believed fully 25% of American women had been forced into sexual intercourse with their fathers. I was dumbfounded that they could believe such a thing. But, vast numbers of American women did believe this at that time, and many – perhaps most – may never have looked sufficiently into the follow-up to these testimonials to realize that the vast majority of such bizarre claims had subsequently been definitively proven invalid.

The "Recovered" (or "False") Memory Syndrome movement emerged in the midst of the steadily radicalizing Feminist Movement in the United States, probably at the very apogee of its extreme evolution, and was a movement in which Freudian therapy was central and Freudian therapists came to play the leading role.

It was only after they had been subjected to extensive pseudo-scientific Freudian "therapy," in which sex always lay prominently at the center, that virtually all of these women came forward with these stories. A major controversy, which arose within the ranks of the Freudians themselves over what was the correct understanding of the Master's teachings, lay at the core of the whole affair. A nd, in this dispute the American ultra-Feminists chose to believe and preach the worst, most salacious, and most vicious possible interpretation of Dr. Freud's highly speculative, evidence-less, and – as subsequent study has overwhelmingly shown – completely contrived diagnoses.

It's now known that Dr. Freud's journey to the theoretical positions which had become orthodoxy among his followers by the mid-20th century had followed a strange, little known, possibly deliberately self-obscured, and clearly unorthodox course. Beginning with a conviction that cocaine could provide a substantial therapeutic base for solving psychological problems, Freud seems himself to have become for a period a regular consumer of that drug, but subsequently altered the focus of his therapy to hypnosis. After realizing certain limitations to this approach, he shifted again, turning to the so-called "Talking Cure" rooted in provoking word associations, which provided the basis for the classic Freudian method of popular imagination – with the patient reclining on a couch and the good Dr. seated behind with his notebook and pen in hand. This is the method he retained for the rest of his life.

The primary fault which has been cited for Freud's methods generally, but which has been particularly critiqued in both hypnosis and the "Talking Cure" as a reason for their invalidation, is the claim that both – at least inadvertently – incorporate the high probability of suggestion from the therapist. In this view, patient testimony moves subtly, and probably without the patient's awareness, from whatever his or her own understanding might originally have been to the interpretation implicitly propounded by the analyst. Analysis thus follows a circular course, the analyst's theoretical surmise being first subtly communicated to the patient, then confirmed by the patient's casting of his (or, more often her) own ideas within the framework which had been suggested by the analyst. In the end, nothing new is actually discovered. The patient merely replicates the expressed Freudian doctrine.

The particular doctrine at hand was undergoing a critical reworking at this very time, and this important reconsideration of the Master's meaning almost certainly constituted a major, likely the predominating, factor which facilitated the emergence of the Recovered Memory Syndrome movement. Freudian orthodoxy at that time included as an important – seemingly its key – component the conviction of a child's (even an infant's) sexuality, as expressed through the hypothesized Oedipus Complex for males, and the corresponding Electra Complex for females. In these complexes, Freud speculated that sexually-based neuroses derived from the child's (or infant's) fear of imagined enmity and possible physical threat from the same-sex parent, because of the younger individual's sexual longing for the opposite-sex parent.

This Freudian idea, entirely new to European, American, and probably most other cultures, that children, even infants, were the possessors of an already well-developed sexuality had been severely challenged by Christian and some other traditional authorities, and had been met with repugnance from many individuals in Western society. But, the doctrine, as it then stood, was subject to a further major questioning in the mid-1980s from Freudian historical researcher Jeffrey Masson, who postulated, after examining a collection of Freud's personal writings long kept from popular examination, that the Child Sexual Imagination thesis itself was a pusillanimous and ethically-unjustified retreat from an even more sinister thesis the Master had originally held, but which he had subsequently abandoned because of the controversy and damage to his own career its expression would likely cause. This was the belief, based on many of his earlier interviews of mostly women patients, that it wasn't their imaginations which lay behind their neuroses. They had told him that they had actually been either raped or molested as infants or young girls by their fathers. This was the secret horror hidden away in those long-suppressed writings, now brought into the light of day by Prof. Masson.

Masson's research conclusions were initially widely welcomed within the psychoanalytical fraternity/sorority and shortly melded with the already raging desire of many ultra-Feminist extremists to place the blame for whatever problems and dissatisfactions women in America were encountering in their lives upon the patriarchal society by which they claimed to be oppressed. The problem was men. Countless fathers were raping their daughters. Wow! What an incentive to revolutionary Feminist insurrection! You couldn't find a much better justification for their man-hate than that. Bring on the Feminist Revolution! Men are not only a menace, they are no longer even necessary for procreation, so let's get rid of them entirely. This is the sort of extreme plan some radical Feminists advocated. Many psychoanalysts became their professional facilitators, providing the illusion of medical validation to the stories the analysts themselves had largely engendered. Those women patients, and a few men, became their victims, but in turn became the perpetrators in the savaging of numerous men's lives, as these men were subjected to the most vicious accusations imaginable. Most of these accusations were, in retrospect, clearly fantasies in a ruthless mid-20th century male-witch hunt.

This radical ideology is built upon the conviction that Dr. Freud, in at least this one of his several historical phases of interpretative psychological analysis, was really on to something. But, subsequent evaluation has largely shown that not to be the case. The same critique which had been delivered against the Child Sexual Imagination version of Freud's "Talking Cure" analytical method was equally relevant to this newly discovered Father Molestation thesis: all such notions had been subtly communicated to the patient by the analyst in the course of the interview. Had thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions of European and American women really been raped or molested by their fathers? Freud offered no corroborating evidence of any kind, and I think it's the consensus of most competent contemporary psychoanalysts to reject this idea. Those few who retain a belief in it betray, I think, an ideological commitment to Radical Feminism, for whose proponents such a view offers an ever tempting platform to justify their monstrous plans for the future of a human race in which males are subjected to the status of slaves or are entirely eliminated.

But, the judicious conclusions of science often – perhaps usually – fail to promptly percolate down to the comprehension of common humanity on the street, and within the consequent vacuum of understanding scheming politicians can frequently find opportunity to manipulate, obfuscate, and distort facts in order to facilitate their own devious and often highly destructive schemes. Such, I fear, is the situation which has surrounded Dr. Ford. The average American of either sex has absolutely no familiarity with the history, character, or ultimate fate of the Recovered Memory Syndrome movement, and may well fail to realize that the phenomenon has been nearly entirely disproved.

Into this popular intellectual desert walks Dr. Ford, both whose personal history and her strange physical mannerisms in testimony before the Senate clearly indicate she has unfortunately suffered some form of serious psychological disturbance.

Seemingly alienated from her own parents and most immediate family members, she has made her home as far away from the Washington, DC area where she was born as possible within the territorial limits of the continental United States. The focus of her professional research and practice in the field of psychology has lain in therapeutic treatment to overcome mental and emotional trauma, a problem she has acknowledged has been her own disturbing preoccupation for many decades. In 2012 she underwent some sort of psychological counseling with her husband, though the details as far as I know have not emerged. But, it hardly seems likely coincidental that her first documentable expressions of antipathy to Judge Kavanaugh occurred in that year, when it was announced that Judge Kavanaugh was considered the likely Supreme Court appointee should Mit Romney win the Presidential election. Her expressions of antipathy to him have only grown from there.

Dr. Ford is clearly an unfortunate victim of something or someone, but I don't believe it was Judge Kavanaugh. Almost certainly she has been influenced in her denunciations against him by both that long-term preoccupation with her own sense of psychological injury, whatever may have been its cause, and her professional familiarization with contemporary currents of psychological theory, however fallacious, likely mediated by the ministrations of that unnamed counselor in 2012. Subsequently, she has clearly been exploited mercilessly by the scheming Democratic Party officials who have viciously plotted to turn her plight to their own cynical advantage. As in so many cases during the 1980s Recovered Memory movement, she has almost certainly been transformed by both the scientifically unproven doctrines and the conscienceless practitioners of Freudian mysticism from being merely an innocent victim into an active victimizer – doubling, tripling, or even quadrupling the pain inherent in her own tragic situation and aggressively projecting it upon helpless others, in this case Judge Kavanaugh and his entire family. She is not a heroine.

PiltdownMan , says: September 29, 2018 at 9:01 am GMT

A recovered memory from more than five decades ago. Violet Elizabeth, a irritating younger child who tended to tag along, often wore expensive Kate Greenaway dresses. Her family was new money. William was no misogynist, though. He liked and respected Joan, who was his friend. The second William book is online.

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/17125/17125-h/17125-h.htm

Coemgen , says: September 29, 2018 at 10:35 am GMT
Rules-of-thumb
-- -- -- -- -- -- -
1. A good offense is the best defense.
2. An ambush backed up by overwhelming force is a good offense.
3. Use of weapons and tactics, of which the defender is unprepared for, is a good offense.

Are Republicans et al. unable to understand basic military strategy? Do we lack the ability to conceive of new tactics and weapons to use against Democrats and Globalists?

MarkinLA , says: September 29, 2018 at 12:49 pm GMT
I realize that it is unacceptable to attack this poor helpless victim so the "it can't be corroborated" card has to be played. However, who else notices how carefully manicured these charges are such that they can never be falsified? This is the actual proof she is a liar and this whole thing is staged.

She always takes everybody on some emotional ride right up to the point where she could be exposed but never with enough information so somebody could come out of the woodwork and prove she is a liar.

We also have the infamous letter where we are repeatedly reminded she mailed it BEFORE Kavanaugh was picked. Of course, we only have Feinstein's word for that since nobody saw it until after this crap started. The delay was used to push up the story with new revelation about Mike Judge in a grocery store that shied away from her – again with no specific date so Judge could prove she is a liar. This all reeks of testimony gone over and coached by a team of lawyers.

We also have all of our own recollections of high school insecurities and male-female interactions. What freshman or sophomore girl didn't get all giddy at the thought of the older guys hitting on her so she could tell all her friends about her older boyfriend and possibility of going to the prom as a lower classman? All he had to do (assuming he wasn't repulsive physically and he was a bit of a jock) was make the usual play of pretending to be interested and he likely would have been at least getting to first base at the party.

From her pictures she was no Pamela Anderson and would likely have been flattered. The idea that you rape someone without trying to get the milk handed to you on a silver platter is ridiculous.

This is another female driven hysteria based on lies like the child molestation and satanic cult hysterias of years past. Those were all driven by crazy or politically motivated women who whipped up the rest of the ignorant females.

Clyde , says: September 29, 2018 at 12:58 pm GMT
@Anon

Outside doors enter public areas kitchen sunroom living rooms not bedrooms. An outside door into a master bedroom with attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment

Your post is very perceptive and just might be how it all went down. With the complications of couples' counseling over her demand for the bizarre double main entry doors. (lulz) Though I would think any family that built an illegal in-law apartment into their Palo Alto house and deployed it, would be ratted out by their neighbors.

[Oct 02, 2018] Zerohedge commenters discuss evidence and Dr. Ford personality

Oct 02, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Mzhen , 11 hours ago

Ms. Mitchell had a line of questioning about the friend who was mutual to Kavanaugh and Ford. It turns out this was the same person who had been named earlier by Ed Whelan. Ford said she had dated Garrett, also knew his younger brother, but flatly refused to refer to him by name in public.

I'll assume Ms. Mitchell was allowed to review all of the investigative material collected by the Committee to date. There has to be a reason she pursued this line of questioning.

Torgo , 11 hours ago

Who would most likely drive a girl to a party with older high school boys from a different school and different circle of friends? Who would most likely take a 15 year old girl home from a party in an age without cell phones? His name is Chris Garrett, nickname of "Squi". She claims to not remember the person that drove her home, and she claims to not remember the name of the last boy at the gathering. And she refuses to publicly state the name of the boy that introduced her to Kavanaugh. These are all one and the same person, her boyfriend and soon-to-be-ex-BF Chris Garrett, who may have either assaulted her or broke up with her that day.

fleur de lis , 13 hours ago

What a spoiled brat she must have been whilst growing up.

She must be a really obnoxious snot to her coworkers over the years, too.

And as a teacher she must be a real screwball.

Which explains how she landed an overpaid job at a snowflake factory.

Torgo , 11 hours ago

She walked upstairs calmly with her boyfriend Chris Garrett, nicknamed "Squi".

Westcoastliberal , 14 hours ago

What's this? https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christine_Blasey

aloha_snakbar , 15 hours ago

Why was Ms. Ford wearing glasses that looked like someone rubbed Crisco on the lenses? As a long time wearer of glasses, I can tell you we dont roll that way, kind of defeats the purpose. Answer? Those were not her glasses...they were a prop...

Dormouse , 15 hours ago

She's an Illuminati/NXIVM MKUltra-ed CIA sex-kitten. Her family glows in the dark with CIA connections. She's a CIA recruiter at Stamford, as well as her other job at Palo Alto. Oh, something traumatic has happened to her, multiple times; but at the hands of her family and their close Agency friends. Alyssa Milano in the audience? Come on! This is so ******* sick! What a disgusting display for those in the Know. Does the FBI currently have the balls to call them all out? That's the question, has Trump reformed the DOJ/FBI -- beyond the hobbled and shackled part consummed by these criminals with their coup? He seems confident, almost like he's tormenting his enemies as usual.

aloha_snakbar , 16 hours ago

Funny how Democraps are getting their panties in a wad over BK drinking beer in college, yet were okay with Slappy Sotoro snorting cocaine in college....go figure...

MrAToZ , 17 hours ago

The Dims don't believe Ford any more than they believe in the constitution. They are building a better world. They are true believers, one in the cause.

If one of them were at the receiving end of this type of Spanish inquisition they would be crying foul right out of the batter's box. But, because this is for the cause they will put the vagina hat on, goose step around and say they believe that mousey Marxist.

It's a made up sink if he's innocent, guilty if he floats game show. They know exactly what they are doing, which makes them even more reprehensible.

Sinophile , 19 hours ago

If the bitch 'struggled academically in college' then how the hell did she get awarded a freaking P(ost)H(ole)D(igger)?

onewayticket2 , 19 hours ago

Again, So What??

The democrats have already soiled this Judge's career and family name. Now it's about delay.

Exoneration note from the Republicans' lawyer carries precisely zero weight with them.....they are too busy sourcing everyone who ever drank beer with Kav....in an effort to get another Week Long extension/argue that Trump already greenlighted such an extension to investigate how much Kav likes beer. or who's milk money he stole in 3rd grade....

onewayticket2 , 18 hours ago

He is not the first college student to get drunk.

Equating getting drunk to charges in every newspaper and TV news station for weeks stating he is a gang rapist ring leader etc is laughably idiotic. Nice job. Thx for the laugh.

Opulence I Has It , 20 hours ago

The only things she does remember, are the things that directly support her allegations. That fact, by itself, is reason enough to disbelieve everything she says. The idea that she would have concrete memories of only those specific events, is not believable.

It's totally believable, though, that she's been counseled thus, to make her story easier to remember and avoid those inconvenient secondary details. You know, those secondary details that every police detective knows are how you trip up a liar. They are so focused on their bogus story, the little details of the time surrounding the fabrication don't hold up.

Last of the Middle Class , 16 hours ago

She remembers clearly she only had one beer and was taking no medication yet cannot remember for sure how she accessed her counselors records on her whether by internet or copying them less than 3 months ago?

Not possible.

She's a lying shill and in time it will come out.

Torgo , 11 hours ago

She doesn't remember her rescuer that drove her home and away from such a terrible situation. Is this plausible? I say absolutely not. IMHO, she knows his name but refuses to say it while pretending to not remember. Chris Garrett, nicknamed "Squi", who introduced her to Kavanaugh and who was her boyfriend once. Some have speculated that he assaulted her that day and/or ended her relationship that day after she didn't want to take things to the next level with him.

Babble_On2001 , 20 hours ago

Right, that's why the fraud Ford kept repeating, "I don't remember" or "I can't recall." Yes, a very believable story. Now let me tell you about another female figure that has been treated poorly, she's called the Tooth Fairy.

deja , 19 hours ago

Tawana Brawley, substitute republican conservative for white state trooper.

Torgo , 11 hours ago

Not only are these claims of not remembering completely implausible, but the transcript shows that she explicitly refuses to say the name of the boy that introduced her to BK. It strikes me as wildly disrespectful to Rachel Mitchell and just screams for further exploration.

Babble_On2001 , 20 hours ago

Right, that's why the fraud Ford kept repeating, "I don't remember" or "I can't recall." Yes, a very believable story. Now let me tell you about another female figure that has been treated poorly, she's called the Tooth Fairy.

deja , 19 hours ago

Tawana Brawley, substitute republican conservative for white state trooper.

Torgo , 11 hours ago

Not only are these claims of not remembering completely implausible, but the transcript shows that she explicitly refuses to say the name of the boy that introduced her to BK. It strikes me as wildly disrespectful to Rachel Mitchell and just screams for further exploration.

sunkeye , 21 hours ago

T/y Prosecutor Mitchell for conducting yourself w/ professionalism, decency, & honor - personal traits none of the Democratic senators seem to possess, or would even recognize if shown to them directly as you did. Again. t/y & bravo.

Torgo , 11 hours ago

She allowed Ford to refuse to speak the name of the boy that introduced her to BK. Chris Garrett, nicknamed "Squi", who was Ford's one-time boyfriend. Some speculate that he was the unnamed final boy at the party and that he may have assaulted Ford and/or dumped her after she refused to go to the next level with him. Hence the trauma.

Paracelsus , 21 hours ago

I am having trouble keeping these personalities separate as I want to give everyone the benefit of the

doubt. When I see Justice Kavanaugh, I think of the confirmation hearing as a political attack on the

Trump administration . Also as an attempt to score points, or make the other side screw up, before the

upcoming elections.When I see Dr. Ford, I see Hillary Clinton and all the bitterness from a failed

politician.

The funny thing is I thought all the Trump "fake news" statements were a load of crap. Turns out he hit the

mark quite often. The lefties are so damn mad because Trump is succeeding and they haven't been able to

score points against him. So they feel that it is justified to use other methods,regardless of the fallout.

There is a whiff of panic and desperation present.

I have stated this before, as have others: The loss of the White House by the Democrats provided a

unique opportunity to clean out the deadwood. This may have seemed cruel and heartless but the

Obama era is over and the Dem's urgently need to return to their roots before it is too late. Did they

use this moment of change or did they revert to business as usual? To ask the question is to

answer it.... This is commonly described as bureaucratic inertia. The Dem's only needed to get the

ball rolling and they would be moving towards the objective of regaining power. New, younger

and more diplomatic and law abiding types need to be encouraged to apply. Put out the help wanted

sign. Do what Donald does,"You're fired!".

RighteousRampage , 21 hours ago

Well, if others have stated it before, it MUST be true. Republiconarists and Demcraps are playing the same stupid games. Dems got punked w Garland, and now Reps are getting their comeuppance w Kavanaugh (who really made it worse for himself by holding up such an obviously false pious portrait of himself).

American Dissident , 22 hours ago

I believe Judge Brett Kavanaugh. I believe Rachel Mitchell, Esq. I believe Leland Keyser. I believe Mark Judge. I believe P.J. Smyth.

I believe the evidence. That's why I don't believe Ms. Christine Blasey Ford.

Anunnaki , 17 hours ago

But she only had one beer!

Torgo , 11 hours ago

What do you think of the Chris Garrett hypothesis?

VWAndy , 22 hours ago

Mrs Fords stunt works in family courts all the time. Thats why they tried it folks. They have gotten away with it before.

Aubiekong , 23 hours ago

Never was about justice, this is simply a liberal/globalist plan to stop Trump.

Prince Eugene of Savoy , 20 hours ago

Squeaky Ford only testified to what she had written down. She never used the part of the brain dealing with actual memory. https://youtu.be/uGxr1VQ2dPI

JLee2027 , 1 day ago

Guys who have been falsely accused, like me, knew quickly that Ford was lying. They all have the same pattern, too many smiles, attention seeking, stories that make no sense or too vague,etc.

Barney08 , 1 day ago

Ford is a crusader. She thinks she is a Roe v Wade savior but she is an over educated ditz.

dogmete , 1 day ago

Right Barney, not an undereducated and-proud-of-it slob like you.

MrAToZ , 1 day ago

You Dims are so willing to just swallow the hook. You idiots have been trained to react, leave common sense at the door, slap on the vagina hats and start marching in circles.

What a cluster f*ck. Evidently there are suckers born every minute.

Kelley , 1 day ago

One word uttered by Ford proves that not only did Kav. not attack her but no one ever assaulted her . That word is "hippocampus." No woman in recorded history has ever used that word to describe their strongest reaction to a sexual assault.

It's mind blowing that a person would react to what was supposedly one of the most traumatic experiences of her life with a nearly gleeful "Indelibly in my hippocampus " or something to that effect unless of course it didn't happen. Her inappropriate response leads me to believe that Ford was never assaulted in the manner in which she claimed. If her claimed trauma had been a case of mistaken identity regarding a real assault, she still would have felt it and reacted far differently.

Emotional memories get stored in the amygdala. The hippocampus is for matter-of-fact memories. When Senator Feinstein asked Ford about her strongest memories of the event, Ford went all "matter of fact" in her reply, "Indelibly in my hippocampus ." without a trace of emotion in her response. No emotions = no assault by ANYONE let alone by Kavanaugh.

Giant Meteor , 1 day ago

Not only that, her most indelible memory from the experience was the maniacal laughter , not the part where a hand was forcibly placed over her mouth and she thought she may in that moment, have been accidently killed.

As to the hippopotamus, is that a turtle neck she is wearing or just her neck. What the **** happened there, she said nothing about strangulation.

pnchbowlturd , 1 day ago

Another peculiar thing about Ford's testimony was the adolescent voicing she gave it in. It was if she was imitating a 6 year old. I wish MItchell had fleshed out Ford's hobbies (surfing??) more and given more context to her career activities and recreational pursuits in college, alcohol consumption patterns or substance abuse treatments. Her voicing was a tell that she seemed to be overplaying the victim persona for a person who holds a doctorate and travels the world surfing

Nunny , 1 day ago

If they coached her (while on the loooong drive from CA...lol) to use that voice, they didn't do her any favors. I thought femi-libs were all about being 'strong' and 'tough'. They can't have it both ways.....strike that.....they do have it both ways.....and the useful idiots on the left buy it.

Torgo , 11 hours ago

IMHO, the most peculiar thing was her outright refusal to say aloud the name of the boy that introduced her to Kavanaugh, when repeatedly questioned by Rachel Mitchell. It was wildly obvious that she was being evasive and I see it as an enormous tell. Chris Garrett, nicknamed "Squi", was IMHO the boy that drove her to and from the party, and if he didn't outright assault her that day, he may have dumped her that day.

MedTechEntrepreneur , 1 day ago

If the FBI is to have ANY credibility, they must insist on Ford's emails, texts and phone records for the last 2 years.

Anunnaki , 1 day ago

Kill shots:

· She testified that she had exactly one beer at the party

· "All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever,

· her BFF: Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present with

· the simple and unchangeable truth is that Keyser is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford's allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.

· Mitchell stated that Ford refused to provide her therapy notes to the Senate Committee.

· Mitchell says that Ford wanted to remain confidential but called a tipline at the Washington Post.

· she also said she did not contact the Senate because she claimed she "did not know how to do that."

· It would also have been inappropriate to administer a polygraph to someone who was grieving.

· the date of the hearing was delayed because the Committee was told that Ford's symptoms prevented her from flying, but she agreed during testimony that she flies "fairly frequently."

· She also flew to Washington D.C. for the hearing.

· "The activities of Congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford's attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford's account.

[Oct 02, 2018] Christine Ford said she had dated Garrett, also knew his younger brother, but flatly refused to refer to him by name in public

Notable quotes:
"... Who would most likely drive a girl to a party with older high school boys from a different school and different circle of friends? Who would most likely take a 15 year old girl home from a party in an age without cell phones? His name is Chris Garrett, nickname of "Squi". She claims to not remember the person that drove her home, and she claims to not remember the name of the last boy at the gathering. And she refuses to publicly state the name of the boy that introduced her to Kavanaugh. These are all one and the same person, her boyfriend and soon-to-be-ex-BF Chris Garrett, who may have either assaulted her or broke up with her that day. ..."
"... Yes. I was focused on trying to get into an elite college when I was in HS and these people's lives were nothing like mine in my teens. But then like a lot of people I'm lowborn as opposed to these people. I was a caddy at the Country Club, and my parents were certainly not members. ..."
"... She walked upstairs calmly with her boyfriend Chris Garrett, nicknamed "Squi". ..."
"... You go (down) girl, Doctor Ford! What a brave 15 year-old drinking at HS and College-Level Parties! Truly a Progressive ahead of the times! ..."
"... Can't see that it isn't about Trump. It's about a Populist/Nationalist movement to put an end to the degradation of Progressive Globalists ..."
"... Why was Ms. Ford wearing glasses that looked like someone rubbed Crisco on the lenses? As a long time wearer of glasses, I can tell you we dont roll that way, kind of defeats the purpose. Answer? Those were not her glasses...they were a prop... ..."
"... Hahaha! She should have just taken out the lens out. No one would have looked that closely or would they ? ..."
"... Her family glows in the dark with CIA connections. She's a CIA recruiter at Stamford, as well as her other job at Palo Alto. ..."
"... She doesn't remember her rescuer that drove her home and away from such a terrible situation. Is this plausible? I say absolutely not. IMHO, she knows his name but refuses to say it while pretending to not remember. Chris Garrett, nicknamed "Squi", who introduced her to Kavanaugh and who was her boyfriend once. Some have speculated that he assaulted her that day and/or ended her relationship that day after she didn't want to take things to the next level with him. ..."
Oct 02, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Ms. Mitchell had a line of questioning about the friend who was mutual to Kavanaugh and Ford. It turns out this was the same person who had been named earlier by Ed Whelan. Ford said she had dated Garrett, also knew his younger brother, but flatly refused to refer to him by name in public.

I'll assume Ms. Mitchell was allowed to review all of the investigative material collected by the Committee to date. There has to be a reason she pursued this line of questioning.


Torgo , 11 hours ago

Who would most likely drive a girl to a party with older high school boys from a different school and different circle of friends? Who would most likely take a 15 year old girl home from a party in an age without cell phones? His name is Chris Garrett, nickname of "Squi". She claims to not remember the person that drove her home, and she claims to not remember the name of the last boy at the gathering. And she refuses to publicly state the name of the boy that introduced her to Kavanaugh. These are all one and the same person, her boyfriend and soon-to-be-ex-BF Chris Garrett, who may have either assaulted her or broke up with her that day.

fleur de lis , 13 hours ago

What a spoiled brat she must have been whilst growing up. She must be a really obnoxious snot to her coworkers over the years, too. And as a teacher she must be a real screwball. Which explains how she landed an overpaid job at a snowflake factory.

Torgo , 11 hours ago

Yes. I was focused on trying to get into an elite college when I was in HS and these people's lives were nothing like mine in my teens. But then like a lot of people I'm lowborn as opposed to these people. I was a caddy at the Country Club, and my parents were certainly not members.

Brazillionaire , 14 hours ago

I haven't read all the comments so I don't know if somebody already brought this up... can this woman (who was 15) explain why she was in an upstairs bedroom with two boys? Did they drag her up the stairs? In front of the others? If she went willingly, for what purpose?

tsog , 14 hours ago

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1046611274753290240.html

Torgo , 11 hours ago

She walked upstairs calmly with her boyfriend Chris Garrett, nicknamed "Squi".

StarGate , 14 hours ago

So it seems... the Prosecutor determined which 'he said, she said'

gave False testimony under Oath

- Blasey Ford.

Ban KKiller , 13 hours ago

That's what it says. Investigate Ford and her scumbag fuckwad attorneys. Ha ha.

Westcoastliberal , 14 hours ago

What's this? https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Christine_Blasey

motoXdude , 14 hours ago

Some things reign eternal... You go (down) girl, Doctor Ford! What a brave 15 year-old drinking at HS and College-Level Parties! Truly a Progressive ahead of the times! Thank you for paving the road to ruin! Don't forget to breathe in-between. You ARE the FACE OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY, GIRL! Suck it up, Buttercup!

alfbell , 15 hours ago

I BELIEVE!!

... that America's institutions are being torn down by Leftists. The attempt to create a new totalitarian regime has been upon us for decades and is now perfectly clear.

We will not say goodbye to morality.

We will not say goodbye to science.

We will not say goodbye to democracy.

We will not say goodbye to our Constitution, Bill of Rights, Founding Fathers, Logic, Decency, etc. etc. etc.

MAGA!

AHBL , 15 hours ago

Morality: Your dear Leader cheated on 3 different wives, one of them with a prostitute,...while she was pregnant (or had a 4 month old, I forget); filed for bankruptcy 5 times, cheating many people out of money; settled fraud lawsuits; lied about charity donations; your party nominated an actual PEDOPHILE (Moore) for Senate and now wants to appoint an angry drunk to be SCJ!

Science: You folks are literally disputing the conclusions of the vast, vast majority of scientists (97% by my last count) when it comes to global warming.

Democracy: this is a Democratic Republic...if it was a Democracy Trump wouldn't be President.

The rest of the nonsense you wrote was just filler...obviously.

Hadenough1000 , 11 hours ago

Still better than the rapist and intern cigarer and Benghazi killer clintons. why do retarded libturds not see that!!

alfbell , 11 hours ago

You are clueless. Have all of your priorities and importances upside down. Have zero critical thinking.

Can't see that it isn't about Trump. It's about a Populist/Nationalist movement to put an end to the degradation of Progressive Globalists. Look at the big picture AHBL. C'mon you can do it.

aloha_snakbar , 15 hours ago

Why was Ms. Ford wearing glasses that looked like someone rubbed Crisco on the lenses? As a long time wearer of glasses, I can tell you we dont roll that way, kind of defeats the purpose. Answer? Those were not her glasses...they were a prop...

NeigeAmericain , 13 hours ago

Hahaha! She should have just taken out the lens out. No one would have looked that closely or would they ? 🤔

Dormouse , 15 hours ago

She's an Illuminati/NXIVM MKUltra-ed CIA sex-kitten.

Her family glows in the dark with CIA connections. She's a CIA recruiter at Stamford, as well as her other job at Palo Alto.

Oh, something traumatic has happened to her, multiple times; but at the hands of her family and their close Agency friends. Alyssa Milano in the audience? Come on! This is so ******* sick!

What a disgusting display for those in the Know. Does the FBI currently have the balls to call them all out? That's the question, has Trump reformed the DOJ/FBI -- beyond the hobbled and shackled part consummed by these criminals with their coup? He seems confident, almost like he's tormenting his enemies as usual.

RighteousRampage , 16 hours ago

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-01/kavanaugh-college-visit-to-bar-erupted-in-fight-classmate-says-jmqwga1s?srnd=premium

" The episode occurred on a September evening in 1985 after Kavanaugh, Ludington and Dudley, attended the UB40 concert ."

UB40? Well, there you have it, if that isn't disqualifying, I don't know what is.

Debt Slave , 16 hours ago

She is a cross eyed boobis and we have to believe her because she says Kavanaugh, a white hetero catholic man without any decent upbringing or engrained scruples raped her like a monkey savage out of the jungle. Oh sorry, TRIED to rape her. As a teenager. Tried to raped a pathetic, stupid cross eyed retarded moron that has since been successfully lobotomized at a 'modern' American university.

When is the last time you saw a 'mentally challenged' person being abused? Oh yes I remember now, it was Chicongo, January 2017. Four negroes shoved a retarded white man's head in a toilet and demanded he swear that he loved Niggers.

Never heard what happened to the savage fuckers, eh? Not surprised.

i know who and what I am voting for white man, do you?

benb , 16 hours ago

Time for the un-redacted FISA docs and the text messages. That should send Schumer and the gang into a tailspin.

MrAToZ , 17 hours ago

The Dims don't believe Ford any more than they believe in the constitution. They are building a better world. They are true believers, one in the cause.

If one of them were at the receiving end of this type of Spanish inquisition they would be crying foul right out of the batter's box. But, because this is for the cause they will put the vagina hat on, goose step around and say they believe that mousey Marxist.

It's a made up sink if he's innocent, guilty if he floats game show. They know exactly what they are doing, which makes them even more reprehensible.

BankSurfyMan , 18 hours ago

Fordy had sexual encounters, she drinks beer and flies all over the globe... One day she had a beer and cannot remember getting home on time to watch, MOAR DOOM NEWS! Fucktard Fordy! Doom 2019! Next!

Kafir Goyim , 18 hours ago

Just had lunch with a democrat. He's generally tolerable, so his level of anger at Kavanaugh and his acceptance of "anything goes" to derail Kavanaugh was surprising to me.

Democrats believe that Roe V Wade is instantly overturned if Kavanaugh gets in. They also think that if Roe V Wade is overturned, no woman will ever be able to abort another baby in the US.

I explained to him that destruction of Roe V Wade will only make it a state issue, so girls in California, Oregon, Washington, New York, etc will be able to kill as many babies as they want to. It will only be girls in Wyoming or Utah or some other very red state that might have to schlep their *** to another state to kill their kid.

Democrats see this as a battle for abortion, and if Kav gets confirmed, abortion is completely gone in the USA. That's why you have these women freaking out. They think the stakes are much higher than they actually are. Almost all of the women that are so worried about this live in states where it won't have any effect on them at all.

Kafir Goyim , 18 hours ago

I think I kind of calmed him down. We need to let them know that their world doesn't end if Roe V Wade is overturned. I am also not at all sure it would be overturned, even with Kav on the court, but they insist it will be, so not worth arguing. Reminding them that it doesn't effect them, if they live in a blue state should calm their fears a little.

The right to abort is their 2nd amendment, God help us. If you explain to them they are not really in danger, it may calm them down. They'll still make noise about those poor girls who can't get an abortion after school and still make it home for dinner, and instead, have to take a bus to another state to kill their kid, but they won't be as personally threatened and lashing out as they mistakenly are now.

when the saxon began , 17 hours ago

And therein lies the fatal flaw of an elected representative government. The votes of the ignorant and stupid are counted the same as yours or mine. And there are far more of them.

VisionQuest , 18 hours ago

Democrats stand for atheism, abortion & sodomy. Ask yourself this question: Who stands with Democrats? If your answer is "I do." then you'd best rethink your precious notions of morality, truth, common decency, common sense and justice.

It is undoubtedly true that, in our entirely imperfect world, the American Way of life is also far from perfect. But it is also true that, compared to every other system of government on the planet, there is no comparison with the level of achievement accomplished by the American Way of life.

Democrats hate and will destroy the American Way of life. Have you been a Democrat? Walk away.

freedommusic , 19 hours ago

At this point the FBI should recommend a criminal investigation to the DOJ for treasonous actors who are subverting the constitutional process of SC nomination. The crimes of perjury, sedition, and treason, need to be clearly articulated to the public and vigorous prosecution ensue.

We are STILL a Constitutional Republic - RIGHT?

Giant Meteor , 18 hours ago

Well, I am betting 27 trillion dollars that the answer to your question is a resounding , no ...

eitheror , 19 hours ago

Thank you Rachel Mitchell for having the courage to tell the truth about the testimony of Ms. Blasey Ford, P.h.D.

Ford is not a medical Doctor but is a P.h.D.

The Democrats seem to have abandoned Ms. Ford like a bad haircut, instead focusing on other smoke and mirrors.

onewayticket2 , 19 hours ago

Again, So What??

The democrats have already soiled this Judge's career and family name. Now it's about delay.

Exoneration note from the Republicans' lawyer carries precisely zero weight with them.....they are too busy sourcing everyone who ever drank beer with Kav....in an effort to get another Week Long extension/argue that Trump already greenlighted such an extension to investigate how much Kav likes beer. or who's milk money he stole in 3rd grade....

Babble_On2001 , 20 hours ago

About 35 years ago, at a party in San Francisco where everyone was very drunk, now Senator Feinstein sexually molested me. Don't remember the date or location or anything else, but it happened, I swear! Naturally, want to remain anonymous to protect my integrity, but it did happen! She shoved me down onto my knees and ground her crotch in my face. It was terrible, I can still recall the horrible smell to this day! The stench was a combination of rotting flesh and urine. Makes me nauseous just thinking of that sexual assault. INVESTIGATE this serial molester!

Opulence I Has It , 20 hours ago

The only things she does remember, are the things that directly support her allegations. That fact, by itself, is reason enough to disbelieve everything she says. The idea that she would have concrete memories of only those specific events, is not believable.

It's totally believable, though, that she's been counseled thus, to make her story easier to remember and avoid those inconvenient secondary details. You know, those secondary details that every police detective knows are how you trip up a liar. They are so focused on their bogus story, the little details of the time surrounding the fabrication don't hold up.

Last of the Middle Class , 16 hours ago

She remembers clearly she only had one beer and was taking no medication yet cannot remember for sure how she accessed her counselors records on her whether by internet or copying them less than 3 months ago?

Not possible.

She's a lying shill and in time it will come out.

Torgo , 11 hours ago

She doesn't remember her rescuer that drove her home and away from such a terrible situation. Is this plausible? I say absolutely not. IMHO, she knows his name but refuses to say it while pretending to not remember. Chris Garrett, nicknamed "Squi", who introduced her to Kavanaugh and who was her boyfriend once. Some have speculated that he assaulted her that day and/or ended her relationship that day after she didn't want to take things to the next level with him.

American Dissident , 20 hours ago

McConnell on the Senate Floor 50 minutes ago: "The time for endless delay and obstruction has come to a close.... Mr. President, we'll be voting this week."

xear , 21 hours ago

Brett is obviously innocent. Groping her, holding her down, grinding into her... it's not like it was rape. And as far as covering her mouth so she couldn't scream... after a heavy night of drinking who wants to hear screaming? Almost anyone would do the same.

I Am Jack's Macroaggression , 20 hours ago

it's always interesting to see where and why people claim to know things about which they have literally no 'knowledge.'

Also interesting to see how the same people who would protest assuming the guilt of an alleged Muslim terrorist or Black liquor store robber now argue it is 'whiteness' and 'patriarchy' to not assume the guilt of a white male regarding decades old uncorroborated charges... which 4 named witnesses deny having knowledge of, by a woman who lied about a fear of flying to try to delay the process.

We can all be hypocrites.

But watching the Left embrace hypocrisy as social justice has been, in the pure sense of the word, awesome to behold.

Torgo , 11 hours ago

Not only are these claims of not remembering completely implausible, but the transcript shows that she explicitly refuses to say the name of the boy that introduced her to BK. It strikes me as wildly disrespectful to Rachel Mitchell and just screams for further exploration.

FBaggins , 21 hours ago

To fix things if after all of this crap from the feminazis and Kavenaugh simply withdraws his name, Trump should put forward Judge Amy Coney Barrett as the next candidate. It would really ensure support for Trump candidates in the midterms from women in general and from social-conservative family-values people in the US and it would perhaps teach the feminazis a lesson at the same time.

istt , 20 hours ago

No, Kavanaugh deserves better. He has earned his place on the USSC.

Giant Meteor , 20 hours ago

My prediction was, and still is Kavanaugh goes forward. Even the revered CNN is starting to walk the drinking issue back.

By the way , the Trump presser today was a ******* hoot!

ToddTheBabyWhale , 21 hours ago

Nine page memo, Tyler. Your starting to write like a pro journalist now.

aloha_snakbar , 22 hours ago

Ms Ford, the newly minted millionaire, is probably lying poolside in Mexico, indulging in her favorite psychotropics and getting pounded by the local brown talent. Wow...having a vagina is like having a meat 3D printer that spews out money...

blindfaith , 23 hours ago

Was there in 1965, and I can recall what my classmates wore, who could dance, who kissed great, who had the best music, who got laid and how often...and it was NOT the head of the football or basketball team.

Her memory is selectively scripted, and I am 20 years older and my memory is just fine.

charlewar , 23 hours ago

In other words, Ford is a liar

JohnG , 23 hours ago

She's a goddamned sociopathic lying bitch.

arby63 , 23 hours ago

A highly paid one. Gofundme alone is over $900,000.

1970SSNova396 , 22 hours ago

Her two *** lawyers doing well for their time and attention. McCabe's lawyer comes to the rescue for Ford.

LA_Goldbug , 22 hours ago

This nose nearly took my eye out,

https://www.gofundme.com/to-cover-dr-fords-security-costs

PantherCityPooPoo , 21 hours ago

Dead how? We already know that these corporation are die hard neo-liberal but name me 2 republicans or ANY federal entity that would EVER go after a corporation like that.

You are not aware of the score if you think anything will be done to them.

HerrDoktor , 23 hours ago

My hippocampus is turgid and throbbing after seeing Chris Ford in those Adrian (Talia Shire) spectacles.

blind_understanding , 23 hours ago

I had to look it up ..

TURGID - from Latin turgidus , from turgēre to be swollen

peippe , 22 hours ago

nothing better than a confused lady who forgets stuff...........

I'm all over that if she was thirty-six years younger. oops.

blindfaith , 23 hours ago

So why is Ford dressed like a WWII school Liberian? Halloween?

How does she do all the water sports (easy boys, keep it clean) that she brags about? How does she keep a case of beer down and then go surfing in Costa Rica? What is all this 'Air sickness" stuff? How come she works for a company that has a very controversial Abortion pill and didn't say this? That $750,000 in GoFundMe bucks will sure help heal those cat scratches she gave herself. Does she pay taxes on that? So many questions and so little answers. Did she perjer herself?

Sort of convenient that the statute of limitations has run out for her to make an OFFICIAL complaint in Maryland.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2018/09/29/montgomery-co-police-maryland-state-attorney-respond-to-state-lawmakers-reques-n2523791

San Pedro , 23 hours ago

Ford is a practiced liar. She was coached to cry all the way thru her polygraph test thus skewing the results.

Being Free , 23 hours ago

Stunning accusation that Sen. Feinstein covered up 1990 sexual assault by a wealthy foreign donor against another supporters daughter ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A_Zg2phhLI

Mimir , 23 hours ago

Rachel Mitchell Memo

Follow the money !!

whatthehay , 23 hours ago

I was the victim of an abuse event when I was 4. I'm 47 now. I know exactly where the house is, we were in the backyard and I can tell anyone what happened and who was there. It happened a few days back to back maybe three days, it was during the winter in the midafternoon. I guess my hippocampus is in better shape than hers.

sgt_doom , 1 day ago

" Dr. Christine Blasey Ford was poised, articulate, clear and convincing. More than that, she radiated self-assured power ."

----- So says Robert Reich

Saaaaay, Bobby, have you ever met Wesley Allen Dodd or Ted Bundy? I once came into contact with Dodd, the epitome of calm, cool and collected --- and he was later executed for torturing to death small children!

A (female) law professor from Seattle University said:

" Dr. Christine Blasey Ford (why do they keep referring to a professor of psychology as doctor --- s_d) was credible and believable. " (Evidently, we don't need no stinking proof or evidence where a law professor is concerned!?)

Sgt_Doom says: Prof. Christine Blasey Ford sounded credible, believable and completely unsubstantiated.

Credible Allegations

Over this past weekend I learned three startling facts:

(1) All American women have been raped;

(2) All American males are rapists and liars; and,

(3) "Credible allegations" are accusations not requiring any shred of evidence.

Fake news facts , that is . . . . .

All this was conveyed by high-middle class (or higher) females who worship globalization and American exceptionalism --- from the same news conduits who once reported on weapons-of-mass-destruction in Iraq and other similar mythologies!

Not a single so-called reporter --- not a single self-described journalist in American --- thought to ask that most obvious of obvious questions:

Where in bloody perdition is Christine Blasey Ford's Holton Arms yearbooks?

After all, they introduced Kavanaugh's yearbook, so why not Christine Blasey's yearbook?

Second most obvious question:

When one searches online for Holton Arms yearbooks, the searcher can find the yearbooks for the years preceding Ford's last several years at Holton Arms, and the years following --- why have the last several years when Christine Blasey attended missing? Why have they been removed --- even cached versions --- from the Web?

Takes some serious tech resources to accomplish this in such a short period of time?!

How very odd . . . .

I do not want Kavanaugh, nor anyone like him, on the Supreme Court bench, but that does not mean I automatically believe any and all unsubstantiated accusations and am sane enough to comprehend that credible allegations require proof --- also referred to as evidence.

It is not enough to state that this person drinks and is therefore guilty or that person is a male and is therefore guilty.

I fully support an expanded investigation into both Kavanaugh AND Christine Blasey Ford, including Ms. Ford's Holton Arms yearbooks and any and all police blotter activity/records for her ages of 13, 14, 15 and 16.

And I wish some of those useless reporters would being asking the obvious questions . . . . and finally start doing their jobs!

Sidebar : Sen. Chris Coons claimed that Prof. Ford was courageous to have come forward as she had nothing to gain , yet within several days after her testimony, Christine Blasey Ford is almost one-half million dollars wealthier --- nothing to gain?

Hardly . . . .

[Next rant: MY elevator encounter with a 14-year-old psychotic blonde student, and her buddy, many years ago in Bethesda, Md.]

Giant Meteor , 1 day ago

She (Mitchell) was there to handle her like the delicate flower. To the pubes defense, someone was smart enough to realize that a bunch of GOP white guys questioning her was not going to play well. Enter the female prosecutor and her report.

On the other hand the dem guys and dolls could not genuflect enough , so their questioning was fine. I mean they had her painted as the courageous hero of the modern era. So brave, so noble , so, so, utterly awesome!

Puke ....

scraping_by , 23 hours ago

She had an emotional meltdown for a big finish. Note who gave her the run-in for it. (Not Mitchell).

nicholforest , 1 day ago

Seems pretty obvious that Mitchell could not see a case for prosecution - what we heard was mostly 'He said ... She said". So an unsurprising conclusion.

And there is no moral high ground for Republicans to criticize the process pursued by the Democrats. They would have (and in the past have) done the same. A curse on both their houses.

But what struck me was the behavior and style of Kavanaugh. He came across as belligerent, petty, evasive, aggressive and impulsive. Those are not the characteristics that we want in a candidate for the Supreme Court.

Little Lindsey G would say that Kavanaugh has a right to be angry, which may be so - but the way that such anger is manifested is critical. In the military we look for leaders to be cool under fire. The same should be true for a judge in the highest court in the land.

Instead he came across like a fearful, reactive, spiteful, spoilt frat boy. That will not do.

scraping_by , 1 day ago

Ah, the double bind. Either he's robotic and reciting a script, or he's wild and howling brat. Nice how that works.

FAQMD1 , 23 hours ago

nicholforest - And there is no moral high ground for Republicans to criticize the process pursued by the Democrats. They would have (and in the past have) done the same. A curse on both their houses.

Please enlighten us on specifically which Dem. SC nomination the Republicans did a full on character assassination .... were waiting!

It is mindless comments and a lack of rigorous thinking and moral equivocation like yours that has led the country into the abyss of nonsense and division.

Dickweed Wang , 1 day ago

Look at the time line provided and then tell me the Democrats aren't a pack of lying weasles. The truth means absolutely NOTHING to them. Their agenda (to **** over Trump in any way possible) is all that matters. Could anyone imagine what would have happened if the Republicans would have pulled just 1/10th of that kind of ******** with the Homo *****?? There would have been continuous MSM inspired riots in the streets.

Anunnaki , 1 day ago

They play by Alinsky Rules

rksplash , 1 day ago

I guess the only way this nonsense is going to go away is if the GOP start using the same tactics. Hire some wannabe spin doctors to go through some old high school yearbooks in a church basement somewhere in Alabama. An old black and white of some poor pimple faced senator grabbing his crotch at the prom in 72.

Dickweed Wang , 1 day ago

She did take a polygraph - and passed.

Yeah that's what the lying sacks of **** say, but of course there's absolutely no proof it happened. She passed? O.k., let's assume they are at least not lying about that . . . what questions were asked?

Bastiat , 1 day ago

A polygraph with 2 questions apparently. In other words a complete joke. A real poly has scores if not hundreds of questions.

robertocarlos , 23 hours ago

Two questions were asked. "Are you a woman"? and "Are you a liar"?

Wile-E-Coyote , 1 day ago

It's amazing what a false memory can do.

Is there a verbatim transcript of the questions asked?

Anunnaki , 1 day ago

Mitchell said it was irresponsible to give a polygraph to someone grieving the loss of a loved one. Grandmother in this case.

peippe , 22 hours ago

rumor has it the exam included two questions.

Two Questions.

you decide what that means.

nsurf9 , 1 day ago

Not one shred of corroboration evidence of Ford's testimony, not even from her friend, who flatly denied she ever went to such party, NONE, NADA, UNBELIEVABLE!

Don't these Congressional a-holes vet these people to safeguard against crazy loons' bald-faced lies, and even worst, one's with democrat financed malicious intent to defame?

And further, Montgomery County Police has formally stated that, as a misdemeanor, the statute of limitations ran out on this allegedly crime - 35 frigging years ago.

And lastly, with regard to drinking in college, not one democrat mentions he finished top of his Yale undergrad class and top of his Yale Law School class.

FAQMD1 , 23 hours ago

nsurf9 - Don't these Congressional a-holes vet these people to safeguard against crazy loons' bald-faced lies, and even worst, one's with malicious intent to defame?

Please tell me how you or I could possible "safeguard" ourselves from "crazy loon" and "bald-face lies" ....?

That is why we're supposed to be a nation of laws and innocent until proven guilty.

It is one thing to disagree over a person political position and or ideas but that is not what is happening here. The Dems are in full assault mode to destroy BK and his family as a warning to any future Conservative judge who may dare accepts a nomination to the SC.

What the Dems are doing will lead to some type of civil war if they do not stop this. It will not be pretty if that happens.

nsurf9 , 23 hours ago

Requiring even a modicum of corroborated facts or evidence, outside of mere "words," would be a good start!

JLee2027 , 1 day ago

Guys who have been falsely accused, like me, knew quickly that Ford was lying. They all have the same pattern, too many smiles, attention seeking, stories that make no sense or too vague,etc.

dogmete , 1 day ago

Yeah what an incredible story. She was at a party with some drunken creepy guys and got sexually assaulted. Everyone knows that never happens!

scraping_by , 1 day ago

The current sleaze isn't overturning the legal right to abortion, it's making it impossible to get one. It's a legal right that a woman has to sit through lectures, travel to specific places, make certain declarations, and get a physician who's usually under attack at the state level. It's not illegal, it's impossible.

It's not about restricting women, it's about making life harder for middle and lower class people. Women of the Senator's economic class have always had and always will have access to safe abortions. It's wage earners who have to depend on local providers.

Whether Catholic K will go along with the sabotage of a privacy right isn't clear. But he's probably going to be sympathetic to making those working class wenches show some responsibility.

Torgo , 11 hours ago

To quote famed feminist and Democrat Jennifer Granholm of Michigan, women can always "Keep their pants zipped". But then Granholm only extended her authoritarian control freakery to the male half of the human race when she said that a few years ago. If women lose some "reproductive rights" then some of them might start to have some empathy for men and our lack of rights. But I won't hold my breath waiting for them to empathize with us.

Kelley , 1 day ago

One word uttered by Ford proves that not only did Kav. not attack her but no one ever assaulted her . That word is "hippocampus." No woman in recorded history has ever used that word to describe their strongest reaction to a sexual assault.

It's mind blowing that a person would react to what was supposedly one of the most traumatic experiences of her life with a nearly gleeful "Indelibly in my hippocampus " or something to that effect unless of course it didn't happen. Her inappropriate response leads me to believe that Ford was never assaulted in the manner in which she claimed. If her claimed trauma had been a case of mistaken identity regarding a real assault, she still would have felt it and reacted far differently.

Emotional memories get stored in the amygdala. The hippocampus is for matter-of-fact memories. When Senator Feinstein asked Ford about her strongest memories of the event, Ford went all "matter of fact" in her reply, "Indelibly in my hippocampus ." without a trace of emotion in her response. No emotions = no assault by ANYONE let alone by Kavanaugh.

Giant Meteor , 1 day ago

Not only that, her most indelible memory from the experience was the maniacal laughter , not the part where a hand was forcibly placed over her mouth and she thought she may in that moment, have been accidently killed.

As to the hippopotamus, is that a turtle neck she is wearing or just her neck. What the **** happened there, she said nothing about strangulation.

pnchbowlturd , 1 day ago

Another peculiar thing about Ford's testimony was the adolescent voicing she gave it in. It was if she was imitating a 6 year old. I wish MItchell had fleshed out Ford's hobbies (surfing??) more and given more context to her career activities and recreational pursuits in college, alcohol consumption patterns or substance abuse treatments. Her voicing was a tell that she seemed to be overplaying the victim persona for a person who holds a doctorate and travels the world surfing

Nunny , 1 day ago

If they coached her (while on the loooong drive from CA...lol) to use that voice, they didn't do her any favors. I thought femi-libs were all about being 'strong' and 'tough'. They can't have it both ways.....strike that.....they do have it both ways.....and the useful idiots on the left buy it.

Torgo , 11 hours ago

IMHO, the most peculiar thing was her outright refusal to say aloud the name of the boy that introduced her to Kavanaugh, when repeatedly questioned by Rachel Mitchell. It was wildly obvious that she was being evasive and I see it as an enormous tell. Chris Garrett, nicknamed "Squi", was IMHO the boy that drove her to and from the party, and if he didn't outright assault her that day, he may have dumped her that day.

I Write Code , 1 day ago

Wasn't there an old SNL skit about the "amygdala"?

YouTube doesn't seem to have an index on the term, LOL.

seryanhoj , 1 day ago

One more example of US governance and party politics on its way down the tubes. There is no topic, no forum nowhere where the truth is even something to be considered. Media, law makers, everyone looks at a story and says " Let's make this work for our agenda even if we have to reinvent it from scratch". Then it is more than easy to find people to testify any which way you want. Vomits copiously.

mabuhay1 , 1 day ago

The standard for females should be "They are lying if their lips are moving." Any claims of sexual abuse should require proof, and witnesses that can back up said claims. Many studies have found that years before the MeToo# lies began, about 60% of all claimed rapes were false. Now, with the "Must believe all women" and the "MeToo#" scam, I would suspect the rate of false claims to be very close to 100%

scraping_by , 1 day ago

The standard for any criminal investigation is ABC. Assume nothing, Believe no one, and Check everything. The current feminist howl is sweep that aside and obey a women when she points at a man.

Jack McGriff , 1 day ago

And yet every single MSM outlet is claiming she is credible! WTF!!!

MedTechEntrepreneur , 1 day ago

If the FBI is to have ANY credibility, they must insist on Ford's emails, texts and phone records for the last 2 years.

Anunnaki , 1 day ago

Kill shots:

· She testified that she had exactly one beer at the party

· "All three named eyewitnesses have submitted statements to the Committee denying any memory of the party whatsoever,

· her BFF: Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present with

· the simple and unchangeable truth is that Keyser is unable to corroborate [Dr. Ford's allegations] because she has no recollection of the incident in question.

· Mitchell stated that Ford refused to provide her therapy notes to the Senate Committee.

· Mitchell says that Ford wanted to remain confidential but called a tipline at the Washington Post.

· she also said she did not contact the Senate because she claimed she "did not know how to do that."

· It would also have been inappropriate to administer a polygraph to someone who was grieving.

· the date of the hearing was delayed because the Committee was told that Ford's symptoms prevented her from flying, but she agreed during testimony that she flies "fairly frequently."

· She also flew to Washington D.C. for the hearing.

· "The activities of Congressional Democrats and Dr. Ford's attorneys likely affected Dr. Ford's account.

Zero-Hegemon , 1 day ago

Major Hegelian dialectic **** going on with the Ford/Kav reality show.

Women everywhere side with Ford because she's a women, claims she was abused, and "has to be believed", in order to settle some personal score that they all claim empathy for, even though she has given every tell in the book that she is lying.

Men everywhere empathize with a man being falsely accused, regardless of his politics and judicial history, even though he made his bones in the Bush administration, and can probably be relied on to further the authoritarian state via the Supreme court. Guilty of this myself, because it could be anyone of us next.

Pick a side, doesn't matter, because we've already lost.

Bastiat , 1 day ago

I "Believe the Women" -- the 3 women Ford named as witnesses who denied it ever happened, the 65 women who signed the letter in support of Ford, and all the women who have worked with him and had no issues. I don't believe this one, though.

phillyla , 1 day ago

truly embarrassing answer

were I a self important college professor I might lie and say "Shakespeare" but the truth will out I learned it from The Avengers movie when Loki called Black Widow a 'mewling quim'

Anunnaki , 1 day ago

A lot of women have seen their sons and brothers falsely accused. Ford was completely unconvincing in her "I don't remember the details of a traumatic "sexual assault"

BGO , 1 day ago

Mitchell the "veteran prosecutor" also failed to ask Ford who hosted the party where the alleged assault took place.

This is an important question. Maybe the most important question.

No one should be expected to remember their high school friends' home addresses, just like no one should be expected to remember every person who attended a specific high school party.

One thing ANYONE who suffered a violent attack would remember is WHO OWNED THE HOUSE where the attack took place.

High school parties generally are hosted by a the same people throughout a students high school years. It's not like everyone in class takes their turn throwing a kegger.

As anyone who drank to get drunk at parties in high school will tell you, it was always the same handful of kids, maybe three or four, who let their friends drink alcohol in their parents' home.

Narrowing down exactly who owned the home where the alleged attack took place should be easy due to the fact that, according to Ford, it was more of a small get together than a full blown party.

All investigators should need to do is ask the known attendees, under oath, whether or not they hosted the party where the alleged attack took place.

The fact that Ford's testimony includes exactly one person whose name she cannot remember is NOT a coincidence.

The phantom attendee was created out of thin air to give Ford an out if the known attendees claimed the attack did not occur at their homes.

There are so many things wrong with this political farce. Liberal mental illness, as with any case, is a given, automatically assumed.

Flip flopping dufuses on the other side, weakness, gross ineptitude.

The entire system needs to be culled via a massive firestorm; no one or thing left standing.

Cassander , 1 day ago

@BGO -- Re your first sentence, Mitchell notes in her memo "She does not remember in what house the assault allegedly took place or where that house was located with any specificity". I think this covers your point implicitly. If she doesn't remember what house it was, how can she remember whose house it was?

Just thought you were going a bit hard on Mitchell, whose memo seems pretty damning to me...

BGO , 1 day ago

Asking *what* house and *whose* house are two ENTIRELY different things.

Think about the most traumatic experience of your life. You know EXACTLY where the traumatic experience took place, right?

FUBO , 1 day ago

She didn't ask one sexual question of her either,bu but dove right in on Kavanaugh.

istt , 1 day ago

And now we find out Leland Keyser was Bob Beckel's ex-wife. Unbelievable. Small circle these libs run in.

Totally_Disillusioned , 1 day ago

Actually nothing about the Democrats is surprising. They are predictable in keeping within their closed ranks.

Totally_Disillusioned , 1 day ago

They brought the wrong tool to the fight. Mitchell is a sex abuse prosecutor? Her tactics may well work in the courtroom but the Judiciary Comm hearing was not a platform of Mitchell's expertise. She apologized to Ms Ford and stated at the onset she would not ask Ms Ford about the "incident" other than her recollections of location, date and witnesses. Mitchell then hit Judge Kavanaugh head on with questions of gang rape, rape, sexual assault, drinking behaviors. All validating Kavanaugh's guilt for the sheeple.

My two Eng Springer Spaniels exhibit better strategy than what we saw here.

Herdee , 1 day ago

Her father was in the CIA. Who was it within the organization that planned this?

aloha_snakbar , 1 day ago

If Fords alleged/imaginary groping is allowed to stand, what about all of the groping that the TSA dispenses daily?

phillyla , 1 day ago

if touching over your clothes = rape I have several lawsuits to file against the TSA ...

Luce , 1 day ago

How does this ballsy ford bitch keep her PTSD in check when the TSA gropes her for all of her exotic vacations?

phillyla , 1 day ago

some one should investigate if she signed up for the TSA's skip the line service for frequent fliers ...

[Oct 02, 2018] Professional lying to advance a political agenda is a well paying gig if you can get it

Oct 02, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Teeter , 1 day ago

Also telling... nobody from her family (mother, father, brother) has come forward to support her. Only her husband's family. They likely know she is making it up as it relates to Kavanaugh. They know who she is.

RighteousRampage , 1 day ago

That's actually false. However, the muted support from her father is likely due his not wanting to be ostracized from his upper-crust old boys golf club.

davatankool , 1 day ago

This Confirmation Process Has Become a National Disgrace

idontcare , 1 day ago

....and the biggest indications of fraud here are 4 go fund me accounts now raising over $2M for CBF. Professional lying to advance a political agenda is a good gig if you can get it now days.

opport.knocks , 1 day ago

Y'all are being distracted and played, as usual, I am sad to say...

https://thefreethoughtproject.com/msm-using-kavanaugh-sex-scandal-to-distract-you-from-real-reason-he-shouldnt-be-appointed/

The judge Napolitano video at the end should have been played to Congress.

RighteousRampage , 1 day ago

Yup, this man is not a friend of liberty, or justice.

IridiumRebel , 1 day ago

His *** is rethinking it now

istt , 1 day ago

"Kavanaugh claimed that putting a GPS tracking device on a person's car without first obtaining a warrant was just fine because it didn't constitute a "search" as defined by the Fourth Amendment."

I like him more now that I have read this article. Police should be able to legally track known or suspected drug dealers. You got a problem with that? I suppose you're outraged over our treatment of MS-13 as well?

opport.knocks , 1 day ago

Yes, I have a problem with that. Police must have enough prior evidence to get a warrant to put a device on anyone's property (car, phone, email account, internet router) - any private property is protected by the 4th.

Once they convince a judge of probable cause and get the warrant, they can plant the tracking device. Most cops are power hungry, petty, vindictive, control freaks, with too much time on their hands - one tried to make my life hell simply because I cut him off in traffic.

RighteousRampage , 1 day ago

The hypocrisy of ZH posters in favor of this douche is unreal. Where is the libertarian outrage?

opport.knocks , 1 day ago

I think most libertarians have left ZH and this is a predominantly Republican partisan site now. The internet is quickly becoming a bunch of echo chambers for like minded people, with trolls appearing from time to time to fan flames if interest and eyeballs starts to wane. We are lucky if one post out of 50 has any insight or real information.

11b40 , 1 day ago

Once you start down this slippery slope, the next step down is easy.

spieslikeus , 1 day ago

Eye opening, thanks for that. Appoint Judge Napolitano!

opport.knocks , 1 day ago

It would be nice to have a token libertarian voice on the court. Kavanaugh is not only a statist, but a deep statist.

Golden Phoenix , 1 day ago

If taken completely at her word the gist of her story is someone touched the outside of her clothes. Prison for tailors! They are all rapists!

Bricker , 1 day ago

Ford says she ran from the house, Question, how did you get home? Answer, I don't remember.

No Time for Fishing , 1 day ago

No one followed her out. No one said where are you going.

She is outside the house, no car, no phone, maybe clicked her heals and was magically at home, worked for Dorthy.

Walked six miles home but just doesn't remember that? could be.

Knocked on a neighbors door to ask to use the phone and had someone pick her up but doesn't remember that? could be.

Walked a few blocks to a pay phone and with the quarter she had in her bathing suit called someone to pick her up, waited for them, didn't tell them what happened and then they drove her home, just doesn't remember it? could be.

When she ran from the house did she not leave her purse or bag behind? Did she ever get it back? Did her girlfriend never ask why she left?

Maybe I should just believe her......

Bastiat , 1 day ago

She ran all the way, got home in 35'32" -- she would have been a track star but the coach looked at her *** at the team tryouts.

Benjamin123 , 1 day ago

Auntie delivers

The Swamp Got Trump , 1 day ago

Ford is a lunatic and a liar.

onebytwo , 1 day ago

so she does not remember how she got to the party or how she left the party but she suggested she narrowed down the year because she knew she did not drive to the party since she could not drive yet so she must have been 15.

I beg your pardon!

bh2 , 1 day ago

So does anyone recall Comey giving Clinton a free pass despite her many deliberate and clear violations of US security laws on the basis that no reasonable prosecutor would take action against her?

nope-1004 , 1 day ago

Dr. Fraud was a planned hit. Her social media presence was methodically deleted over the last few months. There is nothing about her anywhere.... it's almost as if her name is fake too.

Heard on 4chan that her and her husband have a big interest at the place she used to work, Corcept Therapeutics. Apparently Corcept has developed a new abortion drug and have invested a ton in R&D.

As always, follow the money.......

RighteousRampage , 1 day ago

yeah, yeah. you do realize that her father plays golf with Kav's dad at their local country club.

don't forget your tinfoil hat your way out, nutjob.

nope-1004 , 1 day ago

And you do realize that Kav's mother was the judge that presided over Dr. Frauds' parents home foreclosure?

Lots of motives here.

Thanks for chiming in so we can all get to he truth.

RighteousRampage , 1 day ago

Presiding over a foreclosure is not a matter of guilt or innocence, it's a strictly administrative task. The bank is the one foreclosing, you dolt.

Garciathinksso , 1 day ago

another unhinged, faux compassionate, rude leftist

RighteousRampage , 1 day ago

Another braindead gaslighting troglodyte

11b40 , 1 day ago

Then what is the judge for?

istt , 1 day ago

Turns out Ford is not even a psychologist. Some of the stupidest people I know carry PhD titles because they are perpetual students. This just starkly shows the difference between the two worlds people live in, if they can find Ford credible. She is the face of left wing hysteria and partisanship.

RighteousRampage , 1 day ago

And angry-boy Kavanaughty is the perfect reflection of unhinged conspi-racist GOP.

istt , 1 day ago

Keep repeating the mantras, losers. I'm sure there are many single mom's out there who made lousy decisions, who hate their lives, who are willing to buy your whole story. YOU resonate with them. But they are not here so get lost.

RighteousRampage , 1 day ago

I crap bigger than you.

Got The Wrong No , 1 day ago

That's because you are Crap

Slaytheist , 1 day ago

Real men that live lives of principal and truth, get angry when women (inclues numen like you) lie like children to get their way.

RighteousRampage , 1 day ago

So pretty much all of Kavanaugh's old cronies turn out to be degenerate drunkard misogynist ultra-right-wing conspiracy theorist toolbags and somehow Kavanaugh himself is Mr. Squeaky Clean? <cough>********<cough>

nope-1004 , 1 day ago

No, they were all drunken college kids.

So have you lefties changed it and would like to charge him for partying?

lmao.....

RighteousRampage , 1 day ago

Lol, drunked college kids? More like degenerate a-holes. Troll harder.

IridiumRebel , 1 day ago

Yes. Troll harder.

Garciathinksso , 1 day ago

your being spoon fed a narrative by the msm like rice pudding to a gay cowboy, you make me sick

RighteousRampage , 1 day ago

Keep your homoerotic fantasies to yourself, please.

Garciathinksso , 1 day ago

I thought I was being kind with the gay cowboy remark

istt , 1 day ago

Get the **** out of here, wingnut. Switch back to your CNN. We don't need your ilk here, loser.

RighteousRampage , 1 day ago

I have been here farrrrr long than the vast majority of you pikers. Long enough to recall what ZH was intended to be for, before it became the cesspool it is today, infested with russian trolls, nazi-fascist thugs, lunatic fringe d-bags spouting off like they know anything about anything. So GET the F OFF MY LAWN, punk.

istt , 1 day ago

Anyone who finds this woman and her story credible need their head examined. They are incapable of critical reasoning.

A political hit job and the stupid, ignoramus Ford was willing to do the hit. She should be in jail for this disgraceful action.

onebytwo , 1 day ago

So she was communicating on Whatsup with the Washington Post on JULY 6th! How is that consistent with wanting this whole story to be confidential?

She knew the person she was in contact with since she admitted she was the same journalist who wrote the article in September. In whatsup you know each other's phone numbers so the journalist knew her identity from the very beginning. Stop lying about the anonymous tip line !

Let's call this for what it is: a conspiracy to hijack a supreme court nomination and Mrs Blasio Ford, the Washington Post, democratic parties operatives (including senator Fienstein's staff or the senator herself and the Kats legal firm) were co-conspirators).

onwisconsinbadger , 1 day ago

Hired by Pukes, no surprise here.

cheech_wizard , 1 day ago

So elections have consequences, right?

I'll bet you didn't miss a single one of Hillary's campaign events in Wisconsin, did you?

RighteousRampage , 1 day ago

I really don't get it, there are many qualified conservative judges who would do a much better job on SCOTUS and not damage the court's honor and credibility. Why Kavanaugh?

onwisconsinbadger , 1 day ago

Because he is a political heck and Drumpf likes it that way.

Bricker , 1 day ago

Ford doesnt remember much, except when it matters. She doesnt know exactly when she was raped or where she claims to be raped, but remembers seeing Mark Judge in a Safeway exactly 8 weeks later.

Hell I remember where I was when the space shuttle blew up in the 80s, I remember where I was and who I was with when Mt St Helens blew her top in 1980.

People will always remember notable events, PERIOD!

Here is a classic, if you believe her story, I have a bridge for sale

Endgame Napoleon , 1 day ago

Back when the Roy Moore thing was keeping MSM ratings up, I, a person in Dr. Ford's age group, recalled a 100% harmless event from my 16th year. The reason it sprang to mind is: it echoed things they were accusing him of.

Accusers said he was in the mall, flirting with girls in their late teens and in other commercial venues, chatting it up girls in that age group.

Although this event had not crossed my mind in years -- so un-traumatic was it -- I remembered in much greater detail than Ford the specificities of this harmless event.

I was working at a locally owned steakhouse as a hostess, a glorified and very bored door opener. I was wearing a pink, medium-warm-gray and light-warm-gray, striped dress (ugh, the Eighties).

After work, I decided to stop at a local grocery store, and I felt pleased that a candidate for office who later won handed me his card, trying to convince me to vote for him. He also mildly flirted with me, not knowing how old I was, and I did not tell him my age, enjoying the feeling of being older, sophisticated and attractive enough to get his attention.

He put his phone number on the card, not that anything happened as a result. I knew that I would not be allowed to go out with this man who really wasn't that much older than me, anyway, probably about a decade older.

If this man ever ran for another office, or was appointed to a high office, I could call this sexual assault, I guess, in this insane world. But I would never do that, nor would almost any woman that I have met.

There must be something in the water, producing more barracudas with a mission to criminalize things that earlier generations would have called flirting.

learnofjesuits , 1 day ago

was she on valium for funeral and polygraph test ?

this explains why test was done after funeral and her passing this test,

FBI must check this

RighteousRampage , 1 day ago

And while they're at it, they should also check all the stories from Yale classmates who can attest to the fact that Kavanaugh was often spotted late at night stumbling and slurring his words, and sometimes aggressively starting sh*t.

learnofjesuits , 1 day ago

inconsequential, nothing will come out of this,

opposite of her being on drugs for polygraph test, this just ends her story

[Oct 02, 2018] Two rooms, a bathrooom and a separate entrance. In the Dr. ford residence area that setup probably commands $2000 a month.

Notable quotes:
"... The whole point of discussing door #2 was to bring Ford's purported 35-year-old PTSD affliction into the discussion. Poor Dr. Ford, suffering like a Vietnam vet who was the only survivor of a helicopter crash only to be tortured in a tiger cage by the Cong. A lifetime of PTSD and claustrophobia caused by a clumsy groping of a future Supreme Court nominee. Oh the humanity! How come her bad case of acne during the Nor'easter of '84 wasn't brought up? ..."
"... Concentrate on Dr. Ford's work with creating false memories through hypnosis . ..."
"... Oh no! You get the Zoning Nazis on your ***...you're in balls deep. ..."
"... Her bizarre, squeaky, 10 year-old wounded-child's voice was both creepy, and if not bad acting, then a sign she is truly mentally ill. ..."
"... My father's friend, who was a practicing psychiatrist forever, always said that the field's "professionals" had the craziest people he'd ever seen. ..."
Oct 02, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Demologos , 1 hour ago

Hey, John Brennan said to dig deeper, so we are. Keep peeling the onion and expose more and more layers. She had a second door put in to improve the house's curb appeal, but you can't see the door from the curb. The door helped with her claustrophobia but it only allows egress from living space separate from her main residence.

As the commenter above said, "look squirrel"!

The whole point of discussing door #2 was to bring Ford's purported 35-year-old PTSD affliction into the discussion. Poor Dr. Ford, suffering like a Vietnam vet who was the only survivor of a helicopter crash only to be tortured in a tiger cage by the Cong. A lifetime of PTSD and claustrophobia caused by a clumsy groping of a future Supreme Court nominee. Oh the humanity! How come her bad case of acne during the Nor'easter of '84 wasn't brought up?

The only pacifier evident here is the one up your ***.

Beatscape , 1 hour ago

Follow the money... it almost always takes you to the real motivating factors.

Good work here by by Thomas Lipscomb via RealClearPolitics.com

NoPension , 2 hours ago

Sounds more like hubby didn't want strangers in the house, and she wanted the extra income or potential. Perhaps, he was scared of the consequences of getting busted, after spending the money...doing something non code compliant.

Builder here.

This starts to make sense...in a fucked up way.

digitalrevolution , 2 hours ago

Too far in the weeds on this one.

Concentrate on Dr. Ford's work with creating false memories through hypnosis .

NoPension , 1 hour ago

Oh no! You get the Zoning Nazis on your ***...you're in balls deep.

PGR88 , 2 hours ago

Her bizarre, squeaky, 10 year-old wounded-child's voice was both creepy, and if not bad acting, then a sign she is truly mentally ill.

ChartRoom , 2 hours ago

My father's friend, who was a practicing psychiatrist forever, always said that the field's "professionals" had the craziest people he'd ever seen.

Wild Bill Steamcock , 1 hour ago

Can confirm

45North1 , 2 hours ago

A floor plan would be instructive.

NoPension , 2 hours ago

Two rooms, a bathrooom and a separate entrance. In an area where that setup probably commands $2000 a month.

zoning inspectors 3....2.....1....