Reading with Sandy - National Review on Kavanaugh

Words in black belong to Matthew Continetti

My words are in red

All the Kavanaugh coverage has been intended to undermine his tenure and lay the predicate for structural reform of the U.S. judiciary.  The words “has been intended” were added to make it look as though the Kavanaugh coverages does not  . . .

It is impossible to separate the latest attack on Justice Brett Kavanaugh from the political strategy of the Democratic party. I guess we can assume that McConnell’s use of ‘A G E N D A’ wasn’t working well enough so they’ve upgraded to ‘political strategy’ but what will happen when people talk about the BRILLIANT [SIC] political strategy of McConnell? Are they taking a risk here, or assuming that their base will remain totally inconsistent?  On September 16, two days after the New York Times’ “Sunday Review” section told of another allegation of sexual misconduct during Kavanaugh’s college years, but this wasn’t anything new. Those of us paying attention knew about this during his hearing, when Republicans ‘rammed through’ (to use McConnell words) the vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation without allowing a thorough investigation or witnesses to testify  Axios AM, an online newsletter, described Democratic CREDIT WHERE DO – THIS AUTHOR USES DEMOCRATIC INSTEAD OF DEMOCRAT  plans “to portray President Trump, Justice Brett Kavanaugh and Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell as the three villains defining the three branches of government for the 2020 campaign.” The reasoning: “Each of these white men, they will argue, symbolizes Republican corruption and rule-bending.”  Democrats aren’t portraying this, Trump, Kavanaugh, and McConnell have demonstrated this– PROVEN it beyond reasonable doubt – made it so blatantly obvious that anyone who isn’t in a coma surely had to see it.

Because opinions of Trump do not change, the Democrats have decided to rally their base against the two other “white men.” I am quite certain that Democrats didn’t need to rally the base, whether or not opinions of Trump change, because we are intelligent and concerned, whether or not whichever Democrats this author is crediting point it out to us. That is why all the major Democratic presidential candidates except for Joe Biden and Amy Klobuchar called for Kavanaugh’s impeachment after the publication of the Times essay. Says who? It is why the media gave the accusation, heard by reporters secondhand, saturation coverage. Ummm, no, define saturation. How does the number of articles and minutes of network news coverage of this issue compare to all of the other issues in these few days? And it is why Ayanna Pressley, a member of the “Squad,” introduced a resolution to start an impeachment investigation. Oh, not a bit hilarious that this guy invokes the buzz-word Squad, to piss off both Republicans and sane Democrats who know that no matter how hard Republican media tries to convince people they are the voice of the party, it’s so far from truth that anyone with any sense would stop reading right here.

Democrats are not dissuaded by the fact that Kavanaugh and the Court unite the conservative movement and Republican party like no other figure and issue. WTAF does this even mean? Like no other figure and issue? I’m willing to bet the majority of Republican voters can’t spell Kavanaugh or pick him out of a lineup. What counts to them is the Democratic base, not the Republican one. Anger, outrage, and animosity whip up voters, boost enthusiasm, and drive people to the polls. See my banner and hear this admission.

Nor does it matter to the activist Left if the source of the allegation did not speak to the Times; if the alleged victim does not recall the incident; if the Times accompanied its story with a weird and gross tweet that it later deleted; if everyone involved in the publication of the essay turned on each other in an orgy of blame-shifting and buck-passing; if one of the authors resorted to sharing Vox articles on social media to rationalize her behavior. The goal is neither objectivity nor factuality. It is delegitimization. Oh, nice use of semicolons. If I still owned the semi colon group, I would give this guy a badge. Pathetic use of another misused buzzword –activist—one of the words that Trump and McConnell use to incite violence against people who get involved in trying to save this country from them. The rest of this paragraph is utter bushit. Even IF a victim doesn’t remember the crime committed against her, if witnesses saw it, it counts. Actually, even if no one saw it, it counts.

All the Kavanaugh coverage for the last year has been intended to undermine his confirmation and subsequent rulings and lay the predicate for structural reform of the U.S. judiciary if the Democrats win the presidency and Senate. No shit, Sherlock? That’s the purpose of vetting sexual abuses and liars so they don’t get on the court.

You really should just stop reading here. At this point, it’s more than obvious that you should not trust a word this author says.

But, since it is my responsibility to keep a certain ratio of my own words to those of this irresponsible, dishonest, unethical, sorry excuse for a journalist, I will keep typing words to make sure he can’t sue me.

The disastrous nothing disastrous about it – and it obviously concerns Republican fake-news writers like this guy, or he wouldn’t have spent all of this time writing all of these stupid words about it. Unless, of course, he’s afraid that a Republican or two considered trying to think a little and he wanted to tell that person or two exactly what he/they are supposed to think . . .  rollout of this latest smear DICTIONARY needs to pay this guy a visit because he clearly doesn’t understand the meaning of the word ‘smear’ has had the ironic effect of highlighting the weakness of the original charges against him. Author Ryan Lovelace uncovered footage of Christine Blasey Ford’s attorney, Debra Katz, saying that the desire to put “an asterisk” next to Kavanaugh’s decisions “motivated” her client to come forward. Holy shit! You don’t say? An ASTERISK?! Has anyone filed charges, or attempted to have her disbarred for her use of the ASTERISK? Does that compare to the use of a weapon-of-mass-destruction by a homegrown, radicalized, Republican terrorist who wants to shoot up an elementary school, movie theater, grocery store, or church? If so, I vote to remove all guns and asterisks from our society.  Authors Mollie Hemingway and Carrie Severino report that Blasey Ford’s friend Leland Keyser did not believe her story and does not recall meeting Kavanaugh. Blasey Ford’s father, who along with Blasey Ford’s mother was noticeably absent from last year’s hearing, is reported to support Kavanaugh. There is not a single corroborating witness to Blasey Ford’s account, and the “seven witnesses” to Deborah Ramirez’s story are less than they seem. Know what else is less than it seems? The qualifications of this fake-news writer to publish in the real world.

NOW WATCH: 'Trump Urges Kavanaugh To Sue New York Times For Libel'

Watch: 0:47

Trump Urges Kavanaugh To Sue New York Times For Libel

The Kavanaugh controversy is not, as one reporter for the Washington Post described it, a “journalistic mishap.” Nor is this trash a journalistic mishap. It would have to climb a ladder qualify for a checkout lane rack. It is a case of Democratic activists and lawmakers using journalists precisely as intended: as instruments of a political agenda. SEE MY BANNER. This guy needs a priest if he is going to keep confessing at this rate. Democrats are much more aware than Republicans that the very survival of their party depends on the maintenance of the “living Constitution,” as opposed to the Constitution as written and subsequently amended. The courts have been the Democrats’ backstop. If Donald Trump transforms them, liberals would have to reckon with the voting public.  There are no words to describe how hideously ridiculous this is. If I had the stomach for it, I would read a few more articles published by this guy just to see if he uses these same canned lies in all of them. I’m betting he does. Things could get ugly. Is this a threat? A nudge to your thugs and militias?

If the judiciary were to overturn Roe, end affirmative action, roll back the administrative state, protect the Second Amendment, and limit congressional power to regulate interstate commerce, American politics would look vastly different, and the constituent groups of the Democratic party would be radically disempowered. Bullshit. But you know what would happen? Republican women would be furious when they couldn’t get abortions. Children and husbands would be sad when their mothers and wives/mates died in childbirth. Republicans who have a bunch of kids they don’t want and can’t afford would need even more food stamps and Medicaid than they’re already getting . . . Shit could get real real. Not much would change since law-breaking, killing Republicans would find some way to kill, with or without guns to kill each other and anyone else who gets in their way. And, sooner or later, when Republicans have no jobs, they’re going to realize they’ve been duped by jerks like this guy misleading the about EVERYTHING. That is why the Democrats have responded so fiercely to nominations of conservatives to the bench, beginning with Judge Robert Bork in 1987. They know the stakes. LIAR LIAR LIAR. You are a fool for not having enough pride to stop you from making a fool of yourself in writing this way.

They also understand that sentiment and social position matter much more to the new woke progressivism than fact, evidence, and due process. Seriously, it takes guts to make this big a fool of yourself. For the Left, Kavanaugh is a symbol of structural racism and the patriarchy, the cool kid in high school envied and loathed by outsiders. Democrats don’t think liars and sexual abusers are cool. We don’t envy monsters who have no self-control or self-esteem. He must be projecting.  Accusations against him are “credible” No, they are credible (stupid use of quotation marks) because they are true. simply because he is the target. Only by confessing his privilege and repenting for his beliefs would Kavanaugh gain absolution and relief. The high price he and his family have had to pay for replacing Justice Anthony Kennedy also acts as a deterrent. Some judges may now think twice before accepting a nomination to the Court. Thanks for reminding us that Kennedy also needs to be investigated. Kavanaugh’s family is paying the price OF HIS CRIMES and poor character.

“Mankind is an incorrigibly myth-making species,” wrote James Burnham in 1958. “It is marvelous to observe how, in the history of great struggles that seem too complex for rational understanding, the participants invariably find an outward and visible symbol by which to express the essential meaning.” Brett Kavanaugh has been put in such a position. He is a stand-in for the crisis of legitimacy that is coursing through our institutions, as an emboldened cultural progressivism seeks to upend traditional understandings of American history and citizenship.

The irrepressible conflict over his office testifies to the overwhelming power of the judiciary, and to the tenuous nature of the rights the Court has invented over the last 50-odd years. Kavanaugh matters because he is a living reminder that the threat to the Founders’ Constitution comes from a left willing to break rules, and lives, to achieve social transformation.

Matthew Continetti is editor in chief of the Washington Free Beacon and a fellow at the National Review Institute. @continetti

Roots of Good Ole Boys Club

 Often, because I am a detective and sociologist at heart, I read things on Facebook threads that belong to my friends and trace the issue all the way back to its roots. I seldom hesitate to jump in with what I believe is a relevant rant, anecdote, sidetrack, contemplation, devil's advocate position, or personal experience. I just did that because I dislike (intensely) the involved individual who would be the catalyst for this trip back to roots. I think the topic is extremely relevant and the spiraling back to roots is something that we, as a society, should take on. 

The 'good ole boys' club didn't just appear one day. It was created when weaker people -- usually females but not always -- allowed people who were in a position to hold something over them, to use them. 

Allowed. The weaker chose protecting their lives, their jobs, their marriages, their reputations, their pride, their fear, their desire to have the most friends or the fewest enemies or to be in the popular crowd - something - over standing up to or denying their users and abusers.

In the example that prompted this status, a male who defends Kavanaugh, and in subliminal terms that maybe he doesn't even recognize, slaughters Kavanaugh's victim, and screams between the lines that he was a nerdy unpopular guy who only wishes he could have been able to attend drunken parties where it was okay to attempt to rape girls. Other men in the conversation attempt to walk around this with kindness and intelligence and I wanted to talk about the elephant in the room. 

But, even though I believe the friend who started this conversation - a male - by saying he believes the victim and it's time for men to talk about it, the usually fearless me didn't want to offer myself as the screeching female who 'deserved' to be shut down. Possibly because I would have felt the need to go for blood. And my friend didn't want a bloody Facebook page. 

In conversations like this, a particular memory with my daughter always comes to mind. She, her abusive boyfriend, and I were all on my bed. He was trying to impress me and have me talk her down from some argument they were having over him being angry because a guy on the street looked at her. Poor fool didn't have a clue that there was a woman like me alive, and that instead of being flattered by jealousy, we would turn him loose. He only confirmed what I already believed I knew - her sudden change in appearance from cover girl to dowdy was to keep him from punishing her because other men noticed her. 

My daughter said he had over-reacted in the situation he was discussing because she didn't even look back. And then he hung himself. He went on to explain to her that it's never innocent, and that ALL MEN want sex with every beautiful woman they see, and that ALL MEN always go off the deep end and want to fight if another man smiles at THEIR WOMAN. And a bunch of ignorant shit like that. ALL MEN. 

I let the fool talk as long as he wanted to talk. And then I smiled at my daughter and asked if she understood what he had just told her. She started to defend herself. And he smiled like he had won. 

But I stopped her, and pointed out that he had just told her that he wants to have sex with every beautiful woman he sees. And that he will always go off the deep end and want to fight every man she talks to or who even looks at her. And, all men look at her so she wouldn't be able to go anywhere in peace. 

That ALL MEN narrative should have hung ALL MEN centuries ago. Instead, many women nurtured and propagated it. There's a twist, though. All men are not like that. But, many women believe what they've heard about ALL MEN, and are out to hurt ALL MEN, making the world not quite as safe as it should be for the ones who are not like the ALL MEN men. 

We've created a huge mess by not addressing the spills along the way. 

I saw a man I respect for many reasons make a huge mistake yesterday by tweeting something about how we must believe every woman every time. NOOOOOOOOO! That's the same as ALL MEN. It ruins everything. We should listen to every one every time but not automatically believe or not believe every person of any gender just because. I know women who lie in just about every sentence. I know women who live lies. 

Everyone should be heard. And what we derive from what we hear should be based on evidence when available, character consistencies, history, plausibility, motive, actions, intensity (an attempted rape versus he accidentally brushed my ass in a photo shoot), honesty in other aspects of the person's life . . . 

And what we do with that information after we've heard it should depend greatly on the danger that person presents to society, or to particular individuals. That guy who followed me into a closet at work forty years ago and tried to kiss me caused me no harm, physically or emotionally, and is no harm to anyone today. I don't need to out him now because it's a fad. Telling my experience without mentioning his name, to help a younger girl understand how to deal with a situation like that is a good thing. An attempted rape while holding his hand over my mouth would be quite another story. A rape would be an even worse story. All three situations reflect a character defect. The attempted kiss was wrong because he was a married man. I think if he had been a dangerous man, he probably wouldn't have started with leaning in like he was going to kiss me. 

Rape and attempted rape are violent acts that go to the core of a horrible character and I don't believe that kind of character changes. We need to elevate those stories and remove all power from the perpetrators, especially when the person who is not remembering doing them has been caught on national television lying about other things in a job interview for a position that gives him tremendous power over all of us.