RUTHFULLY YOURS

You have opponents whose first and only objective is delay. From the start of the confirmation proceedings on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court, those opponents, Senate Democrats, have thus pushed for delay. At every turn. Of course they never come out and say that’s what they’re doing — they never come out and say, “We’ve abused the confirmation process and dropped a bomb at the eleventh hour, an uncorroborated, 36-year-old allegation of sexual assault, because we’re trying to delay the vote until after the midterms.” But delay is what they want.

It doesn’t matter what sheep’s clothing the wolf comes in; the wolf is always delay. When they say, “We’re protecting survivors,” they mean, “We want delay.” When they posture that “women must be believed,” their aim is more delay. When they say, “The FBI must investigate to remove any cloud over the nominee,” the translation is: “Give us a delay so we can come up with new reasons for delay.”

Get it?

Dems say, “potato,” they mean “delay”;
Dems say “tomato,” they mean delay;
Tomato, delay, potato, delay;
Let’s call the whole thing off.

So, finally, we get to a committee vote over two weeks after it should have happened; after reopening a hearing that involved 31 hours of testimony from the nominee; after 65 meetings with senators and followed by over 1,200 answers to post-hearing questions, more than the combined number of post-hearing questions in the history of Supreme Court nominations. We finally get Kavanaugh’s nomination voted out of committee. And then, as a final floor vote is about to be scheduled and debated, Republicans — taking their lead from the ineffable Jeff Flake — agree to accede to one more Democratic request (really, just one more, cross-our-hearts . . .). And what would that be?

What else? Another week of delay.

The rationale for this delay is priceless: We need an FBI investigation. It is understandable that the public does not realize how specious this demand is. But who would have thought Senate Republicans were in need of a civics lesson?

Let’s try to give them a brisk one.

https://amgreatness.com/2018/09/28/revenge-of-the-

In one scene in “When Harry Met Sally,” Meg Ryan’s character insists she had great sex in college with a guy named Shel. Billy Crystal’s character doesn’t buy it.

“Sheldon? No, no, you did not have great sex with Sheldon. A Sheldon can do your income taxes, if you need a root canal, Sheldon’s your man . . . but humpin’ and pumpin’ is not Sheldon’s strong suit. It’s the name. ‘Do it to me Sheldon, you’re an animal Sheldon, ride me big Shel-don.’ Doesn’t work.”

Since we all reliving the 1980s, that clip came to mind as I watched Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) grill Judge Brett Kavanaugh on Thursday about his high school hijinx and in-crowd jargon from Georgetown Prep’s 1983 yearbook. The former prosecutor applied his keen interrogation skills against the Supreme Court nominee as Whitehouse delved into an unfamiliar world of teenaged popularity and partying, a place where guys like Kavanaugh strode past the likes of Whitehouse in the high school hallway with nary a glance, and Kavanaugh’s gal pals never gave poor Shel a chance to score.

Whitehouse revealed depravity of the highest order as he exposed the elite prep-school caste system. He finally was clued into its secret dialect and, acting like he was uncovering the cool kids’ Rosetta Stone, he made Kavanaugh admit that “ralph” is a reference to vomiting, and “boofed” means flatulence. The judge finally explained to an anxious nation what all those Fs were before his mention of the FFFFFFFourth of July. (Poor Squi.)

Whitehouse even exposed how these campus kings entertained themselves on the weekend while he was at home sharpening his Dungeons and Dragons skills. In one riveting exchange, peering over his glasses, the two-term senator cross-examined the former star athlete and student:

Whitehouse: Devil’s Triangle?

Kavanaugh: Drinking game.

Whitehouse: How’s it played?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/another-kavanaugh-flakeout-1538176574

Democrats must be secretly delighted, not that they’ll admit it. A couple of GOP Senators fell on Friday for their ruse of seeking an FBI investigation of an assault accusation against Brett Kavanaugh, and now this Supreme Court nomination ordeal will continue for at least another week. Who knows what new dirt against the judge they can throw on the Senate wall?

On Friday the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the Supreme Court nominee in an 11-10 party-line vote, with Arizona Senator Jeff Flake the last convert. That should have sent the nomination to the Senate floor and a vote early next week.

But then Mr. Flake had a crisis of, well, something and said he wanted another FBI investigation before a floor vote. After Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski said she agreed with Mr. Flake, GOP Senate leaders agreed to a one-week FBI probe into current accusations. President Trump obliged and put the FBI on the case again.
***

The mystery is what new evidence Mr. Flake and Ms. Murkowski expect the FBI to find. The Senate this week heard six hours of public testimony from Judge Kavanaugh and his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford.

The potential witnesses Ms. Ford has named have given statements under penalty of perjury saying they don’t recall the 1982 party she describes. No corroboration has materialized, leaving Democrats and the media to pick over high-school yearbook entries from 1983. Ms. Ford said Thursday that she is “100%” certain Judge Kavanaugh assaulted her. He told the Senate that he is “100%” certain of his innocence.

Now the FBI will spend a week redoing all these interviews. To what end? FBI background investigations aren’t criminal probes. They reach no conclusions. The agents conduct interviews, record what the subjects say, and put the summaries in a nominee’s file. The Senators are then expected to draw their conclusions and vote. After a week Mr. Flake and Ms. Murkowski may find themselves in the same place, since Ms. Ford’s charge is too imprecise in date, place or recollections to corroborate.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/pediatrician-transgender-activists-are-accusing-us-of-heresy-for-asking-questions/

Schools across the country and around the world have started embracing the idea that boys who identify as girls and girls who identify as boys should be confirmed in those mistaken identities and even put on hormonal or surgical “treatments” to “affirm” them. Medical organizations and governments are endorsing this crackpot approach, and working hard to silence dissent. Dr. Michelle Cretella, executive director of the American College of Pediatricians, explained why.

“It’s like they’re accusing us of heresy, it’s an inquisition,” Dr. Cretella told PJ Media in an interview at the Values Voter Summit. “You can’t have debate, scientific debate. No dissent allowed. You either agree with us or you’re a hater, you’re a bigot.” Her own organization has been marked as a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), and derided by the American Academy of Pediatricians, which promotes transgender identity as healthy.

The pediatrician suggested that transgender ideology is tantamount to a religion that should not be endorsed by the government, much less pushed as unquestionable truth, quashing dissent as “heresy.” This “cult” spreads in various ways, and many of them foster child abuse.

Dr. Cretella discussed a scientific study published in the academic journal PLOS ONE that delves into “rapid onset gender dysphoria.” The researcher, Lisa Littman, studied teenagers who had no gender confusion or gender non-conforming behavior as children, but then suddenly announced to their parents and the world that they were transgender, requesting hormones and surgery.

Littman suggested that this “rapid onset” gender dysphoria (the condition of identifying as a gender opposite your birth sex) could result from a “social or peer contagion.” She explained peer contagion using the example of anorexia. Girls in friend groups will convince one another that they are fat and together they will strategize on starving themselves.

These social networks will praise girls who lose a lot of weight and stigmatize girls who reject anorexia. The situation can get even worse over the Internet, where pro-eating disorder sites will provide motivation for extreme weight loss, called “thinspiration.” Such sites even push the eating disorder as an identity, and strategize on how to deceive parents and doctors to keep losing weight when it isn’t healthy.

Littman’s study found evidence to support the idea that gender dysphoria is indeed a social contagion, and that many friend groups — particularly among teenage girls — will “come out” as transgender together. CONTINUE AT SITE

https://amgreatness.com/2018/09/28/the

The silver lining of the Kavanaugh show trial, if one may be allowed to speak of such a thing, is that a great many formerly less-than-reliable conservatives finally understand. They have come to realize what the Left has in store for them, for us, and for the nation.

Many, but not all. If one pays attention to the national cacophony, one notices—like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s dog that didn’t bark—the silence, or coy dodges, of many #NeverTrump “conservatives.”

All along, they have said that their objections to Trump are about him personally—his personality, rhetoric, alleged lack of principle and so on (and on!). Whereas they—they insist; just ask them!—stand for eternal conservative principle. You know, conservative principles such as original intent jurisprudence and standing up for men and women of good character, moderate rhetoric, unimpeachable family and private lives, and exemplary records of public service.

Men such as—just to pick a name at random—Brett Kavanaugh.

Judge Kavanaugh—aside from being honorable, intelligent, decent and genuinely principled—is one of them. An establishment Republican. A beltway lifer. A Bush White House veteran. A product of elite schools and conservative institutions intended to groom him for high office. So where are they in support of the judge? Either silent, or siding with the Left.

Accusation vs. Calumny
Let’s examine more closely that Left—the side they’ve joined. The Left has created a new “standard” for American politics—indeed, new in the entire history of Anglo-American jurisprudence. Let us call it the Gillibrand Standard, after its most insistent advocate, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.).

According to the Gillibrand Standard, accusation suffices to destroy. Not only is no corroborating evidence necessary, to ask for such evidence makes one just as guilty as the accused. Especially monstrous is to ask questions of the accuser; that is to repeat or compound the alleged crime. The accusation, once stated, immediately takes on metaphysical certainty. To doubt is to blaspheme.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/senator-cory-booker-cant-shake-his-own-lurid-sexual-misconduct-allegations/

A witness has emerged with allegations of teenage sexual misconduct against Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), and that witness is — surprise! — Senator Cory Booker. Columns detailing his misconduct, written by Booker in the student-run Stanford Daily newspaper in 1992, were first unearthed by the Daily Caller in 2013. They became an issue again this month after the senator became one of the leading Democratic voices against Kavanaugh’s confirmation.

Earlier this month, Booker launched his 2020 presidential bid during a Judiciary Committee hearing where he awkwardly likened himself to Thracian gladiator Spartacus. This Friday, the senator awkwardly decried the “pernicious patriarchy” surrounding California professor Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Judge Kavanaugh.

“In the United States of America right now, there are dark corners of our culture. The Center of Disease Control reports ‘one out of every three American women will experience some form of sexual violence,'” Booker intoned, adding that “60 percent of them go unreported.”

One instance of underage sexual misconduct in 1984 did go reported, however — by Booker himself. In a column in the student-run Stanford Daily newspaper in 1992, Booker admitted to taking advantage of an intoxicated classmate.

“New Year’s Eve 1984 I will never forget. I was 15. As the ball dropped, I leaned over to hug a friend and she met me instead with an overwhelming kiss. As we fumbled upon the bed, I remember debating my next ‘move’ as if it were a chess game,” Booker wrote:

“With the ‘Top Gun’ slogan ringing in my head, I slowly reached for her breast. After having my hand pushed away once, I reached my ‘mark,’” he continued, without explaining what he meant by “mark.”

“Our groping ended soon and while no ‘relationship’ ensued, a friendship did. You see, the next week in school she told me that she was drunk that night and didn’t really know what she was doing,” he added.

Booker’s intent of the column was to detail his transformation from a 15-year-old who was “trotting around the bases and stealing second” to someone who was called a “man-hater” over his pro-women views.

Booker returned to the subject of “date rape” a few months later:

“But by my second column, as I raised my noble pen to address the issue of date rape, I realized that the person holding it wasn’t so noble after all,” he wrote. “With this issue as with so many others, a dash of sincere introspection has revealed to me a dangerous gap — a gap between my beliefs and my actions.”

The columns were written by Booker when he was an undergraduate at Stanford majoring in sociology. CONTINUE AT SITE

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-testimony/

It is considered taboo even to suggest that an emphatic Professor Ford at times was inexact and inconsistent in her prior written and current Senate testimonies.

But the result of her sometimes-moving account still remains that she seems to have little recollection of how her still-private therapist’s notes or versions of notes ended up in the hands of the Washington Post and were to be used as corroborating evidence — even though they at times seem to have contradicted elements of versions of her allegations.

Ford, unfortunately, seems to have little memory of how her original letter requesting anonymity surfaced in the media. Nor does anyone else in the small number who had access to it. Ford, apparently, has little recollection of an offer — widely reported in the media — from Senate members to fly out to California to alleviate her anxieties about flying. Strangely, she did not explain how such a fear of flying contradicted her own record of relatively recent and extensive flying both for business and leisure.

One wished that Ford could at last have named one witness who could corroborate her allegations that the 17-year-old Brett Kavanaugh assaulted her 36 years ago in a place where witnesses were apparently present, or at least produced convincing evidence that the testimonies of those alleged to be at the party who had no memory of her narratives were sorely mistaken.

Ford might have been deemed more credible had she just been able to locate the scene of the alleged assault, or to explain how and why the alleged gender and number of those at the scene of the alleged assault were not reported by her consistently, or to remember how she arrived and left the scene.

The assertion that Ford sought “medical treatment” after the assault would usually not be taken to suggest that 30 years after an alleged sexual assault one brings up the allegation for the first time during a marriage-counseling session.

The “process” of memorializing Ford’s testimony involved a strange inversion of constitutional norms: The idea of a statute of limitations is ossified; hearsay is legitimate testimony; inexact and contradictory recall is proof of trauma, and therefore of validity; the burden of proof is on the accused, not the accuser; detail and evidence are subordinated to assumed sincerity; proof that one later relates an allegation to another is considered proof that the assault actually occurred in the manner alleged; motive is largely irrelevant; the accuser establishes the guidelines of the state’s investigation of the allegations; and the individual allegation gains credence by cosmic resonance with all other such similar allegations.

http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/28/calling-kavanaugh-unhinged-lauding-ford-brave-inverstion-reality/

When Brett Kavanaugh was given the opportunity to defend himself against allegations of sexual assault before the Senate Judiciary Committee and the eyes of the nation on Thursday afternoon, he delivered a blistering rebuke of the “coordinated and well-funded effort” to destroy his reputation and family that left onlookers gobsmacked.

Throughout the entirety of his 45-minute opening remarks, Kavanaugh remained stalwart in his defense. Regardless of whether one found his accuser’s testimony credible, anyone with eyes and ears could clearly observe that this is a man who is sure of his innocence and is not backing down.

“You’ve tried hard,” Kavanaugh said. “You’ve given it your all. No one can question your efforts. Your coordinated and well-funded effort to destroy my good name and destroy my family will not drive me out. The vile threats of violence against my family will not drive me out. You may defeat me in the final vote, but you’ll never get me to quit. Never.”

At times, Kavanaugh was visibly angry — angry that allegations made against him without any evidence or witness validation had devastated his life and family. He was angry that his wife had been receiving death threats, and that he had to explain these horrific allegations to his children. At times Kavanaugh interrupted senators when he was asked an absurd question — like what drinking games he played with his friends in high school or why there was a reference to flatulence in his high school yearbook.

The burden of saving his family’s name rested squarely on Kavanaugh’s shoulders. His defense would determine whether his family lives in shame or carries their heads high. And he did not run from the fight nor did he waver in his defense — a display of courage Washington has not seen the likes of in decades.

When Sen. Lindsay Graham had the chance to ask questions, he used the tail end of his time to chide his fellow Republicans for lack of spine. It was no coincidence Graham said this while staring directly towards Sen. Jeff Flake, who has been floundering back and forth as to whether he will vote to confirm Kavanaugh and soaking up every bit of attention that has come with the drama. If they do not support this man who courageously fought for what he is certain is the truth come confirmation time, then none of them deserve to serve in the Senate.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/brett-kavanaugh-flip-flop-wasnt-on-polygraphs/

Brett Kavanaugh was asked during yesterday’s hearing if he would take a polygraph test. He replied that he would do whatever the Judiciary Committee asked him to, but noted that polygraphs are inadmissible in federal court because they are “unreliable.” That fact is not in dispute, but it generated controversy anyway: A number of journalists and observers pointed to Sack v. Department of Defense, a 2016 case for which Kavanaugh wrote the opinion, as evidence that he had flip-flopped on the issue. Joe Patrice of Above the Law said that Kavanaugh has ruled that “polygraphs can be accepted as gospel,” while the Huffington Post declared that “Brett Kavanaugh Once Said Polygraphs Are A Good Tool.”

Did he? Sack v. DoD was a Freedom of Information Act appeal in which the court considered whether Kathryn Sack, then a Ph.D. student at the University of Virginia, was eligible for reduced fees for FOIA requests she had filed with the DoD. Part of the case involved whether polygraphs are used for by investigators for a law-enforcement purpose. If they were, then information pertaining to polygraphs in the possession of the government could be eligible for a FOIA exemption. As Kavanaugh wrote: “Under Exemption 7(E), the Government must demonstrate (i) that the withheld records or information ‘would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations’ and (ii) that their disclosure would reasonably ‘risk circumvention of the law.’ ”

First, his opinion affirmed that “polygraph examinations serve law enforcement purposes.” Note that this is not a claim that they are a valuable tool. It is a descriptive and factual claim: Though polygraphs are not admissible in court, law-enforcement agencies use them to screen job applicants, witnesses, or criminal defendants. Kavanaugh simply found that the government had submitted adequate statements that it uses them for these purposes.

Second, his opinion found that releasing the information related to polygraph tests that was at issue in the case could risk circumvention of the law. He notes that the reports Sack had asked for “identify deficiencies in law enforcement agencies’ polygraph programs,” and therefore that releasing them could allow people “to subvert polygraph examinations.” Where Kavanaugh is alleged to be calling polygraphs a “good tool” or “gospel,” his opinion actually underlines the fact that polygraphs can be manipulated, which is all we need to know about the credibility of this particular charge.