Displaying the most recent of 91287 posts written by

Ruth King

Democrats Endorse Avenatti Brett Kavanaugh’s opponents will believe anything.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-endorse-avenatti-1538004075

Now comes a third accuser against Brett Kavanaugh, this time claiming the Supreme Court nominee was part of a gang of high school boys who spiked the drinks of teenage girls in order to assault and rape them. Really? Does even Mazie Hirono believe this?

The charge comes from Julie Swetnick, a Washington-area woman elevated to accusatory fame on Wednesday by Michael Avenatti, the lawyer for porn actress Stormy Daniels. She claims that Mr. Kavanaugh and high school friend Mark Judge drank to excess at numerous parties and then assaulted girls and women with abandon. She says in a sworn statement that the gang would “‘target’ particular girls” who were alone or shy for serial rape.

So we are supposed to believe that the boys at Georgetown Prep, amid their dreams of Yale, conspired to commit drug and sex crimes on multiple occasions over many years. Yet word of this rape gang at an elite Jesuit high school never made it to anyone in authority. None of the rape victims spoke up—not to a teacher, parent or other official—then or since. None of the boys bragged about it to friends who spoke to a parent or priest.

As for Ms. Swetnick, she says in her statement that she was personally assaulted in 1982 at one of these parties, yet she admits that she attended “well over 10” of these parties from 1981-1983. This means she would have returned to these parties even after she was gang-raped. She suddenly recalls it all now after 35 years, though somehow this never came up during FBI investigations of Mr. Kavanaugh’s background over more than two decades.

Messrs. Judge and Kavanaugh deny the accusation, with Mr. Kavanaugh calling it “ridiculous and from the Twilight Zone.” But that’s unfair to the late Rod Serling, who was more subtle than this kind of character assassination. We wouldn’t even report the details of this latest smear if Democrats and the left weren’t treating the accusation as disqualifying for the Supreme Court.

Oops! Arizona Dem Senate candidate Kyrsten Sinema caught lying about her past By Thomas Lifson

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/09/oops_arizona_dem_senate_candidate_krysten_sinema_caught_lying_about_her_past.html

The race to replace retiring Arizona senator Jeff Flake has been polling as a statistical tie. Until now, at least. Republican candidate Rep. Martha McSally has an incredible life story to tell, with 26 years of service in the Air Force and a historic milestone – the kind that actually means something:

She is the first female fighter pilot to fly in combat and first to command a fighter squadron in combat in United States history.

This is literally leadership under fire.

So her opponent, Krysten Sinema, faced a challenge in coming up with a compelling life story and settled on something that would appeal to Democrats. In place of accomplishment and heroism, she turned to victimhood. In a campaign video, she tugged at heartstrings, claiming (via the Daily Caller):

“First we lost our car, then we lost our home,” Sinema says in an ad. “For nearly three years, we lived in an old abandoned gas station without running water or electricity. Sometimes we didn’t have enough food to eat, but we got by, thanks to help from family, church and sometimes even the government. Those were tough times, but I knew it could be different. I never believed that being homeless was going to stop me from being who I wanted to be.”

Just one little problem, as the Daily Caller notes:

[C]ourt documents obtained by TheNYT reveal that Sinema’s mother and stepfather had provided a judge with records detailing monthly payments they made for electricity, phone and gas bills during that time.

Her response does not inspire confidence:

Sinema did not have an answer when asked by The NYT why her stepfather made payments for power and gas, nor did she address directly whether she had ever embellished details about her upbringing in the Florida gas station in the mid-1980s.

Kirsten Gillibrand won’t confirm Kavanaugh, but confirms that she is an idiot By Thomas Lifson

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/09/kirsten_gillibrand_wont_confirm_kavanaugh_but_confirms_that_she_is_an_idiot.html

I confess that I have always found Senator Kirsten Gillibrand to be a vacuous politician, someone who blows with the wind, seeks shallow advantage, and lacks good judgment. But last night, speaking on MSNBC, where she has no reason to worry about being challenged for verbal excesses, she let slip a statement so appalling that it ranks with her colleague Mazie Hirono’s notorious injunction to the male half of the populace (and her constituency) that its members “shut up.”

On Chris Hayes’s program, these words actually left her mouth:

Every time you hear on Fox News, “assume you’re innocent,” “you have to have proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” they’re trying to confuse voters.

To this mental midget, the assumption of innocence before proven guilty is indeed “confusing.”

Don’t believe me? Watch for yourself:

Keith Windschuttle Three False Waves of Australian History

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/bennelong-papers/2018/09/three-false-waves-australian-history/

The divisive myth that modern Australia is the result of three sequential ‘nations’ — Aboriginal, European and post-war immigrant — has seduced many, most recently Paul Kelly, who believes it ‘true and inclusive’. There has been only one nation, brought into being at Federation.

Morrison should reference the best recent formulation of Australian identity and history, courtesy of Noel Pearson, who argues the nation embodies three traditions: the first Australians, who roamed this continent for 65,000 years, long before the ages of Babylon, Athens and Rome; the British inheritance dating from the voyages of James Cook, the initial colony at Sydney Cove, the rise of British-derived laws, values and institutions; and the immigrant tradition, the arrival of people from many nations that so enriched the culture and led to a multicultural nation. Pearson’s concept is true and it is inclusive. It should appeal to the entire nation, from conservative to progressive.
—Paul Kelly in The Australian, September 26, 2018, on Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s call to retain Australia Day on January 26 but also observe a new public holiday to commemorate indigenous people.

___________________

There are a number of problems with this proposal from journalist Paul Kelly. For a start, it is wrong to say the concept originated with Noel Pearson; second, it provides a seriously mistaken view of the formation of the Australian nation; and third, it is not hard to show the notion fosters division not inclusion.

Nonetheless, Kelly is right to say the idea should appeal to both conservatives and progressives, since it has already done so for almost twenty years now. John Howard used the same terminology in 1999 when he sought to include in the preamble of the Constitution the words ‘honouring Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders, the nation’s first people’. I have heard both John Howard and Tony Abbott repeat this terminology several times since then, providing the same ‘Three Waves’ version of what they call the ‘national story’, though without knowing its real origins.

The idea that Aborigines are the nation’s first people is a version of Australian history devised not by Noel Pearson but the left-wing economist Herbert Cole ‘Nugget’ Coombs in 1982. As president of the Aboriginal Treaty Committee, he addressed the National Press Club on Australia Day that year, giving a speech titled ‘The Three Waves and Australian Identity’. Coombs said Australian history was defined by three distinct human migrations: the Aborigines who arrived some 40,000 years ago; the Anglo-Celtic migrants from the British Isles who came in 1788 and thereafter; and the third wave, the more ethnically mixed migrants of the period after the 1939-45 world war.

Coombs did not go to the National Press Club to lecture his audience about Australian demography. His aim was to score moral and political points, and he laid down a narrative that many people have found compelling ever since.

On the one hand, he described the continent when Aborigines dominated it as a paradise where people were in harmony both with nature and one another.

The Long March of the Chinese Navy By Frank Lavin

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/china-naval-power-growing-new-doctrines-new-missions/

Over time, the expanded navy will push China to new doctrines and new missions.

With the launch of its second aircraft carrier, China has enhanced its position in the front ranks of military powers and prompted questions as to the ultimate purpose of its navy. The Chinese navy, formally known as the People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN), is expanding and will be doing so for years — decades — to come. Some of this is the natural consequence of being the navy of a country in economic ascendancy. Some of this is bureaucratic politics; the PLA is represented on the Communist Party Central Committee, and the PLA answers to the Chinese Communist Party, not the Chinese government. But some of this, the interesting part, is what’s left after one accounts for normal economic growth and institutional self-interest. We might not just be seeing an updated navy or a more potent navy; we might be seeing a different navy, with a different mission.

The axiom here is that in the short run, doctrine determines capabilities, but in the long run, capabilities determine doctrine.

So in the short run, the PLAN will acquire the navy it needs to do its job, already expanding to resupply and safeguard the growing Chinese base structure in the South China Sea. And with one eye on the United States, the PLAN will advocate internally for more ships, bigger ships, better ships, along a new generation of ballistic missiles, all with enhanced range, speed, and lethality. The U.S. military terms the Chinese strategy A2/AD, for “anti-access/area denial.” In other words, China need not match the U.S. ship-for-ship or weapon-for-weapon; it can still throw quite a punch. None of this should surprise military analysts. As countries grow, they seek to project power.

But in the long run, this new navy will itself push the PLAN to new doctrines and new missions. No longer just territorial defense. No longer just Sea Lines of Communication, those maritime arteries that facilitate commerce and military access. No longer just to intimidate or defeat countries in its near abroad, the “first island chain” in PLAN lexicon. Over the next few decades, China will increasingly discover that it has a broader mission.

America’s Biggest Battle, 100 Years On By Dan McLaughlin

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/meuse-argonne-americas-biggest-battle-100-later/

The Meuse-Argonne Offensive of 1918 was the largest battle ever fought by Americans.

One hundred years ago this morning, at 5:30 a.m. Central European Time, the 1.2 million–man American Expeditionary Force launched all of its available combat strength into the largest and arguably the bloodiest battle in American history: the six-week Meuse-Argonne offensive that continued through the armistice at the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month of 1918. The horrific and protracted battle brought a decisive end to the first war in which Americans fought on European soil. Though it was filled with then-famous incidents and notable Americans, the ordeal of the Meuse-Argonne is far less remembered today than Gettysburg, Normandy, Yorktown, Okinawa, or New Orleans. We should keep that memory alive, as it tells us a lot about the America of 1918 and the century that followed.

Amateurs at War
Even the name, “American Expeditionary Force,” speaks to a different era. The armies of America’s wars before 1941 came into being to fight a specific war, and disbanded at the end, leaving their names behind as monuments: the Continental Army, the Army of the Potomac, the Army of the Tennessee. The professionalized, permanent army and Marine Corps were tiny then; the Army in 1917 was less than 150,000 men, compared to some 11 million Germans under arms and 8 million Frenchmen, and ranked as the world’s 17th-largest army. Only after the Second World War would the United States develop what Dwight Eisenhower termed our “military-industrial complex.” Americans had put the world’s most formidable fighting forces in the field against each other in the 1860s but had mostly forgotten the arts of war by 1917, when about 14,000 Americans (two-thirds the size of the Continental Army in mid 1776) were all that could be put in the field in France.

The Marine Corps would do much to build its legend at Belleau Wood in June 1918, and would fight again at St. Mihiel and the Meuse-Argonne under the command of Major General John Lejeune (namesake of North Carolina’s Camp Lejeune), but a small, elite force like the Marines cannot alone conquer a battlefield as vast and densely soldiered as the Western Front. And America’s industrial might was not the decisive factor it would be in the 1940s, when mechanized warfare ruled the battlefield; the American Army Air Service was not a notably effective factor in the battle, and many of the American tanks were borrowed from the French. It was the freshly recruited, still-amateur “Doughboys” of the Army, manning rifles, machine guns, and artillery, who made up the bulk of the estimated 600,000 men committed to the initial assault at H-hour on September 26. The six-week struggle would be the first and, as it turned out, the last time the AEF was fully committed to battle.

Beto O’Rourke Will Not Get the Kavanaugh Treatment By Andrew C. McCarthy

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/beto-orourke-wont-get-brett-kavanaugh-treatment/

The media are curiously uninterested in investigating the unanswered questions surrounding criminal misconduct in O’Rourke’s past.

I used to see the mainstream media as an adjunct of the Democratic party. That’s debatable; it could be that the party is the adjunct. Either way, the most brazenly overt aspect of the partnership is that the press no longer even feigns interest in allegations against nominees; it is interested only in allegations against Republican nominees.

We await the next shoe to drop in the Judge Kavanaugh saga. Rest assured that if there’s a rumor that, in third grade, young Brett yanked on the ponytails of the girl in the second row (war on women!), the New York Times, NBC News, and phalanxes of their journalistic colleagues will be all over it.

Meanwhile, Representative Beto O’Rourke had a pair of felony arrests in his mid-to-late 20s, including a reckless drunk-driving incident in which he crashed into a car and allegedly tried to flee from the scene. The cases appear to have mysteriously disappeared without serious prosecution, notwithstanding that O’Rourke continues to deny basic facts outlined in at least one police report.

So, what really happened? We don’t know. See, Representative O’Rourke is a Democrat.

Not just that. O’Rourke is the Democrat running for a Senate seat against Ted Cruz, the Republican incumbent who is a favorite of grass-roots conservatives. Consequently, the press and Democrats have about as much interest in probing O’Rourke’s checkered past as they do in exploring allegations against Keith Ellison — the hard-Left Minnesota congressman, attorney-general candidate, and deputy chairman of the Democratic National Committee, who has been accused of physically abusing his longtime girlfriend.

O’Rourke appears to be quite the character, notwithstanding the media’s indifference.

Senate GOP Has Bent Over Backwards To Get Testimony, Evidence From Kavanaugh Accusers By Mollie Hemingway

http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/26/senate-gop-has-bent-over-backwards-to-get-testimony-evidence-from-kavanaugh-accusers/

Within minutes of The New Yorker breaking the story of a second woman alleging improper behavior by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, Senate GOP investigators reached out to accuser Deborah Ramirez’s attorneys asking for any and all evidence she had to support her allegations. The article was based on a foggy accusation of misconduct and admitted that the accuser was not sure of her memory even days before it was published.

Over the next 48 hours, attorneys for the Senate Judiciary Committee repeated their requests for testimony and evidence another six times. Yet more than three days later, attorneys for the woman have still refused to provide any evidence or formal statements beyond what she told The New Yorker.

At 7:43 p.m. on Sunday, Mike Davis, chief counsel for nominations on the Senate Judiciary Committee, emailed Ramirez’s attorneys asking when she’d be available for an interview with Senate committee investigators. “[W]e are determined to take Ms. Ramirez’s statement and investigate further as necessary as quickly as possible,” he wrote. He followed up later that evening and again the following morning. Her attorneys said they’d respond later.

Throughout Monday, he asked again if Ramirez had “any other evidence, including other statements, in addition to those that are contained in the New Yorker article?” At 3:03 p.m., the attorneys responded with vague, non-committal statements about possible future compliance.

At 3:11 p.m., Davis immediately reiterated his request for any additional information beyond what had been published in the New Yorker article. A few hours later, Ramirez’s attorneys put off the request again. So Davis emailed again at 7:11 p.m. pleading with them for additional information.

Still not receiving the information necessary to proceed by Tuesday morning, Davis implored Ramirez’s counsel at 10:05 a.m. to answer whether she had any other evidence and whether she was willing to provide it direcxtly to the committee. He did so again at 7:45 p.m. on Tuesday night, and again at 8:05 p.m. after another non-responsive email.

Rather than making Ramirez available for an interview, providing a formal statement, or providing any evidence to support her claims, her attorneys instead sought to delay and obstruct at every opportunity. This mirrors the behavior of the attorneys of Christine Blasey Ford, who has yet to provide a sworn statement to the Senate, instead making a seemingly unending list of demands for delays.

Correspondence from Grassley and his staff make clear that they have repeatedly sought to make accusers comfortable and safe so that they can formally testify to their allegations.

Privilege – The Ultimate Smear By Marilyn Penn

http://politicalmavens.com/

“Outsider Faced Culture of Privilege and Alcohol” reads the title of one of the NYT daily attempts to undo the candidacy of Brett Kavanaugh (NYT 9/26/18) It reduces Deborah Ramirez, the woman who can’t be sure that she knows the difference between a plastic penis and a human one, into a half-Puerto Rican student who was the daughter of a telephone company lineman and a medical technician. Rather than praise her accomplishment in qualifying for a scholarship to an expensive Ivy League school on her own merits, it contrasts her with the wealthy Kavanaugh boy, son of a lobbyist and a judge. The only problem is that Martha Kavanaugh did not become a judge until 1995, several years after Brett graduated from Yale Law School and more than a decade after his possible penis got flashed as an undergraduate. In 1983 or 84, at the time that Deborah was sitting in the same circle as those super-privileged white people, the Kavanaugh parents were two hard-working lawyers, one of whom had gone to law school at night while working full time to support his family.

Does privilege cast any shadow on Robin Pogrebin, another Yale graduate who is one of the reporters of this article? Robin grew up on Central Park West, one of the most expensive neighborhoods in NYC , and went to private school along with her two siblings before attending college. Her father is a successful lawyer and her mother, a well-known writer and feminist. Though she is from an even smaller ethnicity than Deborah Ramirez, it doesn’t count as one since she is Jewish.

We don’t learn wither Deborah belonged to a sorority but we do know that she had friends while she was an “outsider,” though none of them can corroborate her fuzzy memory of that troublesome appendage. But never mind – we all know that everyone with a vagina is a truth-teller when it comes to sexual matters, so the hundreds of democrats who have come forth to affirm their conviction that Deborah must be believed – must actually be sentient people as opposed to useful idiots. A disturbing sign that the alcohol culture at Yale has adversely affected the faculty is the mindset allowing the administration to cancel classes at the Law School so that students could demonstrate their support for the woman who admits that she herself can’t be sure of her accusation. This is incredible training for a career upholding the foundations of our legal system – due process and the presumption of innocence. Sic transit lexes humanae……………………….

#MeToo Becomes a Political Ploy Mazie Hirono makes clear that if Brett Kavanaugh were liberal, she’d give him the benefit of the doubt. By Abigail Shrier

https://www.wsj.com/articles/metoo-becomes-a-political-ploy-1537915920

Pity Lady Justice; she’s had a rough couple of weeks. On “State of the Union” Sunday, CNN’s Jake Tapper tossed Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii what should have been a grapefruit: “Doesn’t Kavanaugh have the same presumption of innocence as anyone else in America?” Ms. Hirono responded: “I put his denial in the context of everything that I know about him in terms of how he approaches cases.” Conservative jurists in America have been put on notice: They are to forfeit their most basic rights as punishment for their judicial philosophy.

In the national circus that is the Kavanaugh confirmation hearing, sexual assault is very much beside the point. Christine Blasey Ford claims that 36 years ago she suffered an attempt at the most terrifying act of brutality a woman can live through. But in the hands of Senate Democrats, this is one more bit of materiel flung at the other side. Ms. Ford is merely the expedient means to a desirable end.

I have no idea what if anything happened to Ms. Ford. (Is it necessary to say this?) I have no idea whether she is more credible than Leland Keyser, whom Ms. Ford places at the party, though Ms. Keyser has no memory of it and says she’s never met Brett Kavanaugh. Neither do any of the senators, including Dianne Feinstein, who learned of the accusation and withheld it from her Republican colleagues and the Federal Bureau of Investigation for six weeks, knowing as every good gunslinger must, that if you’ve only got one bullet left, you don’t let it go to waste.

Imagine if we treated murder this way. Imagine if a woman had written to Mrs. Feinstein alleging that the man who was about to be appointed to the Supreme Court had murdered her brother 36 years ago. What would we say of a senator who failed to turn this evidence over immediately to the authorities? That the question is so easily answered indicates how much less seriously we already take crimes of sexual violence.

Mrs. Feinstein was elected in 1992, the year after Justice Clarence Thomas’s appointment. When he was accused, we were told the woman is always right. Why else would Anita Hill have brought these claims? A few years later, when the accused was Bill Clinton, elite opinion cried we shouldn’t rush to believe the accuser. He was a good feminist—and Paula Jones, not nearly our sort of girl. In both cases, we knew that the point was not any of the accusations. It was to shelter powerful men with views we liked or punish men with views we didn’t.

Then came #MeToo. For a moment, it seemed everything might change. Public opinion was on the side, not of all women exactly, but of those women with credible, corroborated claims who were willing to name powerful men—even those men with the right political allegiances. In this light, Bill O’Reilly and Harvey Weinstein seemed more alike than different; they met the same disgrace not for their political beliefs but for behavior that Americans of every political stripe should want to stop. For the first time in years, even Bill Clinton seemed less a gift to women than a Trojan Horse.

But now we’re back to our cheap tricks, using sexual assault as a political ploy. If Judge Kavanaugh were liberal, Sen. Hirono makes clear, she would give him the benefit of the doubt. If he adjudicates like a conservative, that’s evidence of rape. CONTINUE AT SITE