++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Christine Blasey Ford Lied. We Now Have a Sworn Statement From Her Ex Boyfriend
She said she had never helped anyone with a polygraph. That directly contradicts what she said under oath. Read in browser »
New Turn in Kavanaugh Circus: Ford's Ex of Six Years Speaks Up
Ford's ex-boyfriend provides details that suggests she may have committed perjury Read in browser » And:
Georgetown says these are her personal views and the College doesn't condone but they are in favor of free speech.
Yeah, I wonder if they'd be so agreeable if Ben Shapiro, or Michelle Malkin were invited to speak on their campus.
Georgetown Professor Says White Men Should Be Castrated, Fed to Swine Over Kavanaugh Support
|
Rules for men in view of Kavanaugh Hearings. (See 1 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jonah Goldberg offers the mass media some cogent advice. (See 2 below.)
Kavanaugh's trial by fire may well make him an even better Justice should he be approved. (See 2a below.)
I admit I am conflicted when it comes to Trump's persona and his accomplishments and stated desires regarding his agenda.
No I do not like some of Trump's comments and behaviour but I am unwilling to side with the Trump haters because when I compare their own comments and behaviour there really is no comparison. When the radicals, who have taken over the Democrat Party, tell me they have every right to attack people enjoying an evening eating out, when they can shoot at those practicing for a baseball game, when they can disrupt and attack college students expressing their views,when they can tell me an aggrieved women can make unsubstantiated charges and the accused is deemed guilty without a trial, without any credible evidence, etc. I draw the line.
Their America is not mine nor will I ever embrace their ideas. Their fascistic actions, their hypocrisy and double standards sickens me . Rule by intimidation is not anti-Trump, it is anti-American.(See 3, 3a and 3b below.)
https://nypost.com/2018/10/01/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am seldom persuaded by polls but there are some better than others. My friend, at The University of Virginia, is probably among the best pollsters and I do listen to what he has to say.
That said, the current polls seem to suggest voters are turned off by Democrat antics and are beginning to line up in favor of Republican candidates. (See 4 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Upping the heat on the climate change crowd. (See 5 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The "root" of all evil. (See 6 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)New Rules for Men
And so we have arrived, in the Brett Kavanaugh affair, the inevitable and ultimate apotheosis of #MeToo – the vilification of men qua men.
Now, one accusation alone – no matter how unsubstantiated and uncorroborated – is enough to ruin a man’s reputation, nullify his accomplishments and erase his opportunities...for life.
This is apparently the standard set, and accepted, by roughly half of the country as represented by the Democrat party.
We have thus entered something new and dangerous. And in light of this new reality, new rules for men vis a vis the opposite sex are required. Here are some baseline suggestions:
- Don’t hire women. Where accusations against men are concerned, proof is no longer required, nor presumption of innocence granted. Under these circumstances, why on earth would a man hire any woman or interact with any woman in a professional setting?
- If a man must interact with a woman in a professional setting, he should do so as little as possible and always with a third and fourth party present (one of whom should be a man). Never under any circumstances should a man be alone with a female co-worker. No written communication with a woman co-worker should take place without a boss or supervisor and at least one male co-worker copied on the correspondence. Ditto with text and telephone communications.
- Do not mentor women or girls, large numbers of whom are clearly unstable, fragile creatures and God knows what they may mis-remember or mis-construe. Under these circumstances, it is not even remotely worth the risk to help a woman advance her career. Brett Kavanaugh has spent his life helping women professionally. What good will did it buy him?
- Dating and romance are now minefields to be traversed with extreme caution, if at all (see above re: mentoring). Forget making a move, going in for the kiss – unless you get express written consent before every move, you run the risk of being labeled a sexual predator for life.
Even if you do get consent at every stage of the encounter, that still may not be enough. As Cathy Young wrote for the Washington Post, the definition of “consent” is itself disputed and subject to change given the whims of the mob:
“Consent advocates already fret that even an explicit ‘yes’ may not be given freely enough. A series of educational campus posters includes the warning that ‘if they don’t feel free to say ‘No,’ it’s not consent’; a Canadian college campaign cautions that consent is invalid if it’s ‘muted’ or ‘uncertain’ rather than ‘loud and clear.’
This advocacy creates a world where virtually any regretted sexual encounter can be reconstructed as assault...”
In other words, we live in a world where a woman can consent to intimacy, then retroactively withdraw that consent (the exact nightmare that comedian Aziz Ansari recently found himself in).
This is a world in which men and women are not free to find each other, a world in which genuine romance is not possible.
Romance, after all, requires maturity and acceptance of a certain ambiguity from both parties. It requires that both men and women accept responsibility for their feelings and actions, responsibility that modern women often seem incapable of exhibiting and, frighteningly, are not expected to exhibit.
Nevertheless, men are burdened with strong sexually appetites, appetites honed by millions of years of evolution. So what of your natural instincts to pursue, court, woo women? To find one with whom to wed and mate in order to procreate and advance the species?
All I can say is, good luck my friend. Proceed at your own risk.
Take heart, though. The sex robots are already here, and are daily growing cheaper, better and more widely available.
It won’t be long before men won’t need women at all.
Because this ultimately is what men are realizing in our current anti-male hysteria: That interactions with women are often more trouble than they are worth.
Congratulations, #MeToo.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)
Democrat Senators announced their new belief that men accused of sexual assault are no longer entitled to the presumption of innocence, even if the accuser has a harder time keeping her story straight than a fat kid caught with their cakehole in the cookie jar. They called him a drunk. They called him a pedophile. They spread lies about the man that escalated to the point that he was even accused of raping a woman on a random boat in Rhode Island, evidently confusing him with a Kennedy vacationing with John Kerry. When he reacted angrily to their coordinated effort to dump tabloid sludge on him, and even flinging some on his wife and children, they accused him of lacking the proper temperament to serve on the nation's high court.
Of course, the media repeated every unverified, and unverifiable, tidbit the Democrats vomited up like dogs begging for table scraps at the back door. To read the narrative they've run, courtesy of their scriptwriters at the DNC, Brett Kavanaugh is a drunken serial rapist. Over the weekend, USA Today ran a column by one of their sportswriters which literally broached the idea that Kavanaugh's avocation of coaching girls' basketball is less about his love of the game and more about him being like Anthony Weiner.
And that was last week. With the expiration date on the FBI investigation the Democrats demanded, and then immediately doubted, approaching in the fast lane, the possibility of a vote may loom as near as Friday. I can only begin to imagine the histrionics in store for us this week. Given their increasingly violent behavior, I wouldn't be shocked if the situation gets out of hand, even more than it did last week, which went so deep into Crazytown that Senator Lindsey Graham (R-esque - SC) hulked out on his Democratic colleagues over their appalling behavior.
No, last week was not the worst week in American history. After all, nobody died. But don't count out the Democrats just yet; it's only Tuesday.
— Ben Crystal
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)
You Idiot Reporters Are Making It Worse
Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley speaks to reporters on Capitol Hill, October 2, 2018.
Every 15 seconds, you’re demonstrating why millions of people love it when Trump calls you the fake news.
Before I get started, let me clarify something. Groupthink, mob behavior, panic, etc. have a powerful capacity to make smart people dumb. This is the moral of every witch-hunt story and is about as well documented an any phenomena in human history.
As Tommy Lee Jones says in Men in Black, “A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals, and you know it.”
I mention this up front to acknowledge that many of the people I am appalled by are, individually, smart and decent professionals. But, as a group, they are making fools of themselves and their profession, and making the country’s problems worse.
I’ve spent much of the last couple of years decrying the increasing partisan tribalism of our politics. I’ve earned some strange new respect from liberals (and at times regrettable new enmity from some conservatives) because I’ve been willing to call out my team.
A case in point: I don’t like President Trump’s “enemy of the people” rhetoric about the “fake news.” I don’t think it’s true or helpful or presidential. “Enemy of the people” is a totalitarian and authoritarian term of art unfit for our country or our president, and employing it gives license to the press to indulge its worst instincts.
Which brings us to the current moment. Democratic senators who announced they would never vote for Kavanaugh under any circumstance keep getting asked if the FBI investigation they demanded will be “enough for them.” Enough for what? To still vote no? I’m not criticizing the Democrats themselves — though I obviously could — I’m criticizing the people who interview these senators. Time and again, these journalists interview the Democrats as if they were open-minded about this investigation when in every breath they insist that the investigation will be illegitimate if it doesn’t prove what they want it to prove.
I listened to an MSNBC host this morning sound almost panicked about how the FBI might not be able to confirm Julie Swetnick’s — absolutely ludicrous — charges against Kavanaugh even as she reported that NBC couldn’t confirm any of it. The urgency wasn’t that the media let Michael Avenatti play them all for suckers, but that it might be just too difficult to prove allegations Swetnick herself walked back almost entirely. In other words the fear, palpable in many quarters, is that the charges might unravel prematurely, and so the press must start raveling them.
Or, in other cases they must spin new ones. Hence the New York Times’ decision — for which they’ve now apologized — of assigning deeply (and openly) partisan reporter Emily Bazelon to go spelunking for the latest bombshell: that Brett Kavenaugh threw some ice at a bar scuffle while in college.
Meanwhile, whole panels of pundits and experts on MSNBC are made up of people who cannot imagine why Kavanaugh might be upset at the unverified, uncorroborated, and literally unbelievable claim that he ran a rape gang when he was 15. Instead, we get hours of hand-wringing every day about his supposedly unjudicial temperament, as if any judge or justice on the bench, now or ever, would be expected to remain calm under such circumstances.
Jeff Flake is celebrated as a hero for wanting the FBI to investigate the more credible charge from Ford and the sketchy tale co-reported by the famously partisan New Yorker writer Jane Mayer. But when the FBI was reportedly limited to what Flake wanted investigated, one senator after another said the investigation was a sham. And nearly all the interviewers simply nod.
Print publications are flooding the zone to get to the bottom of Boofgate and Ice-Throw-Gotterdammerung. As if proving that a yearbook quote meant some other juvenile thing, or that if he threw some ice cubes in a bar tussle, that would prove . . . something. Kavanaugh, fully aware that he will get no benefit of any doubt, offers lawyerly and arguable evasive answers — mostly about trivialities — and, like a self-fulfilling prophecy, these ambiguous answers are taken as proof of perjury and drunken perfidy that the press must get to the bottom of.
Interviewers respond to Republicans who decry the defamation and innuendo being brought to bear on Kavanaugh by asking, essentially, “Didn’t Republicans start this by blocking Merrick Garland?” As a stand-alone question, this is defensible — barely.
But while I have heard this question asked over and over again, I’ve yet to hear anyone ask a Democrat, “Isn’t what Mitch McConnell did to Merrick Garland very different from what you have done to Kavanaugh?” Republicans didn’t try to destroy Garland personally and professionally. Denying a nominee a hearing isn’t akin to fomenting a witch-hunt or having Chuck Schumer say that the presumption of innocence was an irrelevant standard (it’s actually entirely within the Senate’s constitutional authority). It might be irrelevant for partisan Democrats, but since when is the burden of proof irrelevant to journalists?
I could go on for pages about all of this, but here’s the point: On nearly every question and issue, the tenor of the press — shockingly — mirrors the tenor of the Democrats who insist that it falls to Kavanaugh to disprove these allegations. That is an understandable (albeit morally grotesque) position for partisan Democrats who’ve made it clear they will do whatever it takes, again, as Chuck Schumer admitted, to block Kavanaugh.
But that’s not your job, you supposedly objective journalists. You should care every bit as much about disproving the allegations of Swetnick, Ramirez, and — yes — Ford as proving them. Your job — as you’ve said countless times, preening in your heroic martyr status in the age of Trump — is to report the facts. If Swetnick is lying, you should want to report that every bit as much as you would if you could prove that Kavanaugh is. Because you’re not supposed to have a team. It’s fine if you support the #MeToo movement in your private time, but you’re not supposed to lend any movement aid and comfort, never mind air cover, in your reporting.
Now, I get that most journalists are liberal, even if they deny it. I understand that most think they’re just seeking the truth. But, dear champions of the Fourth Estate, you might take just a moment to understand that you need to be fair to the other side of the argument even if you disagree with it.
You might also consider why millions of people love it when Trump says you are the enemy of the people: It’s because of how you are behaving right now. You’re letting the mask slip in Nielsen-monitored 15-minute blocks of virtue-signaling partisanship. You’re burning credibility at such a rate, you won’t have enough to get back to base when this is all over.
Yes, Donald Trump has done the country a disservice by how he talks about the press. But so have you, because you have made it so easy for him — and you’re making it worse right now.
2a)Fallout from the Kavanaugh Hearings: A Permanent Cloud?
After the trial by fire, he could prove to be one of the most fearless, principled justices on the Court.
Conventional wisdom suggests that, if confirmed, Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh forever will be “smeared” and stained by past frenzied unfounded allegations of sexual assault.
Yet the opposite just as well may be true. As a Supreme Court justice, Kavanaugh would have withstood every imaginable smear and slander and yet stayed defiant in defending his character and past, proof of both his determination and principles. His near-solitary rebuttal to his Senate accusers may suggest that Kavanaugh could prove to be among the most fearless justices on the Court.
Indeed, the only lasting effect, if any, of the serial smears lodged against him might be that in the future, as in the case of Justice Thomas, Kavanaugh would be essentially immune from progressive media attacks. What he went through likely has inoculated him from the Georgetown-party-circuit syndrome of conservative Supreme Court judges’ eventually becoming more liberal by the insidious socialization within the larger D.C. progressive media, political, and cultural landscape.
Incidentally, contrary to popular opinion, Clarence Thomas hardly remains under a permanent cloud after his ordeal. What stopped further Robert Borking for a while was the resistance and pushback of Clarence Thomas. Far from being ruined by unproven charges, he resisted the mob, got confirmed, and thereby established a precedent that innuendo, ipso facto, would not derail a nominee. For three decades, Thomas has not been regarded as suspect by most Americans but is seen as inspirational for his courage in facing down character assassination.
We have a strange standard of calibrating relative Supreme Court comportment. Thomas certainly has never said from the bench anything remotely like Justice Ginsburg’s “Frankly, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
Nor has Thomas weighed in on contemporary politics with the zeal of Ginsburg’s defiant political slap:
I can’t imagine what this place would be. I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.
Ginsburg then suggested that a possible Trump victory in 2016 reminded her of what her late husband might have said: “Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.”
Nor at his confirmation hearings did Thomas speak of his qualifications in anything approximating racially chauvinistic terms, analogous perhaps to “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Being unfairly smeared by Senate Democrats for decades will not keep one under a permanent cloud of suspicion, but one might be after weighing in from the bench in support for eugenics, or talking about moving from the U.S. after the election of an opposition president, or espousing racial chauvinism.
The Courageousness of Coming Forward?
We are asked to believe that accusers of sexual harassment are to be believed, apart from their gender and ideology, because “coming forward” cannot be an easy thing to endure and leads only to infamy, shaming, and loss of privacy (rather than book contracts, media empathy, and movie renditions). But it depends.
No doubt, in the short term, perhaps the attention is adverse. In the long-term calculus of progressive politics, however, the assured public recognition can lead to career enhancements and publicity that are hardly negative, especially if one, in Joan of Arc fashion, is seen as the person who saved, or at least attempted to save, the progressive community from a conservative such as Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
In other words, our popular culture, universities, foundations, media, celebrity world, publishing, Hollywood, and entertainment industry are both progressive and powerful adjudicators of our national culture. Those who lodge accusations of sexual harassment against conservative political figures are canonized in such circles (e.g., an Anita Hill); those who come forward to lodge complaints against liberal political figures (e.g., Monica Lewinsky, Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, Karen Monahan) are demonized and shunned.
Call out Keith Ellison for recently alleged sexual battery, or produce a police record of an earlier complaint (such as a record of a 911 call from 2005), and one is at best ignored and at worst demonized; call out a teenage Brett Kavanaugh for an alleged sexual assault 36 years ago, without corroboration, and one is lauded as courageous if not saintly. Again, the common denominator has never been just allegations of sexual assault per se, but also the respective ideologies of the accuser and accused.
Policing the Police
One of the weirder aspects of the Kavanaugh spectacle was the sanctimoniousness of Senate Democrats who picked away at Brett Kavanaugh’s high-school yearbook of some 36 years past. In the past ten days, we have been lectured, admonished, and sermonized by an array of the senior leadership of the Democratic Senate, who by any fair ethical standard have long ago been found ethically wanting.
Senator Corey “I Am Spartacus” Booker may be a Stanford and Yale graduate and a Rhodes scholar, but such résumé entries only remind us how empty many elite CVs have become. Booker, remember, had given serial lectures about his pal “T-Bone,” a sort of street-hustling Socrates who hung with Corey — except he could not have, because the Bone never existed.
Senator Elizabeth Warren has also warned us about the dangers of Brett Kavanaugh and reminded us that he is not to be believed — this from someone who invented out of whole cloth a Native American identity that was likely designed to enhance her academic career.
Senator Feinstein weighed in often on the ethics of Brett Kavanaugh.
Feinstein, who has a propensity for withholding information from Senate colleagues, as we saw in the matter of Christine Ford’s written accusations, recently disclosed that five years ago the FBI had informed her (she then chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee) that her chauffeur of 20 years, and gofer, was also a two-decades-long Chinese spy — at a time when her husband was making money from business deals with China.
Senator Richard Blumenthal often seems a troubled, sad figure. Every time he warned Judge Kavanaugh of the consequences of lying, he seemed to be subconsciously referring to his own fabricated alter ego as a Vietnam War combat veteran. Or as the pretentious Blumenthal put it at the Kavanaugh–Ford hearing: “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” (false in one matter = false in all matters). Yet, if Kavanaugh had wished to show off his own Latin in replying to Blumenthal, he might have used the more appropriate line from Horace: Mutato nomine de te fabula narrator (change only the name and the story is about you).
Senator Joe Biden has also periodically weighed in on Kavanaugh’s unsuitability and lack of credibility — Biden, the past plagiarist who once appropriated the “coal miner’s son” story of British Labor politician Neil Kinnock, fabricating an entire ancestry of working-class Biden coal miners.
The list of such hypocrisies could be expanded, but the point is that the present progressive leadership has been reduced to haggling over Kavanaugh’s teenage past, when any such commensurate scrutiny of their own adult years would have found many of them “allegedly” not living up to their own exalted moral standards. No doubt had Kavanaugh made up a “T-Bone”-like chum a few years ago, or confessed that his intern for two decades was a Chinese spy, or claimed that he was a combat veteran of Iraq, or suggested that he was the first of the coal-mining Kavanaugh clan to go to college or was rumored to have bothered female Secret Service agents by swimming nude in front of them, or had disclosed to the committee that his supposedly factual autobiography, in Barack Obama style, upon examination, was actually a fictive and impressionistic story, or had proudly talked of belonging to a high-school chronic-marijuana-smoking cadre (the “Choom Gang”) he would have been summarily disqualified.
Moments Matter
The gloomy morning of the Kavanaugh inquisition saw Republicans senators timidly outsourcing their examinations to veteran prosecutor and the designated questioner of Ford, Rachel Mitchell. Yet soon committee members were paradoxically blamed for bringing in a sympathetic prosecutor to ensure that her questions to Ford would be far more accommodating than their own might have been. Mitchell’s inquiries eventually proved mostly mere depositions.
Occasionally when Ford was contradictory and obviously mistaken about facts and details (e.g., her admission that she had no actual record of any fear of flying, or was confused about how her therapist’s notes ended up in the press, or couldn’t reconcile the differing number and gender of witnesses in her various spoken and written accusations), Mitchell gently receded rather than pressed. There often seemed little point to her interrogatories other than not to bother the sometimes contradictory and confused Ford. Her five-minute intervals left listeners hanging for some sort of summation that was never forthcoming.
In short, by noon, television pundits voiced conventional wisdom that Ford was “believable” and certainly empathetic. Emotions trumped logic. Assertion outweighed evidence. Kavanaugh was all but through. Perhaps, we were told, Trump would soon be forced to dump him as a loser. The midterm blue wave would then be assured. The stampede had started.
Then in mere minutes these assertions of the punditocracy simply vanished.
Kavanaugh turned out not to be the tentative, spoiled frat-brat, as caricatured in the media and senatorial character assassins. Instead, he was fiery, unapologetic, combative, completely informed, and knowledgeable. He wagered his entire career, past, present and future, on principle, and so damned without restraint his McCarthyesque accusers who at least for a few moments seemed to cower in silence.
When Kavanaugh was done, a few unexpected “teachable moments” followed.
One, Senate Democrats appeared momentarily taken back and startled that anyone might fight back as they had attacked. They were soon reduced to fixating on teenage flatulence and high-school nerd talk, as if having once been 17 was a disqualification (as well as being suburban, white, and affluent), 36 years later, for serving on the Supreme Court — as if any of the present justices, other than Clarence Thomas, had ever been interrogated about their high-school calendars. Kavanaugh drew back the curtain and revealed himself as a “Have you no decency?” Joseph N. Welch, and the Democrats as a creepy collective Joe McCarthy.
Second, seemingly out of nowhere, Senator Lindsey Graham grabbed back his proper role as a senatorial examiner. He lambasted not just Kavanaugh’s accusers but the entire stunt of reducing a fine man to little more than a two-bit rapist on nothing more than 36-year-old, stale, contradictory innuendo — all in order to prevent a 5–4 conservative majority on the Supreme Court, the mechanism of enacting progressivism without relying on either public or legislative support.
Not since Ronald Reagan grabbed back the mike (“I am paying for this microphone”) during the 1980 New Hampshire primary debate had a Republican flashed such anger. In a nanosecond, Graham had become iconic, and perhaps crowned his career in principle, in the opposite fashion of the pitiful octogenarian Dianne Feinstein, who had all but ruined hers by chronic dissimulation, machinations, and rank expediency.
Third, the Republican committee itself became emboldened by Graham. Suddenly the erstwhile timid senators shared a collective Howard Beale moment — “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!” — and began expressing their outrage. For a while, the Democrat senators were mute, in deer-in-the-headlights fashion, as if to suggest, “How dare you expose our character assassination — and now that you have, we have absolutely nothing to say in our defense.”
History is not always constructed by résumés and staged theatrics but occasionally is the stuff of moments of defiance.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3)America’s New Jacobins
Maximilien Robespierre and his Jacobin “Committee of Public Safety’ highjacked the late 18th-century French Revolution. As supposedly more authentically radical revolutionaries, Jacobins did away with their supposedly less radical first-generation Girondists, who themselves had helped to liquidate the French monarchy and many of the Ancient Régime.
What followed Robespierre’s “Reign of Terror” were cycles of revolution until the appearance of Napoleon’s military autocracy. The United States, mutatis mutandis, currently seems on the verge of a new cycle of such leftwing radicalism in spirit and substance—as the old Democrat Party appears to be withering away and a new Socialist Democrat Party assumes its place.
We can see the changes in Washington. Emboldened leftwing protestors recently disrupted the Senate Supreme Court confirmation hearings on Judge Brett Kavanaugh. A bewildered Majority Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley vainly tried to restore order by insisting on decorum and custom.
Yet it proved hard for an overwhelmed Grassley to distinguish the shouting in the gallery from the even more disruptive antics of the Democrat senators at his side who were vying with the protestors to authenticate their leftwing fides.
After the appearance of Christine Blasey Ford, angry young women cornered Sen. Jeff Flake in an elevator, shaking their fingers at him, and screaming in his face. And the melodrama of the mob worked. A shaken and flushed Flake altered his original position and backed away from his earlier vow to confirm Kavanaugh outright. The new radicals had taken the erstwhile advice of Barrack Obama to “get in their faces” and “punish our enemies,” but took it to a new, more literal level. Or in the words of Rep. Maxine Waters, progressives were now to hit the streets: “If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd, and you push back on them, and you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”
Republican senators in the confirmation hearings were written off by congressional Democrats and the media as “old white men,” illegitimate inquirers due to their age and race. Traditional liberal Democratic fixtures in the Senate like Diane Feinstein and Chuck Schumer sought to move hard left in the twilight of their careers, and now appeared as aged firebrands mouthing 1960s rhetoric.
Presidential press conferences, always boisterous and messy, have become akin to street theater. Reporters try to hijack the proceedings, as if they were to be both questioners and answerers. Even a loud and often uncouth President Trump seems shaken when told by journalists whom he should call on next.
In Senate hearings, ancient ideas like due process, innocence until guilt is proven, cross-examination, the inadmissibility of hearsay, the need for corroborating testimonies and physical evidence, and statutes of limitations fall by the wayside, dismissed as irrelevant, problematic or counter-revolutionary.
“Fake-news” is a misnomer for partisan journalism when the New York Times falsely claims UN Ambassador Nikki Haley ordered $50,000 drapes for her office, or other media report that a teenage Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted a woman in a boat off the coast of Rhode Island. The media is not merely an extension of the progressive movement, but now proud to affirm why its old professed adherence to disinterested reporting is considered outdated—given that the perceived threats of a Trump presidency deserve overt opposition, not mere coverage.
Senatorial inquisitors with their own questionable backgrounds pose as ethicists in their dismantling of the character of Brett Kavanaugh. Just as Jacobins demolished their opponents for lapses that they themselves had freely shared, so progressive senators went back in time to tag Kavanaugh with alleged teen-aged indiscretions, even while their own adult wrongdoings were forgotten. Thus Sen. Richard Blumenthal’s made-up Vietnam veteran persona is now a mere indiscretion. Sen. Corey Booker’s yarn of an imaginary friend T-Bone is a long-ago construct. Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s fanciful Native American heritage is a slight memory lapse. And Sen. Joe Biden’s fictional coal-mining family and past plagiarism are the stuff of normal exaggeration.
Yet the new radicalism is not just one of style or hypocrisy.
If five years ago Sen. Bernie Sanders was considered an eccentric socialist relic from the 1960s and twenty-something Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez was a Manhattan bartender moonlighting as a social activist, today both in popular culture have eclipsed paleo-Democratic functionaries such as Schumer, Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi.
They, and others such as Sens, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and Kirsten Gillibrand, are the new faces of a rebranded Democratic Socialist party, whose chief agendas are universal free college tuition, the cancellation of over $1 trillion in student debt, the extension of Medicare to everyone, the abolition of ICE, the rapid end to fossil fuel use, and a vast reduction in the defense budget. When asked how to pay for it all, they do not sheepishly shrug their shoulders, but confidently and boldly promise to take the money from those who have it by far higher taxes on the “rich”. The European Union and the United Nations, not the US Constitution, are more their paradigms of social justice.
What were the conditions that created these new Jacobins?
It was not just the ascendance of the hated Donald Trump, although the election of the first president to have neither political nor military experience both scared and inspired the new socialists.
Trump terrified them, because he sought to craft a conservative populist workers’ movement that threatened to erode the natural Democratic base. And he did so with slash-and-burn tactics, antithetical to the traditional Marquess-of-Queensberry Republican rules that had emasculated past Republican presidential candidates.
But Trump also inspired radical leftists by encouraging them also to ignore precedent, and normal political perquisites. Instead, they should similarly consider their own political elite—especially the old Clinton machine—as being as irrelevant and expendable as the Romney and Bush wing of the Republican Party.
Far more influential than Trump for the Jacobins, however, was the Obama legacy, both its perceive advantages and downsides.
On the plus side for the Jacobins, Obama’s two successful elections encouraged the new radicals to believe that open borders, changing demography, radicalized identity politics, bloc voting and an increasingly self-destructive and shrinking white working class had ensured a new progressive electoral future, based on a permanently different sort of American electorate. How we appear would now be as important as who we are—especially in a salad-bowl America that had transcended the old melting pot. Black, brown, Asian, female, gay, bisexual, or transgendered were essential clannish concepts that, if properly massaged and aggregated, would result in a 51 percent popular majority. A candidate’s or activist’s political credibility hinged on belonging to one or more of such tribes.
But on the minus side, the Democratic Party undeniably had suffered its greatest setbacks in more than half a century between 2009-2017, even as Obama became a mythical figure in party lore. Democrats had lost the House, the Senate, the majority of governorships and legislatures, and de facto the Supreme Court. Yet the new Democratic socialists sought to square that circle of Obama’s successes and their own party’s failures by insisting that Obama’s ancestry and leftism had been essential to his success, but that the Democrat Party’s retrograde traditionalism had let Obama down and eventually proved toxic and fatal on down ballots.
More rational observers might have concluded that Obama took the party too far leftward, ignored its alienation from the working classes, and focused instead on his own identity politics; and that, selfishly, he had seen his own transformational candidacy and presidency as something apart from his party’s viability and future. But instead, the Jacobins moved even more radically to the left.
There were also other parents who birthed the new Jacobinism. The campus now led the progressive movement, as everything from identity politics to safe spaces was imported and institutionalized as the new Democratic Socialist party dogma. Again, nowhere was that more apparent than in the Kavanaugh hearings. Democrats more or less appropriated the hearings and turned them into a campus-like inquest into sexual harassment charges—thereby discarding calcified constitutional traditions such as due process and the rights of the accused to a presumption of innocence, rigorous cross-examination, and the protections from hearsay and accusations well beyond any statute of limitations.
The Halls of Congress resembled the campus protests that had met a Ben Shapiro or Charles Murray when they dared give a campus speech. Protestors bullied senators as enemies of the people and turned the senate gallery into a veritable campus quad. On the theory that both parties were controlled by aging white people soon to be irrelevant (given their spent and tired constituencies), the youth and diversity of the campus also inspired a national radical drift.
The new sectarianism has also inspired the Jacobins. Globalization, open borders, deindustrialization, and red- and blue-state polarization have intensified old political divides into new additional regional animosities. The Democratic Socialists are the party of the coasts and of the cities, where most of the high-tech industries, national politics, and universities are anchored. The hipster profile of a thirty-something, unmarried, childless, urban renter and loft-dweller is the new Democrat icon, not the blue-collar, lunch-pail bloke fighting commuter traffic in his used car to get home to his working wife, kids, and mortgaged tract house. Think of the recent Democrat campaign film, “Life of Julia,” or the “Pajama Boy” Obamacare ad. The new radicals believe that they are not just the future of the Democrat Party, but also are avatars of global culture itself, especially ecumenical ideas such as using the state to replace fossil fuels, subordinating nationalism to continental or world governance, and recalibrating the U.S Constitution as something akin to the looser protocols that govern most other countries.
What is next?
The Jacobins will either overreach and soon rendezvous with something like a Thermidor correction. In American political terms, that would mean that after going off a McGovern cliff and marginalizing the party, Democrats will regroup, and climb back to a Jimmy Carter or Bill Clintonian center. Remember, that until Obama, for 44 years (from 1964 to 2008) no Democrat presidential candidate had ever won the popular vote without a southern accent, the old public stamp of Democratic moderatism.
Or, in contrast to a centrism correction, we may see even more radical street theater: walking out on Senate votes; taking to the streets; mainstreaming Occupy Wall Street, Antifa, and Black Lives Matter; seeking to remove an elected president by weaponizing the FBI, DOJ, and CIA, turning to impeachment, the 25th Amendment and the Emolument Clause, states’ rights nullifications of federal law, or using deep-state Resistance members or liberal courts to subvert executive governance.
If the Democrats do not capture the House, and thus cannot impeach Trump and send him to the Senate for trial, and thereby stall his agendas, then the Jacobins will face their own Thermidor reaction.
But if they prove successful, then everything is imaginable—and nothing is sacred.
3a)
Christine Blasey Ford’s memories aren’t enough
Tom Wolfe couldn’t have written it better.
According to her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, Christine Blasey Ford’s memory of being sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh in 1982 was shared and recorded for the first time in 2012 — 30 years after the event — because she wanted her remodeled house to have two front doors.
As her husband disagreed with this unconventional suggestion, the couple sought counseling. It was during the counseling that she described the assault, although Kavanaugh was not named in the therapist’s notes.
Six years later, when Kavanaugh’s name was said to be on the shortlist for the Supreme Court, she confided her story to the Washington Post and Representative Anna Eshoo of California, and then to Senator Dianne Feinstein of California. Six weeks after receiving a letter from Ford, Feinstein revealed its existence to other members of the committee. By some mysterious process, Ford’s name and her allegation then appeared in the press.
Finally, on Thursday, after much negotiation, it happened: Ford vs. Kavanaugh. It was the personification of the schism at the heart of American life today: not so much woman vs. man as Democrat vs. Republican. (This country is much more clearly divided along party lines than gender lines.)
It is true that other accusations of sexual misconduct have been leveled at Kavanaugh. But none of these stories, including Ford’s, would secure conviction in a criminal case, because there is not a shred of evidence to corroborate the recollections of those telling them.
Having watched Ford testify, I have little doubt that she believes the truth of what she said. But as an historian who has spent many long hours interviewing people about past events, including in some cases highly personal matters, I do not regard that as good enough to destroy the reputation of a distinguished judge.
Human memory is, generally speaking, bad at history. Were I writing Kavanaugh’s biography, I could not possibly depict him, on the basis of uncorroborated testimony provided long after the fact, as a man who attempted rape in his youth and lied about it later. His memory is also unlikely to be perfect. But his story — that, as a young man, he glugged beer and had the usual Catholic hang-ups about sex — is more plausible.
“Maybe so,” comes the response, “but the Republicans used devious delaying tactics to keep Merrick Garland off the Supreme Court.” The difference is that Garland’s reputation was not destroyed in the process.
The #MeToo movement is revolutionary feminism. Like all revolutionary movements, it favors summary justice. Since April 2017, more than 200 men have been publicly accused of some form of sexual offense, ranging from rape to inappropriate language. A few of these men seem likely to have committed crimes and are being prosecuted accordingly — notably the Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein. But #MeToo seems to have created a single catch-all crime, in which rape, assault, clumsy passes, and banter are elided into one.
With a few exceptions, reputations have been destroyed and careers ended without due process. “I believe her” are the fateful words that, if uttered by enough people, perform the roles of judge and jury.
Sexual harassment is bad, no question. And yet a much bigger threat to women’s rights is largely ignored by Western feminists. As my wife likes to point out, verse 2:282 of the Koran states that a woman’s testimony is worth only half of a man’s testimony in court. (Some people want the opposite to apply in Ford v. Kavanaugh.) Wherever sharia law is imposed — from the armed camps of Boko Haram or ISIS to the sharia courts found in most Muslim-majority countries — it is women who lose out. Do Senate Democrats care? No. When my wife testified on this subject last year, they literally ignored her.
Let me offer two hypotheses about why we are in this mess. The first is that the world’s elite educational institutions are now so dominated by self-styled liberals and progressives, that an inexorably rising proportion of people in other elite institutions — corporations, the media, government agencies — now subscribe to all or part of their ideology.
Ask today’s graduate trainees (for example) if they think there should be limits to free speech so that people “feel safe.” Ask them if “implicit bias” is something all white men suffer from. Ask them if the achievement of “diversity” matters more than promotion on merit. The answers will mostly be yes. Campus politics is spreading. Soon you, too, will be asked to state your preferred pronouns at the beginning of each meeting, just in case someone present favors the gender-neutral “zhe.”
My second hypothesis is that the rise of internet platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter has disastrously exacerbated the polarization of not only the United States but all Western societies. For it is on social media that the show trials of our time are now held, as anyone knows who followed Thursday’s hearing on Twitter.
The rule of law can be killed in more than one way. In liberal nightmares, a despotic president sweeps aside the Constitution in the manner of a Latin American caudillo. But in conservative nightmares, the graduates of Yale Law School agree that social justice would be best served by discarding the presumption of innocence and relying on Twitter polls to determine guilt.
If only Tom Wolfe were still around to write “The Bonfire of the Legalities.”
3b)
Polly Olsen didn’t feel the love when she gave out handmade, Christian-themed valentines to fellow college students last Valentine’s Day, as she has for years to follow her mother’s example.
3b)
Her College Told Her Not to Give Out Bible-Themed Valentines. She Isn’t Backing Down.
A campus security guard intercepted Olsen, a student in the college’s paralegal program, and escorted her to the security office, where she was told to stop because heart-shaped messages such as “Jesus Loves You” and “God Is Love” might offend others.
But that’s what happened after campus security at Northeast Wisconsin Technical College received complaints of “suspicious activity,” prompting Olsen, 29, to file a lawsuit in September against the school.
“If we don’t have freedom of speech, we don’t really have America anymore,” Olsen told The Daily Signal in phone interview. “I want to encourage other students to stand up and use their rights and not be afraid of anyone disrespecting their opinions.”
Security officials told Olsen that handing out her handwritten valentines constituted “soliciting” on campus beyond a designated free speech zone, as well as potentially offending others with valentines that quote Bible verses, according to the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, which represents Olsen.
In a video released by the law firm, Olsen, a resident of Green Bay, Wisconsin, says she has been “handing out valentines since [she’s] been practically able to walk.” Doing so recently, Olsen says, also has continued a tradition of her late mother, who home-schooled her and used to distribute such valentines at her places of employment.
Olsen’s mother died in 2013.
According to the incident report filed Feb. 14 (Valentine’s Day), campus security previously stopped Olsen from handing out similar valentines on campus about four years ago.
Several months later, college administrators suggested to Olsen that they might change the policy, but didn’t follow through, Rick Esenberg, president and general counsel for the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview.
The Wisconsin college’s “Public Assembly Policy” limits free speech to a small portion of campus. This zone is approximately half an acre, or about 1 percent of the 100-acre campus, Esenberg said.
In the video, Olsen says students and others “don’t congregate” in the free speech zone.
“People aren’t there, they [only] walk in and out of it,” she says.
The college’s policy on “public assembly” also requires those wishing to use the free speech zone to get a permit, regardless of content or context, Esenberg told The Daily Signal, adding:
In a traditional public forum—a typical example would be a town square—you can have a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction. For a university, the campus is a traditional town square. The university can create a designated public forum by permitting speech activities. NWTC has done this, but in this instance it is unreasonable.
The technical college’s policy is unconstitutional, Esenberg said, because of “the vague and broad nature of what is prohibited in the public assembly area.” Also, he said, “a public university cannot limit free speech to a small zone within a campus,” especially if the speech in question is of a peaceful nature.
Some of Polly Olsen’s Valentine’s Day greetings. (Photo courtesy of Polly Olsen)
“Religious beliefs are not relevant to this incident,” Karen Smits, the college’s vice president for college advancement, said in a statement released Sept. 5. “We have clubs and activities around a variety of beliefs and experiences, from Intervarsity Christian Fellowship to advanced manufacturing to enrolling at college after age 50.”
Security stopped Olsen in “an area that is not for the public,” Smits said. “Had she been holding anything else—or nothing—she would still have prompted a call to security.”
Smits added:
The Public Assembly Policy establishes space at NWTC [Northeast Wisconsin Technical College] where picketing and mass distribution of literature can occur freely without interfering with students and the business operation of the college. This does not limit what participants can say or distribute (within legal limits).The law recognizes that, unlike a public park, not all physical areas of educational institutions can be open for public assembly. The Public Assembly Policy provides a process that allows students and non-students to reserve this space.
But Emilie Kao, director of the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion & Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation, sees it differently.
“No student should be punished for exercising his or her right to free speech,” Kao said. “Every student should be able to exercise their constitutional freedom to speak according to their religious beliefs. Public institutions, like Northeast Wisconsin Technical College, should respect the freedom of students to express all viewpoints on Valentine’s Day and every day. ”
“Limiting a student’s speech out of concern that others might be offended leads far too easily to censorship,” she said
Olsen, who was born in Colorado, said in an email to The Daily Signal that her father is a retired “jack of all trades.”
“From owning his own window company, installing heating and air conditioning, to installing security systems, there wasn’t much he couldn’t do,” she said.
Noting that her mother home-schooled her until college, Olsen added:
She taught me my constitutional rights, because she knew there would be a day when they would be violated. The education she gave me has allowed me to test out of some of my college classes. I followed in her foot steps. She had tested out of some of her high school classes and had scholarships to be a doctor, but chose to be a mother and a teacher at home.
Olsen, who expects to graduate this semester from the paralegal program, says in the video that she wants “our freedom [to be] acknowledged across the country and on campuses.”
“I love my school, but I love my freedom, and God, more,” she adds.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4)
Last week was not the worst week in American political history. Don't get me wrong, it was pretty much a nonstop monkey poo fight at the zoo, but at least nobody assassinated anybody. Yet. However, among non-murdery weeks in our nation's history, last week definitely earned a spot on the ash heap. The Democrats turned the confirmation process of a Supreme Court nominee into the kind of show that sends studios into bankruptcy. They mounted an unprecedented smear campaign against Judge Brett Kavanaugh that included not only Christine Ford's muddied recollections, but outright slander. They even floated rumors of Kavanaugh being part of a group sex ring based on the word of creepy porn lawyer Michael Avenatti and his client whose tawdry tale makes Ford look like the Oracle at Delphi.
4)
Democrat Senators announced their new belief that men accused of sexual assault are no longer entitled to the presumption of innocence, even if the accuser has a harder time keeping her story straight than a fat kid caught with their cakehole in the cookie jar. They called him a drunk. They called him a pedophile. They spread lies about the man that escalated to the point that he was even accused of raping a woman on a random boat in Rhode Island, evidently confusing him with a Kennedy vacationing with John Kerry. When he reacted angrily to their coordinated effort to dump tabloid sludge on him, and even flinging some on his wife and children, they accused him of lacking the proper temperament to serve on the nation's high court.
They intentionally hid Ford's letter until it was convenient for them, never caring it was supremely inconvenient to the rest of America — notably including Ms. Ford. They turned the nomination process of a man they had already vowed to downvote into a paper-thin delaying action which made those MTV reality shows look like Shakespeare at the Old Vic. They demanded a hearing they then decried as a waste of time. They demanded an investigation they're already calling worthless. They coordinated with left-wing, anti-life hate groups like Code Pink and Planned Parenthood to plant people in the gallery solely to throw public tantrums like they were all human click bait.
Of course, the media repeated every unverified, and unverifiable, tidbit the Democrats vomited up like dogs begging for table scraps at the back door. To read the narrative they've run, courtesy of their scriptwriters at the DNC, Brett Kavanaugh is a drunken serial rapist. Over the weekend, USA Today ran a column by one of their sportswriters which literally broached the idea that Kavanaugh's avocation of coaching girls' basketball is less about his love of the game and more about him being like Anthony Weiner.
And that was last week. With the expiration date on the FBI investigation the Democrats demanded, and then immediately doubted, approaching in the fast lane, the possibility of a vote may loom as near as Friday. I can only begin to imagine the histrionics in store for us this week. Given their increasingly violent behavior, I wouldn't be shocked if the situation gets out of hand, even more than it did last week, which went so deep into Crazytown that Senator Lindsey Graham (R-esque - SC) hulked out on his Democratic colleagues over their appalling behavior.
No, last week was not the worst week in American history. After all, nobody died. But don't count out the Democrats just yet; it's only Tuesday.
— Ben Crystal
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5)
WASHINGTON, D.C.-In an emotional address, Vice President Mike Pence
confessed to being a "root beer binge drinker" in high school and well into
his college years.
5)
The hidden agenda behind 'climate change'
By John Eidson
In comments that laid bare the hidden agenda behind global warming alarmism, Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, let slip during a February 2015 press conference in Brussels that the U.N.'s real purpose in pushing climate hysteria is to end capitalism throughout the world:
This is the first time in human history that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally changing [getting rid of] the economic development model that has reigned since the Industrial Revolution.
The economic model to which she referred is free-market capitalism. A year earlier, Figueres revealed what capitalism must be replaced with when shecomplained that America's two-party constitutional system is hampering the U.N.'s climate objectives. She went on to cite China's communist system as the kind of government America must have if the U.N. is to impose its environmental will on the world's most free and prosperous capitalist nation. In other words, for the U.N. to have its way, America must somehow be transformed into a communist nation.
Let that sink in for a moment.
Figueres is not alone. Another senior U.N. official had comments of his own about the true agenda behind "climate change." If you're among those who still believe climate alarmists when they say all they're trying to do is save the planet, what Dr. Ottmar Edenhofer had to say will leave your jaw on the floor.
In a Nov. 14, 2010 interview with the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung, Edenhofer, co-chair of the U.N. IPCC's Working Group III, made this shocking admission:
One must free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. [What we're doing] has almost nothing to do with the climate. We must state clearly that we use climate policy to redistribute de facto the world's wealth.
In the same interview, Edenhofer added this:
Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with protecting the environment. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated.
Edenhofer, one of the U.N.'s top climate officials, effectively admitted that the organization's public position on global warming is a ruse, and another senior U.N. official, Figueres, said in an official capacity that the United States must be converted to communism for the world to be saved from global warming.
Let all of that sink in for a moment.
Powerful progressives in this country believe it's not right that billions of people in the world sleep on the ground in mud huts while Americans sleep on soft mattresses in air-conditioned comfort. The progressive elites who feel that way – nearly all of whom are found in the Democratic Party, and 100% of whom live opulent, carbon-based lifestyles – also believe that far more of America's wealth must therefore be forcibly "shared" (read: redistributed) with poor nations. Global wealth redistribution is the foremost tenet of communism, and those who advocate it are, by definition, communists, whether they openly admit it or not.
The stunning pronouncements by Figueres and Edenhofer are all the evidence a rational mind needs to conclude that climate alarmism is being used as a Trojan horse to justify the massive new carbon taxes clamored for by powerful progressives like Barack Obama, Al Gore, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton, none of whom has ever denounced the anti-American, pro-communist sentiments of two of the U.N.'s most senior climate officials.
The words of one of those officials reveal that such taxes would be used not to save the planet, but to fund the most massive redistribution of wealth in human history, literally trillions of dollars extracted under false pretenses from hardworking U.S. taxpayers and given to the corrupt governments of every undeveloped nation on Earth, all in the guise of "climate aid."
Democrats in high places are attempting the largest heist in human history, an international collusion to exfiltrate unprecedented sums of money from the world's largest capitalist nation. Why? To implement, on a global scale, the mandate set forth in The Communist Manifesto: from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
Outraged that President Trump dealt their plan to redistribute America's wealth a major setback when he withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord, Democratic Party luminaries would have you believe they're nothing more than environmentally concerned citizens who would never even dream of supporting an effort to upend their country's capitalist system. Trump knows that's a big lie. And now, so do you.
No intelligent person can fail to recognize that the modern Democratic Party is using "climate change" as a ruse to fundamentally transform the United States of America into a socialist-cum-communist nation. But because the human ego is loath to admit when it's been duped, many patriotic liberals will continue allowing themselves to be led like sheep into the closing noose of the hammer and sickle. By the time they realize what happened, it will be too late.
John Eidson is a 1968 electrical engineering graduate of Georgia Tech; a lifelong conservative; and the father of two law-abiding, self-reliant sons.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
6)
Mike Pence Admits To Heavy Root Beer Drinking In High School
WASHINGTON, D.C.-In an emotional address, Vice President Mike Pence
confessed to being a "root beer binge drinker" in high school and well into
his college years.
Accusations have been swirling around the Vice President after his yearbook
inscription was revealed to contain several references to A&W and Mug.
"Yes, I liked root beer. I still like root beer," Pence said. "But in my
high school days, I drank to excess-sometimes to the point of a sugar rush."
His wife stood by him, nodding solemnly, though tears could be seen forming
in the corners of her eyes.
inscription was revealed to contain several references to A&W and Mug.
"Yes, I liked root beer. I still like root beer," Pence said. "But in my
high school days, I drank to excess-sometimes to the point of a sugar rush."
His wife stood by him, nodding solemnly, though tears could be seen forming
in the corners of her eyes.
"I am sorry for the man I was, but by God's grace, I have become the man I
am now," he added.
am now," he added.
Pence was quick to point out that while he did go too far with his root beer
addiction for several years, he never allowed the sugary substance to
influence him to dance or play cards on Sunday.
addiction for several years, he never allowed the sugary substance to
influence him to dance or play cards on Sunday.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment