Connect with us

Opinions

Dear Christine Blasey Ford: Please testify or move along

Published

on

Dear Christine Blasey Ford Please testify or move along

We’re in political limbo, just as the Democrats had hoped. Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation should be wrapping up by now and likely would have been had it not been for Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations of sexual assault in high school.

I, along with millions of Americans, want to hear her story directly. We want questions answered. Were there four boys present in the room, as her therapist’s notes indicate, or the two that she referenced in her Washington Post interview?

What year did it happen? With enough retrospection and cross-referencing of a calendar, most adults can determine when important events in their early lives happened.

Did it happen during the summer as claimed in the article or during the school year as a classmate claimed on Facebook?

Why did she take a polygraph and hire a famous sexual harassment lawyer in August, then in September claim she had no intention of coming forward?

The inconsistencies are numerous:

Inconsistencies emerge in Kavanaugh accusations, with hearing in doubt

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/20/inconsistencies-emerge-in-kavanaugh-accusations-with-hearing-in-doubt.htmlSenate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley has given Ford until Friday morning to say whether she will testify next week. Ford first aired her accusations in a Washington Post story over the weekend but has not spoken publicly about them since. Absent another statement or appearance, questions about the account have swirled on Capitol Hill.

“There are an awful lot of questions, inconsistencies, gaps, and that’s why to be fair to both, we need to know what happened,” Maine Sen. Susan Collins, a key Republican vote, told reporters this week.

I do not want to victimize anyone any more than they’ve already been victimized, and I generally believe most of Ford’s account. The parts that get to me within the inconsistencies are those associated with Kavanaugh himself. Is it possible she’s bringing this forward now because she and her fellow Democrats do not want Kavanaugh confirmed? That would be a bold accusation to make and not one that comes with any proof, but circumstantially it would seem just as plausible as the story she’s telling now. If something did occur nearly four decades ago, it would be very easy to use the therapist’s notes for credibility, then insert Kavanaugh’s name into the mix for political expediency.

Again, I’m not accusing Ford of this. I’m just suggesting it’s just as possible as the story she’s now telling, especially considering Kavanaugh has unwaveringly denied these allegations and the fact that no other women have come forward to tell similar stories.

When President Trump, Roy Moore, Al Franken, and others were accused of sexual misconduct, the accusation floodgates opened. With Kavanaugh, there hasn’t been a peep. If Ford is telling the truth, tell it to us directly. Testify under oath.

Continue Reading
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Sabre22

    September 22, 2018 at 1:26 pm

    There is no credible scientific support for the idea that we can take any brutalization and banish it into the unconscious and then undergo some therapy which is going to make us aware of it,” Dr Loftus look it up Psychology today Implanting false memories is the article. HMMMM interesting conclusion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Democrats

As Bernie Sanders fades, 3 leftists (quietly) vie to pick up his mantle

Published

on

As Bernie Sanders fades 3 leftists quietly vie to pick up his mantle

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) just turned 77-years-old last month. The Democratic-Socialist movement, which he essentially brought into the mainstream and helped make popular following his 2016 presidential campaign, is made up of young, enthusiastic leftists. They need new leadership. Bernie can’t be that guy.

Two-years removed from his rise to prominence, his people are already searching for successors. Nobody’s saying it openly and Sanders still enjoys a great deal of support, but his inability to endorse leftists into primary victories showed he still couldn’t beat the Democratic establishment even after their stunning 2016 loss. But the real nail in Bernie’s presidential coffin was not endorsing soon-to-be Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

He picked losers and failed to recognize a surprise winner.

It should come as no surprise that Ocasio-Cortez is unwilling to endorse him for a 2020 presidential run.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez isn’t endorsing Bernie Sanders’ 2020 bid

https://nypost.com/2018/10/18/ocasio-cortez-isnt-endorsing-bernie-sanders-2020-bid/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPTwitter&utm_medium=SocialFlow“She’ll see what the field looks like,” Corbin Trent, Ocasio-Cortez’s communications director, told Politico. “She’s focused on 2018, [Bernie’s] focused on 2018. We’re all focused on 2018.”

Sanders did not endorse Ocasio-Cortez in her stunning primary defeat in June of longtime Queens political boss Rep. Joe Crowley.

Nobody on the left seems willing to flatly admit what most of them already know. Sanders is nothing more than a symbol now. He’s the ideological leader of the socialist wing of the Democratic Party, much like Barry Goldwater was for the conservative wing of the Republican party. He lit the fire. Now it’s time for his successors to step up. Who will it be?

Before we discuss who’s going to be the next Bernie Sanders, let’s talk about who isn’t. Despite the far left getting all the buzz, the Democratic establishment of Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama (sorry leftists, yes, he was and is part of the Democratic establishment) still holds sway on the direction of the party. They’re more than willing to tap into the excitement of the progressive movement and get Democratic Socialists to vote for Democratic mainstream candidates, but they’re smart enough to recognize if the far-left gets their way, the party and probably the nation will crumble.

These establishment types will not pick up Bernie’s mantle:

  • Joe Biden – He’s the current frontrunner, but I seriously doubt he’ll run. Why would he? He doesn’t really want to be President and would be 80 by the time his first term came to a close. Regardless, he’s more moderate that Clinton and will not be the next Bernie.
  • Elizabeth Warren – Despite wanting to be the next Bernie and having the progressive credentials to match his far-leftist rhetoric, her star is already fading fast. Democrats and mainstream media are trying to pretend like her DNA debacle never happened, but her competitors will be sure to remind the world of her horrible judgment. Wanting it and being accepted by the fragile far-left are two different things. They won’t turn on her as a Senator but they won’t let her be Bernie.
  • Beto O’Rourke – His star-power will fade when he loses to Ted Cruz. If he’s somehow able to win, then we’ll have to watch what he does in the first year of his term as Senator to see if he can be the guy. As of now, he’s a MSNBC contributor in the making following his loss.
  • Michael Bloomberg – A rich old white guy might have brought the socialist movement into the spotlight, but a super-rich old white guy can’t pick up the mantle.
  • Michael Avenatti – LOL. No.
  • Eric Holder – If anyone on this list could sneak into the Democratic Socialist camp, it’s Holder. He is progressive enough and speaks the language of socialism, but he’s also closely tied to the establishment.

With those non-Bernies out of the way, let’s look at the three most likely candidates to lead the far-left in 2020. You’ll notice they’re all Senators, a la Barack Obama’s path. I don’t see a governor or mayor who has a legitimate chance of being a socialist hero. Andrew Cuomo and Eric Garcetti are interesting prospects, but not high enough on the radar at this time.

That leaves private citizens, some of whom could be the next Bernie if they choose to throw their names in the hat. Oprah Winfrey and George Clooney stand out, but we won’t put them on this list until they actually get political.

One thing to note is that they’ll all be cozy with Sanders until the time is right. None of them have the street credibility they’ll need to challenge Sanders directly until he’s ready to embrace one or more of them on his own. Quietly, they’ll be pitching him on why they’re the right person to continue what he started. They might even offer him a nice cabinet position like Treasury Secretary in exchange for his coveted endorsement.

The next Bernie will likely be one of these three Senators:

Kamala Harris

The California Senator is the obvious choice. She has built up the most progressive voting record in her short time on Capitol Hill and definitely talks the talk of socialism.

If any socialist has a real shot at the White House, it’s Harris.

Kirsten Gillibrand

The funny part about Gillibrand is that she’s been considered a moderate in the past. Some even called her a “conservative Democrat” when she was in the House because she represented a red district of New York. Once she became a Senator, her true colors came out.

Deep down, Gillibrand is among the most socialist Senators there is. Her voting record is actually to the left of Sanders, according to Progressive Punch. She is likable by the far left while still holding sway over moderates. If her name-recognition increases in the next year, she could be a real contender.

Cory Booker

Spartacus has problems with his image at times, but there’s no doubt he could easily pick up Bernie’s mantle. He’s currently stuck in the middle trying to be everything to every progressive up and down the scale, but when push comes to shove he can be the socialist he wants to be.

Whether or not he picks up Bernie’s mantle will be determined by how well the previous two listed socialists do. If he’s ahead of them and his primary competitors are to his right, then he’ll drift towards the center knowing he’ll end up with Bernie’s people anyway. If he’s running against stiff competition from Gillibrand and/or Harris, he’ll try to lurch to their left to steal their thunder.

2020 is a make-or-break election for socialists. If they fail to get their choice as the nominee for a second straight presidential election, it could be enough to bury their horrible ideology as fringe leftist junk. Then again, it could make them double down.

Continue Reading

Democrats

Left vs Right: Is there really a legitimacy crisis in the courts?

Published

on

Left vs Right Is there really a legitimacy crisis in the courts

The 9th Circuit Court has some vacancies and President Trump has made nominations to fill those holes. This bypass of traditional norms comes after a Supreme Court confirmation process that deviated from many norms. Senator Feinstein was undoubtedly culpable for that. In recent weeks, the Left talks a lot about the legitimacy of the courts. In fact, to them the confirmations of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh represent a crisis for the legitimacy of our nation’s highest court. Michael Tomaski at the New York Times writes:

And if the Senate confirms Brett Kavanaugh soon, the vote is likely to fall along similar lines, meaning that we will soon have two Supreme Court justices who deserve to be called “minority-majority”: justices who are part of a five-vote majority on the bench but who were nominated and confirmed by a president and a Senate who represent the will of a minority of the American people.

See, Tomaski doesn’t seem to realize, in his calculations, that the 17th Amendment wasn’t always a thing. The Senate was never intended to represent the will of the people. It was intended to represent the will of the states. Therefore is metric of legitimacy is entirely unfounded in our nation’s history, a complete creation of a leftist melting down over Kavanaugh. He continues to implode on this these premises.:

But I implore you to take a moment to be angry about all this, too. This is a severe legitimacy crisis for the Supreme Court.

The court, as Professor McMahon notes, was intended never to stray far from the mainstream of American political life. The fact that justices represented that mainstream and were normally confirmed by lopsided votes gave the court’s decisions their legitimacy. It’s also why past chief justices worked to avoid 5-4 decisions on controversial matters: They wanted Americans to see that the court was unified when it laid down a major new precedent.

But now, in an age of 5-4 partisan decisions, we’re on the verge of having a five-member majority who figure to radically rewrite our nation’s laws. And four of them will have been narrowly approved by senators representing minority will.

But of course, this talk is hardly the result of Kavanaugh whom they will paint a vehemently partisan judge. Neil Gorsuch is the thief on the stolen seat, and Merrick Garland is an angel perfectly qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Nevermind that Merrick Garland failed a basic reading comprehension in DC v Heller. Trump and Cocaine Mitch defiled the norms, the latest norm being blue-slipping.

Initial Story

Fox News: Trump snubs Feinstein, Harris to nominate conservative judges to liberal 9th Circuit

President Trump is plowing ahead to fill three vacancies on the liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, brushing aside Democratic resistance to nominate conservative judges.

Presidents traditionally work with senators from judicial nominees’ home state — in this case, California — to put forward judicial picks. They often seek what’s known as a “blue slip,” or an opinion from those senators.

But in a snub to California Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris, the White House announced Wednesday that Trump had nominated Patrick Bumatay, Daniel Collins and Kenneth Kiyul Lee (all from the Golden State, and reportedly all members of the conservative Federalist Society) to the influential circuit. The court, with a sprawling purview representing nine Western states, has long been a thorn in the side of the Trump White House, with rulings against the travel ban and limits on funding to “sanctuary cities.”

GOP critics have branded the court the “Nutty 9th,” in part because many of its rulings have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Any working relationship is likely only to have soured further after Harris and Feinstein led the charge on the Senate Judiciary Committee against the confirmation of now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. In particular, Trump and Republicans accused Feinstein of withholding information about an allegation of sexual assault against Kavanaugh until after the hearings were over. Both Feinstein and Harris voted against Kavanaugh’s nomination, joined by all but one Democratic senator.

Solutions of the Left

Fake Conservative of the Washington Post Jennifer Rubin has this much to say about “salvaging” the Supreme Court.

In some respect, the fix for the Supreme Court is the same as the fix for our politics — leveling a right-wing populist party that abhors democratic norms and building a center-left to center-right coalition. (Some structural reforms such as ranked voting, eliminating gerrymandering and automatic voter registration would help.)

Basically, get rid of Conservatism. But at least she knows that 17th Amendment exists. This is a simplistic petty fantasy of a solution. Then there is the age old progressive trick to stack the courts. What failed under FDR, is now table talk once again. Socialist online publication, Jacobinmag, writes an apocalyptic defense of court packing. Note: he thinks the New Deal worked.

And this is the important point: with union density near an all-time low and climate catastrophe on the horizon, future lawmakers will need tools even more robust than what FDR was able to get through — think a Green NIRA on steroids. A handful of justices pulled from Federalist Society debating clubs can’t and shouldn’t get in the way of a more democratic and sustainable economy.

A thoughtful court-packing proposal would ensure that the Court more carefully reflects the mores of the time, rather than shackling democracy to the weight of the past. With inequality and human rights abuses spiraling upward and justices making it all worse, the time to begin mainstreaming an enlarged Court is now.

Ultimately, the Left’s arguments for court packing openly admit that they do not care for the process of interpreting the law or the intent of the US Constitution. They see the court as a means to protect their agenda. Take court packing argument from The Outline:

We cannot lose sight of one simple point. We — those of us left of center, who believe that the role of the courts should be to protect the weak from the powerful and not the other way around — are right and conservatives are wrong.

The New Republic isn’t as petty but they believe that the court should have a more democratic representation

Court-packing is bad, but allowing an entrenched majority on the Supreme Court to represent a minority party that refuses to let Democratic governments govern would not be acceptable or democratically legitimate, either.

Final Thoughts

The 9th Circuit Court has a terrible batting average with when it comes to the Supreme Court upholding their rulings. And that batting average is sure to crumble even lower seeing that the next SCOTUS session has multiple cases where the 9th Circuit Court is in conflict with the rulings of other appellate courts. If any court isn’t legitimate, it’s the ultra left 9th Circuit Court. Yet the issue of the Supreme Court reveals a substantially different view of the Court’s duties. The Left, dating back to FDR, believes that the Court’s job is to uphold their agenda. Don’t take my word for it, take theirs. In contrast, Conservatives believe that the court should uphold the Constitution in its original form. These are the foundations for which one from either side would determine a legitimacy crisis.

Continue Reading

Immigration

Hate-brokers on the left say conservative concern over massive migrant caravan is “fearmongering”

Published

on

Hate-brokers on the left say conservative concern over massive migrant caravan is fearmongering

The hypocrisy is too thick today. Citizens are advised to stay off the roads of leftist media as chances are high you’ll ram into spectacular stupidity in your journeys. Yes, this could be said about any given day lately, but the Democrats’ responses to concerns over the massive migrant caravan inching towards our southern border are especially rabid.

Around 4,000 migrants from Honduras are walking to the United States. Threats by President Trump and halfhearted attempts by the governments of Honduras and Guatemala have not slowed them down. They approach the southern Mexican border where federal officers await them.

These people, most of whom live in extreme poverty and real danger in their homeland, have a legitimate claim as refugees. They should be seeking asylum… in Mexico. Many in the international community want refugees to seek asylum in the first safe country they enter. In this case, that’s Mexico. While it is generally considered to be more dangerous than the United States, it’s not nearly as dangerous as Honduras, Guatemala, or El Salvador.

The United States has carried the burden of illegal immigration from Central America for decades. Mexico’s next President, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, has claimed indignation towards President Trump’s deportation policies, particularly when he separates families. There’s a logical solution for the incoming leftist President: encourage Central American refugees to stay in Mexico. That’s a whole other discussion for a future article.

Republican candidates are rightly voicing concern over the caravan. Democrats are generally quiet on the issue, fearing a majority of Americans share the concerns their Republican competitors are voicing. That’s not stopping leftist media from posting stories like this one on Salon:

Republicans are fearmongering about a migrant caravan to boost midterm turnout

https://www.salon.com/2018/10/18/republicans-are-fearmongering-about-a-migrant-caravan-to-boost-midterm-turnout/Gaetz’s argument mirrors that of Daniel John Sobieski from American Thinker, who wrote this week that “it is doubtful that such sums came from the kiddies’ college funds. Evidence of Soros funding of an earlier ‘spontaneous’ migration have been found among the tentacles of support that flow from his Open Society group coffers.”

It was also hinted at by conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham. Although Ingraham did not specifically claim that Soros was behind the caravan, she has previously fingered Soros as a sinister financier behind left-wing political activities, and some of her supporters interpreted her Wednesday tweet as a reference to Soros.

The Salon article attempts to ridicule those concerned about the source of this swelling caravan. They do this by begging the question on George Soros and his organizations’ involvement with open borders initiatives. Soros has been painted by leftist media as a boogeyman for right-wing conspiracy theorists. They point to every invocation of his name in Tweets by conservatives and they love to remind everyone that extremists like white supremacist groups go after Soros all the time. What they won’t address is that Soros really does do many of the things conservatives claim.

They use the bigoted and unhinged claims about Soros made by a hate groups as evidence that ALL accusations against Soros are false. Some of these leftist journalists are so sincere in their condemnation of any accusation against Soros that it’s clear some of them really believe he’s not involved with doing what he’s said many times he’s involved in doing.

The go after Tweets like this one. They didn’t post the Tweet itself, just the text from the quote. The attached video is pretty telling.

As a legal immigrant, I’m very much in favor of reforming and potentially even increasing the number of immigrants we LEGALLY allow into this nation, but that will never be possible as long as we have so many who come here illegally. We need a modern vetting process, a plan that will allow legal immigrants and refugees to become productive members of society, and above all a curtailing of illegal immigration. If these things can be done, then I’m all for bringing in what the President likes to call “their best people.”

This caravan concerns me greatly. It should concern every American regardless of party affiliation because it represents a soft invasion. We often think that the word “invasion” can only apply to the military, but it can also mean an unwelcome intrusion into another’s domain. That’s what this is. They want to escape their situation which is their right. They want to be taken in as refugees which is a responsibility of nations that have signed the Refugee Convention.

Mexico is one of those nations.

Here’s the real problem and why most of us on the right are not “fearmongering” in regards to this event. It’s a symbol of encroachment that will further open up the floodgates of illegal immigration into this nation. It’s one thing for people to cross the border in small groups in the dead of night. That represents a risk to those making the journey. If all that’s necessary to breach our borders and claim a piece of our sovereignty is for people in Central America to get enough other people together, then the narrative changes. The risks of trying to come to America are mitigated.

If this caravan is allowed to successfully breach our borders, it will act as a rallying cry for people in Central America to stop fighting for their own country when all they have to do is get a large enough group to head north.

Continue Reading
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report
Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report