Connect with us

Opinions

Strawman politics in the Kavanaugh confirmation circus

Published

on

Strawman politics in the Kavanaugh confirmation circus

Now that the accusations are falling apart, the Left is grasping at new straws.

Rachel Mitchell, the prosecutor that questioned Dr. Ford in her appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee has just released a memo that decimates her story in the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. In her memo to the Committee she states:

In the legal context, here is my bottom line: A “he said, she said” case is incredibly difficult to prove. But this case is even weaker than that. Dr. Ford identified other witnesses to the event, and those witnesses either refuted her allegations or failed to corroborate them. For the reasons discussed below, I do not think that a reasonable prosecutor would bring this case based on the evidence before the Committee. Nor do I believe that this evidence is sufficient to satisfy the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.

Her 9 page memo detailed the inconsistencies of Dr. Ford, bolstering the point that this is even weaker than a “he said, she said” case.

Another anonymous accusation.

Apparently there was another anonymous accusation received by the office of Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA). The anonymous accuser in this case offered no location, no date, no corroboration, no names. It would seem that the trend is delving downward with regard to the believability of these accusations with the follow on allegations being even more fact free than those previously made. It doesn’t help with a Friend of Ford Lawyer Asks More Women to Come Forward Against Kavanaugh according to the Washington Free Beacon.

Having written a short discussion of possible timing of any new allegations, these were rendered moot by news that The Kavanaugh FBI Investigation Could Be Done Soon. But, these are included for the sake of completeness.

The rationale for the timing of any new accusations will rest on a couple of factors.

One, any new allegation will most likely emerge after the news cycle has settled down, while still being in the mind of the public. This will serve to emulate the story pattern in other cases of the “Me Too” movement while keeping the issue below the saturation point.
Two, if a new allegation crops up too soon it’s inconsistencies and/or implausibility’s will cause it to dissipate before it’s had the intended effect.
Three, by the same token, if the timing is too long – close to the deadline – there won’t be enough for it to be properly exploited by the media and the nation’s Left [But we’re repeating ourselves]. It has to thread the needle in staying plausible to engender enough support for as yet another delay in the vote.

[Suffice it to say, this is a classic case of wanting to be wrong]

The Left is now falling back on strawman arguments.

Now, as David French as detailed over at National Review, the Case Against Kavanaugh Is Collapsing. So the Left has been busying itself with fall back positions such as the ‘Choirboy’ strawman.

For reference, we present the definition of a strawman a from the Oxford English Dictionary:

An intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent’s real argument.

In this case it’s the false proposition that Judge Kavanaugh claimed to be a ‘Choir Boy’ in his youth. Since he clearly stated that he imbibed in beer during a certain time period, the contention is that he is some how unsuitable as Supreme Court Justice. As with most strawman arguments, one only has to point out that this was never claimed to be the case to properly dismiss it.

Then there are the vague ‘Temperament’ issues that somehow have cropped up. Perish the thought that someone would issue a passionate rebuke to accusations meant to destroy their life and reputation. At this point in time it would seem that the media and the nation’s Left are merely trying to pile on more accusations or smears to cover for the previous allegations not standing up to the court of public opinion.

Facebook Comments
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Culture and Religion

17 years later, Paul Washer’s shocking message still holds true

Published

on

17 years later Paul Washers shocking message still holds true

In 2002, Pastor Paul Washer delivered a message to around 5,000 young people. It has become one of the fiery Southern Baptist’s mostly widely-heard sermons because in it, we hear a very disturbing reality to most who proclaim to be Christians. Some simply aren’t doing it right.

He’s been criticized for the sermon. Some say he’s making it too complicated. Others say he’s scaring people away from the faith by making it seem too difficult. But this teaching is based on one of the most important teachings of Jesus Christ in all the Bible:

Matthew 7:13-27

13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?

23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.

26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:

27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

I’ve heard many teach on these verses and I’ve taught myself on the strait and narrow. It’s frightening to some because it was intended to be, and Washer’s declarations to these impressionable young people is clear. But it wasn’t nice. It wasn’t kind. It wasn’t inclusive. It didn’t fit in with today’s version of common pastoral messages.

The need for constant repentance and ongoing belief must never be understated.

Sometimes, the need to be “nice” from the pulpit must be replaced by the true need to be honest. That’s what Washer does in this famous teaching. I strongly encourage everyone to spend an hour hearing it.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Conservatism

Why Tomi Lahren’s abortion view harms American conservatism

Published

on

Why Tomi Lahrens abortion view harms American conservatism

Democrats are unambiguous and united in their view of abortion. It wasn’t always this way. As recently as a decade ago, there were a good number of pro-life Democrats winning elections and expressing their views as pundits.

Today, they don’t exist.

Republicans aren’t so repulsed by the pro-abortion people in their midst. It’s understandable that as a party that’s less focused on individual issues, one can be a Republican without checking off all the various boxes. This is fine. What’s not fine is for breaks in the ranks of conservatives. There are certain things that must remain universal among those who claim to embrace conservatism, especially among those who speak for conservatives.

Fox Nation’s Tomi Lahren is one of them. She claims to be a conservative, but she’s pro-choice. That fact, by itself, is understandable because the issue is a polarizing one in which people can be swayed to one side based on personal experience. It’s not like taxes which warrant universal scorn from conservatives. There are gun-toting, tax-hating, pro-choice conservatives.

But there’s a bigger problem with Lahren’s perspective. She’s not just attacking the Alabama abortion bill and pro-life perspectives in general. She’s doing so with an argument that flies in the face of reality.

Do we think government is the answer? No. In fact, one of the most appealing parts about the Alabama abortion bill is that it represents the first true opportunity for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. When it reaches the Supreme Court (and it almost certainly will) it gives us the first glimpse of how the current makeup of the court will react. In fact, the makeup of the court could actually be better if one of the left-leaning Justices retires soon.

Once Roe v. Wade is out of the way, we can finally express the truly conservative aspect of federalism that should have never been taken away – the states’ rights to determine their own healthcare laws.

If Tomi Lahren doesn’t like the abortion ban, that’s fine. Her choice. But to defend her choice by insinuating a challenge to Roe v. Wade is somehow an attack on limited-government tenets is false and harms conservatism.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Guns and Crime

Thomas Massie exposes the many problems with Red Flag Gun Laws

Published

on

Thomas Massie exposes the many problems with Red Flag Gun Laws

Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) has been a staunch proponent of the 2nd Amendment throughout his career in Washington DC. This makes him an opponent to Red Flag Gun Laws which are spreading across the states. Colorado recently passed their version, bringing the total up to 15.

As we’ve documented numerous times, Red Flag Gun Laws are a direct attack on the 2nd and 4th Amendments. Depending on the version of the law, citizens can have their firearms forcibly removed from them by law enforcement when a judge decrees they may be a threat to themselves or others based on requests by people who know the victim. It’s important to understand that these laws are not based on anyone committing a crime. They are based on a feeling that someone may commit a crime.

It’s like the movie Minority Report, only without psychics. Gun owners’ liberties can be encroached based on the government’s “future crimes division.”

In this video, Massey gets to the heart of the matter by talking to Colorado Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams and Dr. John R. Lott of Crime Prevention Research Center. This is an important video for #2A proponents across the nation.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending