Connect with us

Media

NY Times has 3 questions for Brett Kavanaugh. I’ll answer for him.

Published

on

NY Times has 3 questions for Brett Kavanaugh Ill answer for him

Nicholas Kristof from the NY Times has three questions for Judge Kavanaugh. It’s not the type of article I would normally read and I’m shocked it’s not behind a paywall as most NY Times links I try to read usually are, but it was listed at the top of Google News for me so I figured it might have substance.

It did, but only enough to deserve a response. Since it’s highly unlikely Judge Kavanaugh will answer the questions in an article that he probably won’t read, I’ll offer answers of my own. I’m not speaking for Kavanaugh. I’m not a Republican, though I do consider myself conservative. Mr. Kristof likely won’t read these answers, but just as his article was intended for the NY Times audience even if it was directed at Judge Kavanaugh, so too are my answers directed at our readership.

For full disclosure, I support Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation for political reasons. Most Democrats who oppose his nomination do so for political reasons as well, though many will rewrite their personal histories and claim the sexual abuse allegations made them change their minds. However, most were like Senator Chuck Schumer and opposed his nomination within minutes of President Trump announcing it. Many opposed any nominee by Trump even before he announced.

Here’s the article by Kristof first in case you want to read it:

Three Questions for Judge Kavanaugh

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/03/opinion/kavanaugh-supreme-court-lies-integrity.htmlJudge Kavanaugh, I don’t know what happened in 1982. But I’m deeply troubled by what I perceive as your lack of integrity last week. You told the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath that your “have you boofed” yearbook question referred to farting, that “devil’s triangle” was a drinking game, that a “Renate alumnius” was simply a friend of Renate with no sexual insinuations, that the drinking age was 18.

Now, here are my answers:

1. Isn’t an itsy-bitsy lie still a lie?

Yes. Any intentional untruth spoken under oath is still a lie. There are, however, degrees of importance that sensible people consider when attempting to discredit someone or prepare them to be charged with perjury.

That’s really what Kristof’s question is about. At the very least, he hopes Judge Kavanaugh can be discredited by his lies, but that’s the consolation prize. What he and many Democrats really want is a perjury charge and investigation. If it’s done soon, it can derail the confirmation. If it’s done after the midterm elections (and if Democrats can win a majority in the House), then they can launch an impeachment. It wouldn’t make it through the Senate even with the most Democrat-friendly math, but getting him on record as going through an impeachment proceeding will damage President Trump and Republicans in 2020.

I’m not a fan of whataboutisms, so I’m not going to point the finger at Christine Blasey Ford’s “inconsistencies” that could be construed as outright lies. What I’ll do instead is argue that none of the points Kristof made have a chance of standing up to a criminal perjury litmus test.

I recently watched a video my friends and I made in the late 80s. I’m not as old as Judge Kavanaugh but I had a hard time recalling the circumstances surrounding the video. In fact, I had to Facebook Message one of my old friends to find out what I was talking about at one point in the video. He reminded me of the context and it all came back to me.

I’m not suggesting Judge Kavanaugh did not knowingly lie about the meanings of “boofing” or “Devil’s Triangle.” I personally think he probably did, but here’s the thing. These were personal questions that did not hold material value to the intent of the hearing. Perjury requires intent and relevance. Intent would be impossible to prove because the terms in question were used over three decades ago. As for being relevant, that’s a stretch few prosecutors would be willing to pursue.

2. Do you have empathy for those who aren’t so blessed as yourself?

Of the three questions, this is the one I wish I could avoid. It’s not that it’s a hard one to answer. It’s that Kristof’s insinuations and his attempt to make us draw a valid conclusion from them are manipulative.

It starts off by saying this:

An air of entitlement hangs over both your testimony and the sexual assaults, if they happened as alleged, and it leaves many of us with misgivings even as we acknowledge that you are a smart, hardworking and distinguished public servant.

“…if they happened as alleged…”

This is the biggest problem with the question and associated explanation for it. What Kristof insinuates is that the sexual assaults happened and Judge Kavanaugh is not showing proper empathy towards his victims. This is silly on its surface and dangerous when you dig deeper.

It’s silly because it’s saying Judge Kavanaugh should have empathy for his victims instead of having an air of entitlement. For him to have empathy, we have to assume that he’s guilty of the accusations, which the author clearly believes. He is begging the question, a shameful debate tactic that assumes his audience either already agrees or will fall into his trap.

What Kristof says with this question is that Judge Kavanaugh committed the sexual assaults and we should be worried about him as a Supreme Court Justice because he doesn’t show empathy towards his victims. Seriously?

If he didn’t commit the sexual assaults, we shouldn’t expect him to have empathy towards people who have harmed his family and tarnished his name for the sake of political posturing.

Kristof’s question would be insanely stupid in any context other than this one. The NY Times assumes guilt and wants everyone else to as well. Therefore, begging the question is technically brilliant because it takes the sheep and soon-to-be sheep and paints them into a corner where they must either stipulate the accusations as factual or defend a lack of empathy where none should exist.

3. What should we make of your rage and partisanship?

With this final question, Kristof brings up a valid point. As Matt Damon said while playing Judge Kavanaugh on SNL this weekend, he started at an 11 and took it up to 15.

Either someone got in his ear after his milquetoast Fox News interview the previous week or he decided it on his own, but at some point between the interview and the hearing he chose to be indignant towards the accusations, angry at the failed process, and preemptively combative towards Democrats. If I were guessing, I’d say he got a private call from the President on how to “punch back harder” as he is wont to do.

Judge Kavanaugh took it too far and came across poorly to those who didn’t already fully support him. That’s the extent of the validity of Kristof’s third question.

From there, he misses the mark once again, perhaps on purpose. The judge has the right to an emotional response during his testimony. Democrats have acted like obstructionists and have been treating him unfairly since well before the accusations were made. They peppered him with more written questions than all other Supreme Court Justice nominees combined. Many declared they would oppose him before he stepped foot on Capitol Hill.

This has been a partisan trap from the start. To say that Judge Kavanaugh is being overly partisan for speaking the truth about the party that opposes him is disingenuous. Yes, he invoked “revenge for Clinton” in a way that can be called conspiratorial and partisan. It could also be called quite obviously true.

The final portion of Kristoff’s article attaches Judge Kavanaugh to the Republicans defending him, in particular President Trump. Nobody ever accused Kristof of lacking intelligence or being a bad writer, which is why I must give him kudos for this tactic. To achieve his goal of discrediting Kavanaugh and preparing his readership for whatever the next play against Kavanaugh might be, he lays out this attachment to place anything negative from the Republican Party squarely on the judge’s shoulders. The sins of all become the sins of one.

When all is said and done, article’s like Kristof’s want the ire to be on President Trump. Judge Kavanaugh is his current newsworthy proxy, so attacking him is as important to the left as attacking the President himself.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Democrats

If only one Democrat, mainstream media shill, or Hollywood snowflake admitted they were wrong about Mueller…

Published

on

If only one Democrat mainstream media shill or Hollywood snowflake admitted they were wrong about Mu

My nasty, terrible, awful secret is that deep down, I thought Donald Trump Jr. colluded with the Russians. I know what you’re thinking. “How did you fall for the media’s fake news?” As ashamed as I am of this revelation, I figured based on the information being circulated, it made sense that Don Jr. got a tip that could help his father and he likely acted on it.

Following the summary of Robert Mueller’s investigation report that claimed there was no collusion by the Trump campaign, I’m pleased to acknowledge that I was wrong. Of course, I’m not a Democrat, a mainstream media shill, or a Hollywood snowflake. I’m just an innocent conservative who fell for onslaught of “bombshell” reports.

I was wrong and I’m happy about that.

Now, try to find anyone in the opposition party in newsrooms, Hollywood, or the DNC who is willing to admit they were wrong this whole time. Anyone? ANYONE?

Here’s the thing. If there’s one thing that would help heal this nation’s divide, it would be the Democrats coming out and acknowledging they made a huge mistake following faulty reports and wishful thinking that led them to believe in something that simply wasn’t there. Aren’t the Democrats about uniting the nation? Aren’t they the ones always saying the nation’s divided and it needs to be fixed?

I’m one of those people who likes many of the things the President is doing while not liking the way he’s doing it. But I’m also the type of person who can acknowledge when I was misled, and after falling for the witch hunt hoax of the century, I have no problem doing so now.

Therefore, I call on those who helped spread the Russian-Trump collusion narrative to publicly admit they were spreading the rumors from their own echo chamber and turning it into what they would consider to be news. If they can do that, I’ll actually regain a smidgen of respect for them.

It’s hard to admit when you’re wrong. I get it. But the nation is truly divided and the Russian-collusion fake news witch hunt hoax is the primary culprit of the last two years. Grow some integrity and acknowledge your errors, Democrats.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Conservatism

Faux conservative media ignores GOP lies on abortion

Published

on

Faux conservative media ignores Trump and GOP lies on abortion

Even though Republicans have failed the pro-life litmus test ever since the Republican-nominated Supreme Court decided 46 years ago in Roe v. Wade that women have a Constitutional right to murder their unborn child, they are playing the pro-life card once again for political purposes in preparation for the 2020 election.

This was extremely obvious last month when Mitch McConnell held a show vote on the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act,” a bill introduced by Sen. Ben Sasse mandating medical care for babies that survive the abortion procedure attempted murder.

Like the GOP itself during the past two years of full control of Washington, the bill did nothing to bring an end to abortion. It did, however, give Mitch McConnell and the Republicans a nice political talking point to add to their 2020 election arsenal.

“This stunning, stunning extremism” will not “be the last word on the subject.”

By the way, Republicans played this same game in 2018 — an election year — with a House version of the BAASPA that died in the Senate.

I wrote last week about BlazeTV and how it had become a pro-Trump echo chamber and home of faux conservatives. In the piece, I mentioned an episode of Steve Deace’s show where he pointed out the Democrats’ “worship of abortion” and called on conservatives to “cheer” Donald Trump because he was using late-term abortion as a campaign issue.

In a rebuttal on his show the day after my article, Deace and his crew accused me of being in the “orange man bad” anti-Trump cult where criticism of Trump is only happens because we’re talking about Trump. Aside from the obvious attempt to dismiss my opinion without addressing it, my conclusions were based on Trump’s non-conservative policies, his track record of doublemindedness and broken promises regarding abortion, and BlazeTV’s decision to promote Trump as the savior of the Republic.

Yes, the Democrat party is the party of abortion and infanticide. Heck, the party’s 2016 platform championed Planned Parenthood and promised to protect government funding of their infanticide services. The platform also called for Democrats to overturn “all federal and state laws that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including repealing of the Hyde Amendment.”

The Democrat-controlled House has begun working on ways to repeal the Hyde Amendment. Claiming to possess a “pro-choice majority,” they are looking to find new ways for public funds to be used to murder the unborn, including coverage for abortions under Medicaid along with mandating abortion coverage under other government healthcare plans.

Here’s a fun fact: the much-ballyhooed Medicare for All single-payer healthcare plan being promoted by nearly every Democrat presidential candidate and some “conservative socialists” mandates coverage for abortion services. Once we have single-payer, every American will be funding the murder of unborn babies. Look for it to be included in the 2020 Democrat platform.

So, this means Deace was right about the Democrats, right? Yes, but he and others in the faux conservative media have turned this reality into a “squirrel moment” to distract voters away from the hypocrisy and lies we get from Trump — and by default, the GOP — on the abortion issue. Pointing to the obvious extremism of the Democrat Party while giving Trump a pass on abortion and “cheering” him for using it as a political weapon to get re-elected is nothing more than another edition of the #notDemocrat game we get from the GOP every election season.

Democrats haven’t had to worry about keeping their platform promise to protect Planned Parenthood because Trump and the GOP have been keeping that promise for them by not only continuing their funding, but increasing it. They have also increased funding for harvesting body parts from aborted babies for research purposes, included experiments using human fetal tissue on mice — tissue that comes from Planned Parenthood.

Democrats are pro-abortion to the extreme and Republicans are no different. But the GOP gets to hide behind the cover of a so-called conservative media that is all too willing to play the deceptive #notDemocrat game while “cheering” Trump and the GOP for tickling their ears.

Originally posted on StridentConservative.com.

 


David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook.

Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Media

Van Jones on CNN describes the left’s reaction to the Mueller report

Published

on

Van Jones on CNN describes the left's reaction to the Mueller report

For the last 22-months, a day hasn’t gone by in which CNN didn’t mention Robert Mueller’s investigation with a spin of hope for their leftist audience that any moment, the hammer would drop and Mueller would be knocking on the White House door with handcuffs in hand. Now that Attorney General William Barr has released a summary of the Mueller report, many in mainstream media are trying to reconcile what they now know with what they’ve thought they knew for nearly two years.

Many are saying, “wait for the full report.” Others are saying Mueller – their hero for the duration – was controlled or incompetent or paid off or threatened… or something. Others are looking to SDNY as the next great Trump-buster. CNN’s Van Jones expressed the left’s general feelings in one sentence.

When we break it all down, it just comes down to sadness. The left is sad the President didn’t collude with the Russians. It was their best hope to prove their unyielding support for Hillary Clinton wasn’t wasted. Now, they’re lost.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report