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 *

Media

Liz Wheeler on the most disgusting part of the Jussie Smollett scandal

Published

on

Liz Wheeler on the most disgusting part of the Jussie Smollett scandal

There are plenty of things about the Jussie Smollett scandal that should disgust us. The instant reaction by celebrities, politicians, and the media is right there at the top, especially when we consider how many are now saying, “let’s wait for the facts.” The notion that a successful gay black man thought it appropriate to make himself seem like a victim is also up there.

As One America News Network’s Liz Wheeler points out, we should also be disgusted that Smollett chose this victim status over being a strong leader and role model for less privileged black and gay people who could have looked up to him for his strength instead of now being scornful of his weakness.

What does that say about America when the left tries so hard to build the narrative that everything is wrong, they’re unwilling to recognize the real problems that are plaguing America. Why? Because they’re the biggest part of the problem.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Democrats

Leftist media pushes back on Green New Deal criticism

Published

on

Leftist media pushes back on Green New Deal criticism

It’s been an up-and-down couple of weeks for proponents of the Green New Deal. Before details were released, it was already being heralded as the greatest thing since President Obama’s election. Then, the details came out and even many on the left were taken aback by the ambitious and incoherent provisions of the deal as detailed in a FAQ section on Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s government web page.

But that was just a draft. They took it down. At least that was the story.

Unfortunately for proponents, they were caught a little flat-footed as questions started pouring in about, well, all of it. Even if we dismiss the less-draconian concepts such as eliminating air travel or the less-sane ideas like taking care of those who are unwilling to work, the left is still stuck with a proposal that the most frugal estimates put at costing around $7 trillion while other’s consider the decade-long cost to be in the HUNDREDS of trillions of dollars.

This is, of course, ludicrous. There’s not enough money in the entire world to pay for the proposal if its cost is somewhere between the lowest and highest estimates, but that hasn’t stopped leftist media from regrouping. Now that the dust has settled a little bit, they’re doing everything they can to recommit to this concept. It’s not that they suddenly believe in this fairy tale. It’s that they don’t want this to be the issue Republicans attack in the 2020 elections.

One article in particular that I read from CNN (yes, sometimes I need to see what the other side is thinking) really struck me for its honesty about the situation. Though I stopped reading it in paragraph two when it referred to “non-partisan” PolitiFact, I went back to it just now to digest the awfulness fully (see the sacrifices I make for our readers!).

To be clear, much of what this article says is correct. It asserts the GOP will take the tenets of the Green New Deal and use it to scare voters into thinking it’s even worse than Obamacare. From 2010 through 2016, Republicans attacked Obamacare incessantly and it worked, giving them the House in 2010, the Senate in 2014, and the White House in 2016. Unfortunately, they stopped there and didn’t actually go after Obamacare with the same fervor they held in their campaign rhetoric and now the Democrats have turned the issue on its head.

But here’s the thing. Obamacare may have been bad, but the Green New Deal truly is worse. It’s not even close. Even if we take at face value the notion that the Green New Deal is simply an ambitious framework around which real legislation can be forged, we have to look at the core issues entailed in order to see the true damage it can do. This is a socialist document. It’s a call for the same levels of insanity that drive the Medicare-for-All movement. Within its frivolous attempts to change perceptions of air travel, cows, and job creation is a deep-rooted desire to convert Americans to needing more government.

NOQ Report needs your support.

The Green New Deal represents the far-left’s desire to make more American dependent on government. At the same time, it aims to increase the levels of dependency for those who are already in need of assistance. It wants Democrats to latch their wagons on the notion that if we become a militantly environmentalist nation, that will serve the dual purpose of giving us fulfillment while saving the planet.

I believe most leftist journalists understand this, but they see in the ridiculous framework a path through which Republicans can be defeated wholesale in 2020 as long as the left can control the narrative surrounding the Green New Deal. They fear another Obamacare counterinsurgency that would wipe out the anti-Trump gains they made in 2018, so they’ve adopted a stance that the Green New Deal isn’t as bad as Fox News says it is. Meanwhile, they’re doing everything they can to say, “look over here and not at the Green New Deal.”

The politics behind what the Green New Deal represents is more in play than the tenets of the proposal itself, at least in the eyes of leftist media. It’s not that they want to promote the concept. They simply don’t want the concept to derail their party in the next election.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Media

NOQ Report drops ads, goes 100% crowdfunded

Published

on

NOQ Report drops ads goes 100 crowdfunded

There’s nothing pleasant about asking people for money. Over the last six months, we’ve experimented with various types of revenue streams to see what could help propel this site to more people. In a society dominated by fake news and leftist media, getting a foothold as a limited-government conservative news outlet is challenging.

Unfortunately, there seem to be only three options. The first one is a non-starter – corporate sponsorships. There are very few organizations, PACs, and companies we trust enough to allow to be corporate sponsors, and while we may someday work with the few that we trust, we don’t have the luxury of waiting for them. We’ve had some corporate sponsorship offers, but invariably they want a say in the editorial component. Some want all-positive Republican coverage. Others want more positive Democratic coverage. Our goal has been and always will be to present the news, opinions, and quotes from a pro-American perspective. That means we call it how we see it.

Option two has been a disaster for multiple reasons. Most websites are driven by advertising, which is fine as long as it both pays the bills and doesn’t flood the site with spam. We’ve used Google, Amazon, and a handful of smaller ad networks to try to generate enough revenue, but it’s challenging when we have limited control over what’s being served. I’d get emails regularly saying we were advertising for Planned Parenthood or Ashley Madison or other websites that didn’t match our values at the site. This may be the easiest way for the site to pay its bills, but it’s not worth the trade-off.

Option three is the tough one. It’s the way that requires me to do what doesn’t come naturally – asking for money. We want to be 100% crowdfunded. That means we need you, the readers, to donate whenever possible. It can be single donations to give us a boost. It can be a recurring donation to help us plan for the future. Literally anything and everything helps.

We have tiers of $10, $50, $5000, and everything in between. Of course, there’s an option for supporters to name their donation amount, so there really isn’t a limit to how much or how little you contribute. Every penny makes a difference.

Here are some of the upcoming expenditures we need covered in order to keep the site moving forward:

  • $25/article – Paid writers and expenses. Currently, all of our writers are volunteers. We appreciate their efforts and we want to reward them. We also need to hire more freelance writers in order to expand the perspectives. Eventually, we will need to budget around $12,000 per month for full-time staff writers, but just getting started with around 1/5th that amount will be a wonderful down payment.
  • $3000/mo – Editors. For the last six months, I have put my time and effort into editing the site. I don’t mind working for free as it’s a labor of love, but it’s unsustainable. I’ll either need to hire editors so I can work full time again or I’ll need to start paying myself. Either way, this is a top priority.
  • $350/mo – Facebook promotions. It’s amazing how much attention we can drive to the site with every little money spent. $10 per day gets the message out to several thousand additional people on Facebook. Add in a little in Facebook reserve to push harder on some of the more important stories and we can start boosting exposure dramatically.
  • $625/mo – Graphics. Whether for videos or articles, the need for help from a graphic design perspective is ongoing.
  • $2000/mo – Advertising. Like-minded conservatives, classical liberals, and limited-government federalists need to know about NOQ Report. By advertising on other sites, we not only get to reach more people, but we also get to support sites that can also use financial help.
  • $200/mo – Stock photos. Using the royalty-free sites limits what we can use as artwork and photos for our articles.
  • $525/mo – Stronger server. There have been a few occasions where the site has gone down because we have a good but not great server. To have a server that should be able to handle the load of daily activity plus the occasional story going viral is a bare minimum around $525 per month. Thankfully, this also includes service, so it alleviates the need for an IT person as well.

This started out as a labor of love, but over the last year we’ve been accepted into Google News and have strong followings sharing the content on social media. It’s time for this site to branch out and start making more of an impact on American society, presenting conservative, Christian ideas that this world needs now more than every.

We appreciate all who have helped. It is our hope that our mission of spreading proper conservative and Christian messages to the masses is one our readers share. Please consider donating today.

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report