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.

0

Guns and Crime

Attend the 2nd Amendment Rally: November 2, 2019

Published

on

By

Attend the 2nd Amendment Rally November 2 2019

2A Rally Flyer

Join us in Washington, DC on November 2nd, 2019 and let your voice be heard: Rally for Your Rights!

A group of grassroots activists will be holding a 2nd Amendment Rally: November 2, 2019, on the Capitol Lawn in Washington D.C.

All of our unalienable human rights are under attack, beginning with the 2nd amendment by people who only pretend to be liberal and in favor of liberty. It’s time to show the liberty grabber leftists that we have had enough of their attacks on our freedom.

About the 2nd Amendment Rally [From the Rally website]

If you value your constitutional right to bear arms, the right to defend yourself, and if you value the lives of the men and women who have died to keep those rights intact, now is the time to take a stand. Join us in Washington, DC on November 2nd, 2019 and let your voice be heard.

We are at a critical time in our nation’s history, and right now, the country needs the Gun Lobby more than ever.

You Are the Gun Lobby!

The Second Amendment Rally is a grassroots event, organized and funded by grassroots activists, open to all supporters of the Constitution and lovers of liberty.

Current Announced Speakers (More to be announced!)

  • Eric Blandford (IV8888)
  • Craig Deluz (FPC)
  • Dianna Muller (DC Project)
  • Jonathan Patton (TGC)
  • Mike Sodini (WTTA)
  • Chris Cheng (Topshot)
  • Joshua Prince (Lawyer)
  • Erich Pratt (GOA)
  • Kevin Dixie (NOC)
  • Kenn Blanchard (Black Man with a Gun)
  • Gabby Franco (competitive shooter)
  • Cheryl Todd (Gun Freedom Radio)
  • Matt Larosiere (Firearms Policy Coalition)
  • Maj Toure (Black Guns Matter)
  • Rob Pincus (2nd Amendment Organization)
  • Jeff Knox (Firearms Coalition)
  • Anthony Colandro (Gun For Hire)

Date & Location
Rally for the Second, on the second!

The 2nd Amendment Rally will take place on Saturday, November 2nd, 2019 in Washington, DC. The rally begins in front of the Capitol Building at 1PM.

Hotels, lodging, and parking are readily available throughout the greater Washington, DC and surrounding areas. Use the address below for your GPS.

United States Capitol
First St SE
Washington, DC 20004

What Can I Do?

  • Attend the 2nd Amendment Rally in Washington, DC on November 2nd 2019!
  • Make your voice heard!
  • Fight for your right to defend yourself before it is too late!
  • Be part of history, and help secure the Blessings of Liberty for ourselves and posterity.
  • Join thousands of your fellow patriots, to tell Congress to obey the constraints of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
  • Follow all relevant laws in regard to the transport and/or carry of firearms in relation to this event.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Media

CNN insider Cary Poarch exposes more than bias and corruption in Project Veritas video

Published

on

CNN insider Cary Poarch

Patriots have grown accustomed to Project Veritas exposing the truth about the left, whether it’s Democratic politicians, big tech influencers, or media bias. Their latest exposé with CNN insider Cary Poarch is another eye-opening revelation that the “truth” CNN pretends to spread is pure anti-Trump rhetoric prompted by an unhinged chief executive, Jeff Zucker.

Watch the video from start to finish. While doing so, take note of something important that should be highlighted as a major takeaway from the this exposé. Yes, we see the bias. There is clearly corruption that starts from the top and works its way down as a concerted effort to reverse the results of the 2016 election. But there’s another important takeaway: Many of the journalists and other employees at CNN are not happy about the direction their network is taking.

Just about everyone caught on hidden camera was not pleased with President Trump’s election, but not all of them were unhinged partisans. They expressed dissatisfaction with the way the network has turned into anti-Trump 24/7 while they longed for more objective, unbiased, and truthful reporting. It seemed like many wish the outcome from 2016 was different, but they weren’t pleased with being forced to throw away any semblance of journalistic integrity for the sake of what some categorized as a personal vendetta against President Trump by Zucker.

What makes it worse for them is the subterfuge that’s used. One noted how Sean Hannity is unapologetic in his support for Trump but doesn’t pretend like he’s a news reporter. Don Lemon was called out or being disingenuous, pretending to be unbiased while clearly hating the President and reporting the news with this hatred on display.

While the vast majority of our own readership is conservative, we occasionally get called out for being a “Conservative and Christian News Outlet.” Like Hannity, we do not shy away from our ideology or pretend to be unbiased, but even we get readers who tell us they would prefer to simply read or hear the news without filters. That’s not part of our charter, but we agree that those who claim to be simply “reporting” the news should definitely do so without filters.

This first video in the Project Veritas series couldn’t have come at a more important time as trust in the media is waning. As the fourth estate gets exposed for its own corruption, perhaps more people will realize we must think for ourselves.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Media

ABC News claims gun range footage is ‘Turkey’s military bombing Kurd civilians’

Published

on

ABC News claims gun range footage is Turkeys military bombing Kurd civilians

Mainstream media wonders why conservatives call them “fake news.” It doesn’t take the President pointing it out anymore for us to see their dishonest ways. ABC News is the latest propaganda machine attacking the President, this time trying to manipulate the public by using 2016 gun range footage as an example of Turkey’s military bombing civilians in eastern Syria.

The President has been criticized from people on the right and left when the White House announced last week America would be pulling troops back from the Syrian-Turkish border. This move allowed Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to conduct the invasion he’s long sought into eastern Syria to attack the Kurdish forces he believes are assisting Kurdish terrorists in his country. He also intends to establish a “safe zone” 20-miles into Syrian territory along a 300-mile stretch where he can return nearly two million Syrian refugees who have been living in Turkey since the Syrian civil war.

Reports of attacks by the Turkish military as well as their Syrian opposition force proxies on Kurdish cities and villages have prompted the President and many in Congress to work on harsh sanctions against the Middle Eastern nation. But media reports continue to paint the picture in a much worse light than it really is.

Here’s the original video from 2016:

Now, let’s take a look at the report from ABC News:

Here’s the full ABC News report, if you can stomach the lies:

As you can see, it’s the same video, edited to make it less obvious that it’s a show put on with an audience watching in the foreground. This despicable false news report has one purpose: To rally opposition to President Trump. The worst part is they can issue a retraction or correction sometime later, but that retraction will only be seen by a small percentage of people who watched the original report. There will be countless people today walking around believing the alleged slaughter they saw today was a video from within Syria.

It’s no wonder the President has called the media his biggest obstacle to winning reelection.

If ABC News made a mistake, then their incompetence is startling. If they did it on purpose (and with the edits to the video, that seems to be the case), then they’re an outright evil group of bald-faced liars pretending to report the news.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending