…and get away with it. Those who live in eternal fear are only replacing the Orange Man with the Gray Man.

Peter VAN BUREN

Tara Reade says Joe Biden once grabbed her privates and demanded sex. Will that change the election in November?

The Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court hearings were a turning point, when the presumption of innocence was thrown out in favor of a new standard, “credible accusation.” Evidence was replaced by #BelieveAllWomen. Praised by Dems and the media as fierce justice then, it’s Biden’s turn now.

Imagine the same type of proceedings directed at him. Amy Klobuchar repeats her accusation that Kavanaugh, er, Biden, is a drunk, with about as little evidence now as then. Senator Dick Durbin demands Biden demand an FBI investigation into himself. Durbin says of Biden, as he did of Kavanaugh, that if he has nothing to hide then he has nothing to fear, a line often attributed to Joseph Goebbels. Kamala Harris goes in as bad cop, righteously shouting down whatever is said to her by Biden. The truth? You can’t handle the truth.

After that show, imagine a second one where Elizabeth Warren, long-shot Biden VP pick Florida Representative Val Demings, Kirsten Gillibrand, Stacey Abrams, and Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer all show up to stand by Biden, not believe Reade, and/or remain silent when asked. Watching people force themselves to support Biden under these conditions is what I imagine the Beach Boys looked like backstage trying to mix Viagra and meth so they could get through “Surfin’ USA” one more time.

To flesh things out, voters could call in to ask those Democratic leaders how the very serious business of #MeToo got turned into just another political tool by the “party of women.” Alyssa Milano, whose take on the Kavanaugh hearings was that she believed all women without the need for due process, could be brought out to explain how now “the notion that this should be disqualifying to Biden in a race against Trump is patently ridiculous. Anybody who claims otherwise is using sexual assault as a political football.”

Well, yes, that is the point. Dems made sexual assault a political football. Problem is now they find themselves on defense for the first time (having successfully ignored in 2016 Bill Clinton’s hands-on approach). One article does what I just don’t have the breath to bother with: pull up exact quotes of what was said about Kavanaugh and his accuser and compare it to what is being said about Biden and Reade. It’d be fun to do the same with the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas hearings.

Unveiled is the total hypocrisy of #MeToo and how self-righteous Dems are when these techniques are used by them rather than against them. Meanwhile, more and more women are realizing that Democratic hypocrisy is setting back women’s rights. Harassment and assault are useful and valid only as political weapons, victims only of use to tee up a media storm. The impact on the election will be…

Sorry. I just can’t do it again. It’s the same thing over and over. Isn’t it obvious? Isn’t the false narrative plain? And isn’t it likely that yet again very few people care? The pattern is beyond obvious, the addition of new player Joe Biden the only change. I can’t get away from it. People believe what they want to.

Instead of writing about Tara Reade, I started writing a story on Politico‘s fully debunked claim that Trump was beholden to the Bank of China because of some loan. That one fell apart faster then I could type it up. Same for a story on how the FBI set up Michael Flynn in an obvious perjury trap. Too many believe the Democrats and MSM when they tell us these things. They are all wrong. So why is anyone believing them now? I am tired of being lied to. I am tired of being manipulated in the most obvious ways. After Kavanaugh, the Democrats simply announcing 

“Biden didn’t do it” is beyond insulting. I am weary of talking people off of the ledge and even more weary of living among people who are convinced they are going to die freedomless in the dark. I am tired of this:

Trump didn’t really win the election.

The economy will descend into a depression after he’s inaugurated.

There is a pee tape.

Trump is a Russian spy, an asset, Putin’s puppet.

Michael Cohen met with the Russians in Prague.

Trump sold out the U.S. to build a hotel in Moscow.

Trump wants to buy Greenland to build a hotel.

Trump left the Saudis off the no-fly Muslim list because he had a hotel there.

Trump will start a war with Iran over moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.

Trump will start a war with Iran over the nuclear treaty.

Trump will start a war with Iran to distract from COVID.

The Kurds will all die in a genocide.

We have to take out Assad or there will be a genocide.

Trump’s trade war with China will bankrupt us.

Trump will start a nuclear war with North Korea.

Trump’s peace overtures with North Korea are dangerous.

Kim Jong-un is dead.

Trump will invade Venezuela.

Trump will withdraw from NATO.

James Comey will change everything.

Robert Mueller will change everything.

Trump obstructed justice.

Trump violated the Emoluments Clause.

SDNY will change everything.

Stormy Daniels will change everything.

Michael Avenatti will run for president after changing everything.

Papadopoulos, Manafort, Flynn, Cohen, will flip and bring down Trump.

Beto, Cory Booker, Mayor Pete, Kamala, AOC, Stacey Abrams are the new Obama.

Diversity is the key to Democratic victory in 2020.

The rule of law ended in America.

Democracy died in America.

It’s Weimar.

It’s the fall of Rome.

Impeachment will end Trump’s time in office.

The 25th Amendment will end Trump’s time in office.

The whistleblower will end Trump’s time in office.

Marie Yovanovitch’s testimony will end Trump’s time in office.

John Bolton’s book will end Trump’s time in office.

The Parkland Kids will change everything.

The Covington Kids are racists.

Trump is going to defund the Post Office to block mail-in ballots so he can steal the election.

Trump is going to fire Mueller, Barr, Rosenstein, Mattis, Jared, Ivanka, Pence, Bolton, Fauci.

The stock market’s historic rise doesn’t matter because most Americans don’t own stock.

The stock market’s historic decline will destroy Trump’s reelection chances.

Trump avoids the press and hasn’t held a briefing in a year.

Networks should not air Trump’s open mic night briefings.

Blocking visitors from China is racist and ineffectual.

People will die if my neighbor doesn’t wear a paper mask but lukewarm delivery food is safe.

People in New York City will die if Starbucks opens but it’s okay for the subway to run.

Two million Americans will die of corona.

There are not enough ventilators, we’re all gonna die.

There is not enough PPE, we’re all gonna die.

If we end the lockdown, we’re all gonna die.

Accountability takes a back seat to agenda. The ends justifies the means but never lead to good.

Hypocrisy just means choosing the lesser of two evils. Maybe that’s the best we deserve in a world where “do your research” means Google something and then accept the first headline you agree with.

“Oh, it’s okay, he beats me less than my previous spouse.” Trump’s hidden taxes are bad but Biden’s hidden Senate papers on Tara Reade are acceptable. Ivanka and China? Hold my Tsingtao beer, says Hunter. “You think I’ve got dementia? You should see the other guy!” Never mind Biden mare-nuzzling women’s hair on numerous occasions. Then there’s Anita Hill. Did being Obama’s VP baptize away those sins?

Same thing in the end, just purposed toward what are sold as radically different ends, Gray Man instead of Orange Man. Choose Joe, he harasses women, gets health draft deferments, plagiarized in law school, cheats on his taxes, is corrupt with his kids’ money, but less. It doesn’t matter what happened to Tara Reade any more than it matters what happened with Russia. It wouldn’t matter if Biden sexually harassed someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue.

I once wrote in reference to the lies we told ourselves about success in the Iraq war that if “b.s. was water we’d all have drowned.” Now it appears that Democrats and the MSM have not only learned to adjust to a new environment like some prehistoric amphibian but are politically wallowing in it—at least prior to choking come November.

theamericanconservative.com

Consider first of all, his flaws as a candidate. He was regularly framed as a “conservative,” but what did that mean in the context of his career? Some of the critics are referring to his time spent as a government lawyer, specifically for the George W. Bush Administration, where he was a supporter of wide executive authority in the context of the war against terror while others point to his decisions and writings during his time as a US Circuit judge from 2006 until the present. That meant essentially that Kavanaugh then supported and apparently continues to support what is now referred to as the John Yoo doctrine, named after the Department of Justice lawyer who penned the memo that made the case for the president to act unilaterally to do whatever is required in national security cases even if there be no direct or immediate threat. Yoo specifically argued that the president, by virtue of his office, is not bound by the War Crimes Act. This theory of government, also more broadly dubbed the unitary executive, was popularized by Yoo, fellow government lawyer Jay Bybee and Eric Posner of the University of Chicago.

For those who find Kavanaugh unacceptable in terms of his judicial philosophy, this repudiation of the constitutional principle of three branches of government that check each other was enough to disqualify him from a position on the Supreme Court, principally as it impacts on both the first and second articles of the constitution by granting to the president the authority to both begin and continue a war on his own recognizance. It also means that the president on his own authority can suspend first and fourth amendment rights to freedom of speech and association as well as freedom from illegal search. He supported, for example, the government’s “right” to conduct mass searches of private data such as was conducted by the NSA. Kavanaugh supports government authority to legitimize incarceration without trial and to order assassinations and torture. Kavanaugh is also on record as favoring limiting the public’s right to use the courts to redress government overreach.

But curiously enough, or perhaps not so curiously, Kavanaugh was treated with kid gloves on those critical issues, basically because both major parties are now supportive of the unitary executive concept even if they would not admit that to be the case. Bill Clinton launched cruise missiles attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan on his own authority and involved the US in a war in the Balkans. George W. Bush did the same in approving torture and expanding the war on terror to Iraq and also globally, while Barack Obama attacked both the Syrian and Libyan governments and assassinated US citizens abroad, all acts of war or war crimes carried out without a congressional declaration of war or without any real pushback by the judiciary.

The failure of Congress to carry out its duty to review Kavanaugh’s ability or lack thereof to interpret the constitution impartially was the more important story line in the confirmation process but it was ignored by the media. The other narrative that ran simultaneously, the purely political attempt made by the Democrats and some Republicans to destroy Kavanaugh as a person through the exploitation of random claims of sexual assault dating from more than thirty-five years ago, was an attempt to discredit the candidate that everyone knew right from the beginning could not be substantiated.

This all means that the important issue of Kavanaugh’s likely comportment as a judge was subjected to too little inquiry while his character as evidenced by tales from his past life received far too much attention. Ironically, the media, which has been frantically searching for an explanation for the breakdown of democracy in the United States, has been pillorying the Russians and more recently the Chinese for outside interference in the process, while ignoring the intense public dissatisfaction with the government it has been allowed to have by the Establishment, which is exemplified by the dystopic reality demonstrated by Kavanaugh. Some Americans would have rejected him based on his merits as a judge, but the case was not clearly made. Many instead came to view him as a victim of a vicious personal campaign and that was apparently enough to win confirmation, at least as reckoned by the calculus of those in Congress who cast the actual votes. In either case, the system failed to produce a good result and we only have our polarized and dysfunctional government to blame for that failure. 

Jonathan H. Adler, Professor at Case Western University School of Law, noted, regarding George W. Bush’s secret policy for the NSA to access everyone’s phone-records, that “The metadata collection program is constitutional (at least according to Judge Kavanaugh),” and he presented Judge Kavanaugh’s entire published opinion on that. Kavanaugh’s opinion stated that the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution could be shoved aside because he thinks that the ‘national security’ of the United States is more important than the Constitution. Kavanaugh wrote:

The Government’s program for bulk collection of 2 telephony metadata serves a critically important special need – preventing terrorist attacks on the United States… In my view, that critical national security need outweighs the impact on privacy occasioned by this program…

The Fourth Amendment allows governmental searches and seizures without individualized suspicion when the Government demonstrates a sufficient “special need” – that is, a need beyond the normal need for law enforcement – that outweighs the intrusion on individual liberty…

In sum, the Fourth Amendment does not bar the Government’s bulk collection of telephony metadata under this program.

Kavanaugh said that since the 4^th Amendment excludes only “unreasonable” searches and seizures (such as seizures of all of this private information from everyone), it doesn’t exclude the “bulk collection of 2 telephony metadata” (collection of both phone numbers in each phone conversation from and/or to anyone in the United States), because a “critical national security need [“preventing terrorist attacks on the United States”] outweighs the impact on privacy occasioned by this program.”

As a consequence, for each American, the US federal Government knows everyone whom you call, and who calls you — it knows all of your phone-contacts — and it does so because everything in the US Constitution can be overridden by any “critical national security need” such as “preventing terrorist attacks” such as occurred on 9/11, which attacks hadn’t at all been enabled by the then-existing lack of such police-state measures here. Kavanaugh’s opinion simply ignored that fact — didn’t even discuss it. Instead of that’s having produced the ‘intelligence failure’, the US Government — especially the US President — prior to 9/11, had refused to allow its agents to inform the US President of the actionable information that they had found and that they were struggling to get to him prior to the attacks. Bush didn’t want to know, until the attacks had already occurred. He demanded deniability.

As regards the reason why this police-state procedure which Kavanaugh backs is needed now, after 9/11 — though it had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks (except for the latter’s having served in far-right-wingers’ propaganda such as Kavanaugh’s opinion, as being the alleged excuse for the ‘intelligence failure’), and though martial law hasn’t yet even been declared in the US — no one has publicly said anything. But is it really “reasonable” that the Government permanently stores all of this telephone-data from everyone, even if a given citizen does not, and in many instances doesn’t get to see it even on the phone-bill? Who actually benefits from this? It’s a severe situation that isn’t seriously being publicly discussed; such discussion is effectively banned in at least all of the major ’news’ media (which pretend to be concerned about protecting citizens’ most-basic rights — and not only about their own).

Judge Kavanaugh was appointed to the US Supreme Court by a President who has threatened to go to war against Russia if Russia follows through with its announced plan to exterminate the Al-Qaeda-led forces in the only province of Syria that is at least 90% in favor of Al Qaeda and/or of ISIS — the province that is well over 90% jihadists and their pre-war supporters; it’s by far the most-jihadist province in all of Syria. Consequently, this alleged opposition to “Radical Islamic Terrorism” on the part of candidate and now US President Donald Trump, the President who appointed Judge Kavanaugh to the highest court in the land, is entirely and blatantly fake. Trump and his allies support Al Qaeda in Syria, just as Obama did.

Three nations have been prominently alleged to have been the secret cause of the 9/11 attacks. One of them is Shiite Iran, which is the only Government that is accused by the US Government, and which the US Government has fined billions of dollars as having been the cause of the 9/11 attacks, even though there’s no credible evidence that Iran had planned those attacks, nor that Iran had financed either the planning or the execution of those attacks. Iran is instead a Government which the US Government had controlled during 1953-1979 and whose US-installed regime of torture became overthrown in 1979 during the Iranian Revolution against the US-installed Iranian regime, at which time both the fundamentalist-Sunni Sauds — the royal family who own Saudi Arabia — and the fundamentalist-Jewish aristocracy who control Israel, declared Iran to be an “existential threat” against themselves; and the US Government has both of those Governments as allies to overthrow this post-US-stooge Government of Iran. 

In 1996, Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud and his friend FBI Director Louis Freeh managed to blame the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia not on the fundamentalist-Sunni US-and-Saudi-created Al Qaeda, which were widely thought to have done it, but instead on Iran, which both the US and Saudi Governments hated; and the retiring Freeh then recommended Robert Mueller to replace himself, and the retiring Robert Mueller recommended James Comey to replace himself, and thus all three FBI Directors endorsed the Saudi accusation against Iran, that Iran was behind the Khobar Towers bombing, even though no reliable evidence has yet been supplied that Iran had had anything at all to do with it. Mueller himself had a long history as the aristocracy’s master of cover-ups designed to misdirect blame either sideways or else downward but always away from the actual culprits and especially away from the culprits at the very top of the given criminal or traitorous operation. He’s the master of ‘investigative’ deception, serving the aristocracy, not the public. Wherever there are aristocratic conflicts to be resolved by lawyers, it’s almost never good guys versus bad guys but almost always monsters versus monsters. The US and its allies are simply bullies who lie, psychopathically.

All recent US Presidents say that “Iran is the top state sponsor of terrorism”, even though (other than against Israel) all or nearly all Islamic terrorism has been perpetrated by fundamentalist Sunnis (such as Saudis), and virtually none by any Shiites at all.

Many Americans who oppose the US Government, but who aren’t intelligent, say that instead Israel caused the 9/11 attacks, even though no reliable evidence has been cited for that allegation, either, and much of the ‘evidence' that is cited for it is fraudulent or otherwise disprovable. Israel (like the Sauds) is an enemy of the American people, but (unlike the Sauds) it didn’t cause 9/11. Osama bin Laden’s financial bagman, when asked where the money came from to pay the “salaries” of all Al Qaeda members, said “Without the money of the — of the Saudi, you will have nothing” of Al Qaeda. 

The evidence is overwhelming that the Sauds financed the 9/11 attacks and that George W. Bush and some of his friends were also involved in it but were careful to make sure they had deniability — ignorance of the advance details — so as not to be able to be nailed for their advance involvement in the arrangements that had been made for the attacks. Bush, of course, relied on a close staff that included not only FBI director Mueller but Brett Kavanaugh, the current Supreme Court nominee by Donald Trump — and Trump had been elected after a Presidential campaign in which he had pretended to loathe the Bushes and their — and Obama’s — policies. Trump overturns the least-bad of Obama’s policies, but is otherwise simply an even bolder fascist than those two Presidents had been.

This is entirely a bipartisan matter — the same US aristocracy controls all American political Parties that have any chance of ruling the nation. For example, the opinion by Judge Kavanaugh was the only opinion that was published from any of the 11 judges though the ruling by the Court was unanimous. Among the ten other judges was the Chief Judge, Merrick Garland, whom President Obama subsequently appointed to the US Supreme Court and the Republicans blocked from being considered by the full Senate. President Obama was a defendant in this particular case, and all 11 judges on it ruled in his favor. If the Chief Judge had been the lone one to rule against him, then perhaps the Chief Judge (Garland) would not have been appointed (exactly four months later, on 16 March 2016) by the President to the Supreme Court. Garland was rejected by the Republicans because the President who appointed him labeled himself with the competing brand. The minor differences between US Supreme Court judges nowadays are the differences that separate the two political brands, not actually differences in basic beliefs or values, though the propaganda by the competing brands pretends to basic differences between them. Anyone who opposes the existing secret rule by the aristocracy won’t even be appointed, much less confirmed. This is today’s American ‘democracy’. 

So, clearly, just as the US regime and its ‘news’ media had lied to say that Saddam Hussein needed to be eliminated because he possessed and was building up “WMD” and even nuclear weapons; and just as Muammar Qaddafi was similarly slaughtered on the basis of US-and-allied lies; and just as those and other US invasions — such as in Syria and in Yemen — have made America and the world vastly worse-off except for the US weapons-makers such as Lockheed Martin and the other US ‘Defense’ Department’s contractors and the US extraction firms such as ExxonMobil and Halliburton which gained new sources of lands to strip of their natural resources by means of such military invasions, the biggest threat to US national security is the US Government itself — and especially its military, which spends around half of the entire world’s military budget each year. 

As part of this growing US police-state, every phone call that anyone in the US participates in is information that this regime has (since 9/11) been collecting on that individual. We are all ‘national security’ suspects, now. The US Government isn’t only the chief enemy of Iraqis, and of Libyans, and of Syrians, and of Iranians, and of Yemenis, and of Afghans, and of Russians, and of Chinese, etc.; it is also the chief enemy of the American people (though it doesn’t cause us hell like it causes the residents in those target-countries). And it is the chief enemy of Europeans, too. More recently, the US Government has, in effect, even declared economic war against Europe.

President Barack Obama said, and repeated many times, that the United States is “the one indispensable nation” — meaning that all others are “dispensable.” Adolf Hitler had said essentially the same thing about Germany; and, like recent US Presidents, he acted accordingly. Today’s US Government is the enemy of FDR’s US Government, and is not only the enemy of America’s Founders, in these and so many other basic matters. Today’s America is the fascist United States Government. All “dispensable” countries deal with that top fascist one, in whatever way the given nation’s aristocracy chooses to deal with it. Most aristocracies choose to share, however they can, in the Empire’s (the US aristocracy’s) loot from this military, propaganda, and extraction, system. But some other “dispensable” nations resist the US aristocracy. And some others are quiet, on the sidelines, for as long as they can be there, to avoid their becoming targets themselves. Dealing with such a bully is difficult for everyone.

Photo: Twitter

American feminists have finally broken the spirit of the American white heterosexual male. I have been watching for some time the American male, or what little is left of him, meekly accept feminists’ definitions of words and male behavior.

First the feminists turned the male respect for, and politeness toward, women, respect inculcated into my generation, into “sexism.” Today men no longer stand when a woman enter’s a room, and they don’t open doors for them unless it is an elderly and feeble relative. Feminists insisted on getting women off the pedestal and into the rough and tumble world of men.

Feminists also pushed the sexual revolution, especially Cosmopolitan magazine, until women became as sexually promiscuous as men. As sex became casual and as the constraints on male behavior toward women were discredited as “sexist,” boundaries became blurred, and there is plenty of room for confusion. University student sex codes acknowledge the confusion. We see it in the requirements that the male must ask permission for each piece of female clothing he removes from his willing partner.

All of this was entirely the work of feminists.

But today it is the feminist redefinition of words and their substitution of feelings for factual evidence that catch men off guard. What convinced me that the era of the male is over is what just happened to University of Massachusettes football coach Mark Whipple. On paper Whipple does not have the profile of a whimp. He was a NFL assistant coach. He led UMass to five winning seasons, elevated the team to the highest level of Division I, and garnered for UMass a Division I-AA national title.

Last Saturday he unknowingly undid himself when outraged by what he saw as a non-penalty call on pass interference that he thought cost UMass the game, he said: “we had a chance and they rape us.”

All hell broke lose. Whipple was publicly denounced by UMass athletic director Ryan Bamford, a male trained to jump through feminist hoops:

“On behalf of our department, I deeply apologize for the comments made by head coach Mark Whipple on Saturday after our game at Ohio. His reference to rape was highly inappropriate, insensitive and inexcusable under any circumstance.”

Whipple groveled:

“I am deeply sorry for the word I used on Saturday to describe the play in our game. It is unacceptable to make use of the word ‘rape’ in the way I did and I am very sorry for doing so. It represents a lack of responsibility on my part as a leader of the program and a member of this university’s community, and I am disappointed with myself that I made this comparison when commenting after our game.”

What are we to make of this? Have feminists appropriated the definition of rape to mean only what they say it means: male sexual abuse (undefined) of women? If a male uses the word in any of its other senses, why does he have to grovel and beg forgiveness?

Whipple is a football coach, not an English professor who could have come up with a word better fitting Whipple’s outrage. Nevertheless, “rape” has meanings other than forced sexual penetration of a female. For example, the Oxford English Dictionary gives this meaning:

“The wanton destruction or spoiling of a place: the rape of the countryside.”

There are a number of book titles that use “rape” in the sense of “ruin,” “despoil.” For example:

The Rape of Europa: The Fate of Europe’s Treasures in the Third Reich and the Second World War by Lynn H. Nicholas

The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art by Roger Kimball

Are we now to expect scholars Lynn Nicholas and Roger Kimball to grovel like Whipple in the face of feminist tyranny?

I suppose so.

Compare Whipple’s public rebuke by his boss, his abject apology, and his temporary suspension from his job for using correctly a word with no intention of offending anyone with Georgetown University associate professor Christine Fair, who intended to offend the Senate Judiciary Committee with her tweeted outrage about Kavanaugh:

“Look at this chorus of entitled white men justifying a serial rapist’s arrogated entitlement. 
All of them deserve miserable deaths while feminists laugh as they take their last gasps. Bonus: we castrate their corpses and feed them to swine? Yes.”

There are a number of sources for this extraordinary quote:

dailycaller.com/2018/10/01/georgetown-christine-fair-white-men-swine/

https://www.dailywire.com/news/36532/georgetown-professor-says-white-republicans-should-joseph-curl

https://www.foxnews.com/us/georgetown-professor-says-white-gop-senators-deserve-miserable-deaths-after-kavanaugh-hearing

https://www.thecollegefix.com/georgetown-professor-calls-for-white-male-republican-senators-to-suffer-miserable-deaths-and-be-castrated/

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/georgetown-wont-discipline-professor-who-wants-to-castrate-corpses-of-white-men-and-feed-them-to-swine/

Did professor Fair get sent to sensitivity training? Of course not. Georgetown University quickly rushed to her defense on freedom of speech grounds. In universities, free speech is only denied to heterosexual males and football coaches.

Linger a bit with Professor Fair. A professor is supposed to be a scholar with respect for facts and evidence, but all Christine Fair is capable of is an outburst of blind hatred. She has no way of knowing who is telling the truth. Clearly the charge is a political one even if true. The Senate Judiciary Committee permitted Kavanaugh’s accuser to present her case. To protect the female accuser from being questioned by male senators, the committee hired a female attorney to question the accuser. The female attorney concluded that Kavanaugh’s accuser did not have a case that could be prosecuted.

What does this tell us about Christine Fair. It tells us that the only reason that a person who relies on emotion instead of evidence is a tenured member of the Georgetown University faculty is that she is female and was hired in place of several dozen better qualified males to fill a female quota.

As I have written so often, the American population is insouciant, and that word is an euphemism. They have no awareness of what is happening in front of their eyes as they are eased into a mindset that accepts as fact that the male/female relationship is one of male abuse of the female. Try to imagine what it is like for a male to have a female boss who has been brainwashed by feminism. Try to imagine what it is like for a male to have female subordinates (or colleagues). His very survival depends on many things, such as having the Human Resource Department evaluate the females’ job performance. Even at this distance, most likely the task would have to be performed by a female.

Female accusation of male abuse is now a powerful political, social and personal weapon. We currently have a porn star accusing President Trump of having consensual sex with her. Why is she doing this? She has already been paid off. Are her ratings dropping? Is this for notoriety? Is she being paid as part of the military/industrial complex/Democratic Party/feminist attack on Trump?

Look at what has happened to Judge Kavanaugh once he was nominated to the Supreme Court. A woman appears. She partially remembers an incident of three or four decades ago in an unchaparoned home where teenagers were drinking, what house and where it was she does not remember, but she remembers a drunk Kavanaugh throwing her on a bed and tussling with her fully clothed.

She wasn’t raped. She wasn’t injured. The question totally uninteresting to feminists is: “What was she, a 15-year old, doing there?”

By the 1980s teenage females in unchaperoned houses with teenage males with harmones on full boil and alcohol present were assumed to be sexually available. Why else were they there? Were her parents uninterested in her whereabouts? Did she lie to her parents about where she was going?

But to raise such obvious questions is proof that you are a misogynist. Females bear no fault. Only males.

The main problem with feminism is that it is so totally unscientific that it must assault science. At the University of Durham in the UK, where I was once in distant times interviewed for an appointment, a male has been punished for re-tweeting an article that states that females do not have a penis.

Such a factual statement goes against the feminist ideology that there are no differences between women and men—not even physical differences. In Sweden a professor is being investigated for saying in a lecture that there are anatomical and biological differences between men and women. A feminist student objected, and so a professor of neurophysiology is being held accountable for stating a scientific fact.

Anyone who does not realize that feminists are crazed far beyond the meaning of the word crazy, should read this:

“A Swedish university is investigating a professor for ‘anti-feminism’ and ‘transphobia’ after he said there are biological differences between men and women. He is being urged to retract his comments.”

In the assault on Kavanaugh, we are witnessing an Identity Politics assault on the White Heterosexual Male, an assault whose purpose is less to block Kavanaugh than to discourage white heterosexual males from standing for office as it is so easy for feminists to ruin a man’s reputation. The plan is to put the “victim groups” of the white male in office so that retribution can be handed out to white males in keeping with feminist professor Christine Fair’s agenda of killing them, castrating their dead bodies and feeding them to swine.

Perhaps white males have understood this. You see them increasingly with Asian and Hispanic women, not with white women who are increasingly seen with black men. In another generation or two, perhaps the white ethnicities will have disappeared.

Then to whom will Identity Politics assign the hated role?

paulcraigroberts.org

The Red and the Blue: The 1990s and the Birth of Political Tribalism, by Steve Kornacki, Ecco / HarperCollins, 496 pages

Our semi-civil civil war continues unabated. Changing demographics remain a flash point, and the country’s cultural divides are as explosive as ever. The looming midterm elections and the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court are the latest installments in our ongoing scrum. Red and blue are no longer mere colors, but the war paints of choice of America’s dueling tribes.

Into the fray jumps NBC’s Steve Kornacki and The Red and the Blue, a smart and welcome take on U.S. politics over the past two decades. Kornacki traces how we arrived at we where we at to the 1990s, with Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich playing outsized and starring roles.

The Red and the Blue treats Clinton’s 1992 win and Gingrich’s ascension to House Speakership as pivotal moments in a decade marked outwardly by peace and prosperity, but with combustible waters bubbling to the surface in the face of political strains.

In the aftermath of the Los Angeles riots, Sister Souljah, a teenage recording artist and activist, had told the Washington Post in a May 1992 interview, “If black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people?” Clinton adroitly seized the moment, telling her off, and came November he pocketed the electoral votes of Georgia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Arkansas, and West Virginia, states that have now become reliably Republican.

Looking in the rear view mirror, 1988 has now emerged as the last time a non-incumbent Republican actually won the popular vote. By the same measure, however, in neither of his presidential bids did Clinton ever garner a majority. America’s emerging divisions were coming into focus.

Specifically, his first time out, Clinton managed to score only 43 percent of the electorate in a three-way race that included Ross Perot. Four years later, running against a “snake-bitten” Bob Dole and Perot for a second time, Clinton still couldn’t break the 50 percent barrier.

Rather, his candidacy remained a fusion of graduate degree holders and minority voters, coupled with a significant number of working and middle class whites. Clinton remained an anathema to religious conservatives even if he frequently attended church.

Enter Newt Gingrich, an army brat, small college history professor, and conservative trend-threader. Kornacki tells Gingrich’s story too, namely how a Republican backbencher galvanized a party that had spent nearly 40 years as a permanent congressional minority into a focused force, with Gingrich at its helm until he could hold the speaker’s gavel no more.

In Kornacki’s telling, Gingrich grasped the tectonic shifts that undergirded American politics and technology early on, and embraced the politics of contrast. No longer would the congressional GOP be an enclave of well-mannered Midwestern Rotarians. Instead, the Republican Caucus would eagerly embrace the role of ideological bomb-throwers, self-styled revolutionaries in a war against liberals and the welfare state, with Rush Limbaugh providing the marching music. Fox News would come later in 1996, two years after Gingrich’s 1994 Republican Revolution.

When George H.W. Bush broke his convention vow of “no new taxes,” Gingrich refused to provide the head of his own party with political cover. When Ken Starr supplied congressional Republicans with ammunition to impeach President Clinton, Gingrich, the congressional GOP, and the Republican base eagerly drank from the poisoned chalice—even as it ended an ethically-addled Gingrich’s congressional career and to Republican defeat in the 1998 midterms, a historic rarity for the “out party” in the sixth year of a presidency. A die for the future had been cast.

The Red and the Blue also captures the other players and hot-button issues that shape the politics of our day. The author recounts Pat Buchanan’s three unsuccessful presidential bids between 1992 and 2000. In the process, Buchanan bloodied a sitting president, scored several primary victories against the hapless Dole, and helped drive Republican platforms to the right. But Buchanan’s greatest accomplishment was in sounding the very themes that Donald Trump would come to voice on his road to the presidency: restrictive immigration and trade. America First.

Kornacki also notes Trump’s prior disdain for Buchanan in the context of the 2000 presidential contest where Buchanan ran on the Reform Party line. At the time, Trump and Buchanan both contemplated running for the party’s nomination. Back then, Trump was decidedly pro-choice, and bashed Buchanan for his take on World War II. Fast forward and Trump has left much of that behind, embracing the right and counting many of the the same Buchananite paleo-conservatives as his supporters.

The NRA and the gun debate also get their due. The book recounts how the Oklahoma City bombing helped restore Clinton’s luster after losing both houses of congress in the 1994 midterms. Clinton drew a straight line between the bombers, the Right and the NRA, earning votes from Cheever Country and soccer moms in the process. While the issue did nothing for President Obama and the Democrats in the late 2000’s, after a spate of mass shootings in 2018, high-end suburbia may be looking for more controls in the aftermath.  How will this translate at the polls next month?

Fittingly, The Red and the Blue ends by circling back to Gingrich and Clinton. Kornacki correctly observes that Gingrich was “half right” when he predicted that “definition and contrast” would drive the Republicans’ future. What he didn’t count on was that it would do the same for the Democrats.

As for the Clintons, they abandoned Arkansas, never to return. Instead, “Chappaqua, a tony suburb of New York City would be their new home. Like their party they could see where their future was.” But as the 2016 election teaches us, that’s not enough for the Democrats to get to 270. There’s the whole rest of America out there.  

theamericanconservative.com

The media, Congress, and the American people continue to fix to their attention on Brett Kavanaugh and today’s hearings regarding allegations of sexual assault and harassment against him. While these are serious issues and should not be taken lightly, there are numerous other developments that are falling by the wayside as the national conversation remains preoccupied with the Supreme Court nominee.

1. House of Representatives Sneakily Moves to Expand the Patriot Act: In a bill presented as an effort to fight human trafficking, legislators are working to reinforce the basic foundations of the post-9/11 surveillance legislation. Rep. Justin Amash, a staunch civil liberties advocate, tweeted that the “Empowering Financial Institutions to Fight Human Trafficking Act” is “a disguised effort to expand the #PatriotAct.” As Reason explained, the bill “would allow financial institutions, federal regulatory bodies, nonprofit organizations, and law enforcement to share customer bank records between them without running afoul of rules regarding consumer privacy and without opening themselves up to lawsuits.” It mirrors Section 314 of the Patriot Act, which addresses “matters specifically related to the finances of terrorist groups, the means by which terrorist groups transfer funds around the world and within the United States, including through the use of charitable organizations, nonprofit organizations, and nongovernmental organizations, and the extent to which financial institutions in the United States are unwittingly involved in such finances and the extent to which such institutions are at risk as a result.” The bill passed the House on Wednesday.

2. National Security Adviser John Bolton Threatens Iran: In another show of the neoconservatism John Bolton is known for, he warned Iran this week that if the country crosses the United States there will be harsh consequences. At the United Nations General Assembly in New York, he said: “If you cross us, our allies, or our partners; if you harm our citizens; if you continue to lie, cheat, and deceive, yes, there will indeed be hell to pay.” He aggressively said, “Let my message today be clear: We are watching, and we will come after you.” The U.S. re-imposed sanctions on Iran this summer after pulling out of the 2015 nuclear accord, which Iran and other signatories vowed to stay committed to.

3. China Warns Against Growing “Cold War” Mentality: Also at the United Nations meeting in New York this week, Chinese State Councillor Wang Yi said: “China and the United States can have competition, but should not use a Cold War mentality to view each other, and nor should they slip into the trap of a zero-sum game.” Wang was meeting with former secretary of state for Richard Nixon (and war criminal) Henry Kissinger, who has enjoyed great influence over presidents throughout the decades. Wang complained of the U.S.’ “blackening [of] China’s name, creating [an] antagonistic feeling, which has caused serious harm to the atmosphere of Sino-U.S. ties.” A Chinese state-run paper said this week that the United States planned arms sales to Taiwan, as well as its continued tariffs on Chinese imports, makes one wonder if the American government’s goal is “to permanently damage Sino-US relations,” which continue to deteriorate under President Trump.

4. Congress Works to Approve $850 Billion in New Spending, Mostly Military: Lawmakers just passed the National Defense Authorization Act, approving hundreds of billions of dollars for military spending, but this week they also moved to supply further funds (whereas the NDAA “directs policy and spending plans for the military,” Stripes.com explained, the current defense appropriations bill “is what actually moves money to the Pentagon.”) The funds will go to “the largest boost to servicemembers’ pay in nearly a decade and new gains in the number of troops, equipment, and weapons for the 2019 fiscal year.” The proposed $670 billion for military spending is part of a broader bill to fund $850 billion in government programs, including education and labor. The bill passed the House and Senate and has been presented to the president.

5. Los Angeles International Airport Will Now Allow Travelers to Bring Their Weed: Less than a year after California’s cannabis legalization went into effect, LAX announced this week it will allow travelers to bring up to 28.5 grams of marijuana and eight grams of concentrated marijuana with them through the airport. Though the TSA, a federal entity, can still turn people with cannabis away because the plant remains illegal at the federal level, they will not confiscate cannabis products as long as they are within the state’s legal limits. The new policy reflects continually evolving attitudes on cannabis and the federal government’s inability to contain its popularity and use.

* * *

Claims of sexual harassment against Brett Kavanaugh and the selection of a Supreme Court Justice are highly relevant. But as the media’s obsessive focus remains fixed on these developments, it is always important to keep in mind the other, all-encompassing power structures that continue to forge ahead full throttle, from war to geopolitical developments (and, sometimes, even good news).

theantimedia.com

As expected, the corporate media’s coverage of Brett Kavanaugh’s appointment process is disappointingly superficial. While there’s no doubt sexual harassment is a pressing issue in modern-day America, left-leaning establishment outlets and individuals alike are mired in these accusations, as well as partisan political divides as they fail to recognize Kavanaugh’s very troublesome record of court rulings—rulings that show his verifiable proclivity toward using the government to very literally harass the American people and the rest of the world.

While Congress and the people bicker over their disagreements with Kavanaugh as he testifies, few are discussing what he has in common with both factions of the American ruling class.

The ACLU compiled a report.

The ACLU compiled a report in August detailing his many troublesome perspectives, highlighting his past decisions on surveillance, free speech, presidential and congressional war powers, and as a result, the overarching iron fist of government power that few care to challenge, choosing instead to fight for control of the institution at large.

As the ACLU summarized in its “Report of the American Civil Liberties Union on the Nomination of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh To Be Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court”:

“[Kavanaugh’s] record shows his extreme deference to presidential war power and national security claims, an unwillingness to enforce international law absent express incorporation by the political branches, and a tendency to find obstacles to holding government officials accountable for constitutional and human rights abuses in national security cases.”

One of the greatest constitutional violations since 9/11 has been the U.S. government’s denial of fair trials and redress over government violations of rights within the justice system. Kavanaugh has encouraged these encroachments. In the 2015 case Meshal v. Higgenbotham, Kavanaugh moved to deny “a remedy to an American citizen detained and abused by FBI agents overseas,” siding with security over freedom, claiming that giving the American citizen in question his constitutional rights might undermine efforts to fight terrorism.

In a 2009 case, Saleh v. Titan, he asserted military contractors cannot be held liable to human rights abuses as long as they are acting under the authority of the U.S. military. There is ample evidence of these abuses, but Kavanaugh does not believe in holding government affiliates accountable. Similarly, in the same ruling, he asserted that “government contractors [are] immune from torture claims brought under the [Alien Tort Statute] when the contractors operate under the control of the U.S. military.” The military’s violent authority trumps all.

In 2008, he sided with the executive branch on war powers. Kavanaugh wrote in the ruling for Harbury v. Hayden that “courts cannot review allegations of executive branch wrongdoing if the claims challenge national security or foreign affairs decisions.”

In still another case, El-Shifa Pharmaceutical Industries Co. v. United States (2010), he showed his “inclination to dismiss cases alleging government misconduct where national security or foreign affairs are at issue.”

He has also opined that the U.S. government’s war powers are free from the constraints of international law and that international treaties can be ignored if U.S. courts “construe statutes, at least when related to war powers.” Further, he has asserted that while the U.S. should technically respect international law, the courts have no power to make the government comply with it. That decision should be left to the president and Congress (most of us know how they’ve handled their war powers).

Regarding “continued detention” pursuant to the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, Kavanaugh went so far as to acknowledge in 2013’s Ali v. Obama that “this is a long war with no end in sight,” but still decided “it is not the Judiciary’s proper role to devise a novel detention standard that varies with the length of detention.”

Kavanaugh’s prompted another judge to claim the current Supreme Court nominee had stretched the meaning of the AUMF so far that some habeas corpus rulings were “functionally useless.” Similarly, as the ACLU observed, Kavanaugh has “joined or written numerous D.C. Circuit opinions that have turned judicial habeas review of Guantánamo detention into a virtual rubber stamp.”

His record on free speech is less atrocious than his reverence for authoritarian war powers, protecting government corruption and violence, and denying justice to citizens and noncitizens alike. Nonetheless, he has been known to side with suppressing speech on some occasions. As the ACLU report explains:

“His jurisprudence suggests that, where the precedent is clear, he faithfully applies the law. Where the case law offers ambiguity, however, he has shown a willingness to restrict speech rights.”

With regard to government spying, in Klayman v. Obama in 2015, he disturbingly said the “suspicionless mass collection of Americans’ call records is ‘entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment.’” Further, he said: “The Government’s collection of telephony metadata from a third party such as a telecommunications service provider is not considered a search under the Fourth Amendment”—and that even if bulk collection did constitute a search, such searches are totally reasonable.

He is also supportive of America’s growing police state. In the 2007 ruling United States v. Askew, he sided in favor of police stop-and-frisk tactics, another violation of the 4^th amendment. In another broad show of support of police powers, he endorses qualified immunity, which is used to exempt “government officials from liability for constitutional rights violations where their actions are not clearly unconstitutional.” This concept has been used by the Supreme Court to let a police officer who shot a woman in her own yard off the hook, setting further precedents to prevent police accountability. Though he opposes “absolute immunity,” his support for a concept that already limits government responsibility is troublesome on its own – and is consistent with rulings regarding the government’s war powers.

The national conversation about Kavanaugh is obsessively focused on sexual harassment allegations and his views on traditional partisan divides like women’s rights and healthcare. While these are not unimportant issues, it is painfully telling that few are concerned about the exact same issues both the left and right agree upon that amount to verifiable harassment — by the government against the American people and victims of his war machine.

Will Congress be questioning Kavanaugh on mass surveillance? Doubtful, considering they continue to pass legislation to enable it. Will they question him about his endorsement of unrestrained executive and legislative war powers? Again, doubtful given their unrelenting warmongering and commitment to spending taxpayer dollars on their crumbling empire. As Congress continues to violate the people’s rights while feigning concern for their well-being—and as the media routinely fails to inform the public of these incremental erosions of their freedoms and liberties, it’s no surprise the country at large remains unconcerned about Kavanaugh’s authoritarian record on war powers and surveillance or his dubious commitment to free speech and holding domestic law enforcement accountable.

theantimedia.com

The campaign to overturn the 2016 election and bring down President Trump shifted into high gear this week.

Inspiration came Saturday morning from the altar of the National Cathedral where our establishment came to pay homage to John McCain.

Gathered there were all the presidents from 1993 to 2017—Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama—along with Vice Presidents Al Gore and Dick Cheney; Secretaries of State Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and Henry Kissinger; the leaders of both houses of Congress; and too many generals and admirals to list.

Striding to the pulpit, Obama delivered a searing indictment of the man undoing his legacy. “So much of our politics, our public life, our public discourse can seem small and mean and petty,” he said, “trafficking in bombast and insult and phony controversies and manufactured outrage. …It’s a politics that pretends to be brave and tough but in fact is born of fear.”

Speakers praised McCain’s willingness to cross party lines, but Democrats took away a new determination: from here on out, confrontation!

Tuesday morning, as Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court began, Democrats disrupted the proceedings and demanded immediate adjournment, as scores of protesters shouted and screamed.

Taking credit for orchestrating the disruption, Senator Dick Durbin boasted, “What we’ve heard is the noise of democracy.”

But if mob action to shut down a Senate hearing is the noise of democracy, this may explain why many countries are taking a new look at the authoritarian rulers who can at least deliver a semblance of order.

Wednesday came leaks in the Washington Post from Bob Woodward’s new book, attributing to Chief of Staff John Kelly and General James Mattis crude remarks on the president’s intelligence, character, and maturity, and describing the Trump White House as a “crazytown” led by a fifth or sixth grader.

Kelly and Mattis both denied making the comments.

Thursday came an op-ed in the New York Times by an anonymous “senior official” claiming to be a member of the “resistance…working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his [Trump’s] agenda.”

A pedestrian piece of prose that revealed nothing about Trump one cannot read or hear daily in the media, the op-ed nonetheless caused a sensation, but only because Times editors decided to give the disloyal and seditious Trump aide who wrote it immunity and cover to betray his or her president.

The transaction served the political objectives of both parties.

While the Woodward book may debut at the top of the New York Times bestseller list, and “Anonymous,” once ferreted out and fired, will have his or her 15 minutes of fame, what this portends is not good.

For what is afoot here is something America specializes in—regime change. Only the regime our establishment and media mean to change is the government of the United States. What is afoot is the overthrow of America’s democratically elected head of state.

The methodology is familiar. After a years-long assault on the White House and president by a special prosecutor’s office, the House takes up impeachment, while a collaborationist press plays its traditional supporting role.

Presidents are wounded, disabled, or overthrown, and Pulitzers all around.

No one suggests Richard Nixon was without sin in trying to cover up the Watergate break-in. But no one should delude himself into believing that the overthrow of that president, not two years after he won the greatest landslide in U.S. history, was not an act of vengeance by a hate-filled city for offenses it had covered up or brushed under the rug in the Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Johnson years.

So where are we headed?

If November’s elections produce, as many have predicted, a Democratic House, there will be more investigations of President Trump than any man charged with running the U.S. government may be able to manage.

There is the Mueller investigation into “Russiagate” that began before Trump was inaugurated. There is the investigation into his business and private life before he became president in the Southern District of New York. There is the investigation into the Trump Foundation by New York State.

There will be investigations by House committees into alleged violations of the Emoluments Clause. And ever present will be platoons of journalists ready to report on the leaks from all of these investigations.

Then, if the media coverage can drive Trump’s polls low enough, will come the impeachment investigation and the regurgitation of all that went before.

If Trump has the stamina to hold on, and the Senate remains Republican, he may survive, even as Democrats divide between a rising militant socialist left and a septuagenarian caucus led by Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Kerry, and Nancy Pelosi.

2019 looks to be the year of bellum omnium contra omnes, the war of all against all. Entertaining, for sure, but how many more of these coups d’etat can the Republic sustain before a new generation says enough of all this?

theamericanconservative.com