Anger and Hate are NOT the Voice of America

The Democrats are consumed by anger and hate.  Anger seems to be all they know; hate is all they can do. 

This became fully apparent following the 2016 election when they did not get the prize to which they thought they were entitled, but their hatred was there before.  Hillary was not the first to disparage those who she and other Democrats felt were somehow beneath them. Beyond her basket of deplorables we can remember Obama and his supporters dismissing middle American values as if they were something left over from the dark ages.

But, once Donald Trump was elected President, the Democrats’ anger and hatred have become overwhelming.  The Democrats are unable to understand even the possibility that the people could elect someone other than them when they are so confident that they are smarter and better than the rest of us and therefore should be given power over us.  So, since that is an impossibility, since the end result – their lack of power – is in their minds clearly incorrect, then they will use any means to correct that end while at the same time feeding their insatiable anger.

So, we had (still have) Russia-gate, proven to be a witch hunt; we have had (still have) attempts to find one or another scandal, still unsuccessful; we continually have name calling (racist, white supremacist, Nazi, etc.) without evidence of the epithet; we have daily spin on everything the President does to make it seem somehow negative or, if impossible to create a negative spin then credit is given to any and everyone other than the President. 

The anger and hatred are not directed exclusively at the President.  Any and all of his supporters are fair game.  Not just those who work within his administration, but the common person on the street who seems to be a supporter of the President or his policies is a possible target for the Democrats’ hate.  Those who are still brave enough to exercise their free speech rights and do such things as wear a MAGA hat do so with the knowledge that they may be the target of both verbal and physical abuse.  This, of course, is a certain way to chill if not completely silence such speech which the Democrats do not want to hear.  (The fact that this so clearly reveals their lack of respect for the founding principles of this country along with our Constitution is a topic for another post).

The anger and hatred consume the Democrats in Congress as they demand hearing after hearing on lost causes in their attempt to remove the President from office.  It consumes all the 2020 Democrat candidates as the focus of debates and stump speeches is to verbally condemn Trump – that is, Trump the man, because it is hard to condemn his policies which are all benefiting this country and its citizens.  But it is, indeed, the man that they hate because, though not one of them, he was able to fairly and honestly beat them in an election that they still believe they were entitled to win.

The press, of course, is a part of this parade of hate.  Indeed, the Democrat politicians, not to mention their supporters, often seem to be nothing more than the lap dogs of the press.  Thus, when the NYT prints a bogus story intended to dredge up again the bogus allegations against Justice Kavanaugh, even without a thought the Democrats jump and begin a new campaign of hate against the Justice.  (And, this is no less horrific than the first campaign which was intended to ruin a man’s life along with that of his family simply because he was not one of them.  For detailed thoughts on this disgusting attack on the man and our country’s values the first time, see my earlier posts from September and October 2018, most of which address aspects of the Kavanaugh hearings. Here are a few links: LINK 1, LINK2, LINK3, LINK4,  LINK5, LINK6, LINK7, LINK8,  LINK9,  LINK10.)

This is all terribly pathetic, and one wants to dismiss this behavior as simply that of spoiled children who did not get their way, for that is all that it really is.  But one cannot do that, because in this instance the children throwing the temper fit have enough power in their hands that they can truly use that fit to destroy our country and our way of life.

That destruction has already begun.  As noted above, the strength of our First Amendment rights is being diminished.  People are berated into keeping silent if they do not spout the words and beliefs that the Democrats demand.  The Second Amendment is not even acknowledged as a right when Democrats believe they can simply create an absolute ban on all arms.  Our whole electoral process is not respected by the Democrats when every time they do not win they believe they can simply attack the result along with the winner in any and every way possible hoping to get somehow the result that they want.

When the strategy is silence the opposition, take away their rights, remove those with whom you disagree by political force rather than political process, ignore facts that are inconvenient or restructure them to support your narrative and your claim to power, then we are moving away from our Democratic Republic and toward some sort of Totalitarian system in which the people have little say in their own lives.

It is sad that the spoiled Democrats are willing to give up what makes this country great in return for holding and expanding their own power.  It is sad that the Democrats believe that they have a right to do this, based on their seeming belief that they are somehow superior to the rest of us.  The Democrats did not get the prize they wanted in 2016, but their behavior since then is proof positive that they do not deserve it.

While the Democrats seem to have chosen to be fully consumed by their anger and hate, we as a country do not need to let it consume us as well.  We do not need to accept their ugly allegations about the President, his policies, his supporters; instead we can understand that these are nothing more than their temper weapons designed to gratify their anger and give them the power they crave. 

The elected Democrats are not doing the peoples work but their own work – the sole goal being to eliminate all opposition to their power.  The media is their partner in this means justify the ends campaign.  We do not have to join in.  Their rhetoric may be persuasive, but that does not make it right or true.  We can believe it and go like sheep to the slaughter of all that our country stands for, or we can refuse to be a part.  We can continue to stand for the principles of this country that are not those of anger and hate but of fairness and justice and rule of law, of freedom and liberty, and of a voice for all the people.

Social Justice or Actual Justice For All?

Social Justice is not actual Justice.  It should not replace actual justice and the media should not take sides in helping it to do so.

What is social justice?  It is a concept that involves fair relations between various classes of society and usually involves the distribution of wealth, opportunity, property, and privileges within that society.  Social justice causes often fall into sociological categories that easily correlate to those involved in identity politics: race, gender, age, sexual orientation, religion, nationality. 

Justice is that which allows for fair adjudication between competing claims.  Decisions are based on rules such as the law and the Constitution that provide for fair and equal adjudication between parties without regard to a party’s identity categorization.  Hence, the concept of “blind justice”:  justice will treat all individuals equally.

Justice cares about facts; social justice cares about causes.  Here are some examples of social justice warriors bringing their cause to a case where there are facts not supporting their cause:

• The #MeToo Warriors sought to advance their cause using the allegations of sexual misconduct against then nominee and now Justice Kavanaugh.  The facts did not support their cause.  The warriors chose to deny the facts and/or find them not important.
• The anti-Conservative/anti-Trump Warriors sought to attack and silence a group of high-school boys wearing MAGA hats by claiming that the boys had instigated a racist incident on the steps of the Lincoln memorial.  When video tapes and other information did not support their claims, they ignored those facts and continued to fault and attack the boys. 
• The Social Justice Warriors who believe that Trump is the antithesis of all their causes are supportive of any actions against him.  Thus, they support the Mueller investigation in the hopes that it will destroy the President and remove him from office.  Hence, they applaud tactics used by that investigation that at a minimum push the envelope towards denial of 4^th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure in the repeated use of gestapo-like tactics whenever someone closely related to Trump and his campaign are arrested.
• When a Black child was shot in her car and there was a White man in a pickup known to be nearby, without more the Warriors began demonstrations and claims against the White man whom they claimed was a racist and white supremacist and whom they immediately found guilty of the murder.  When facts proved that the White man was nothing more than a by-stander and that the child had been murdered by a Black man in a case of mistaken identity, the facts were again ignored. 
• The Warriors claim that Donald Trump is not qualified to be president, seemingly making one of the qualifications that the president be someone of whom they approve.  Again, they ignore the facts of our Constitution which clearly sets forth the qualifications: “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”  Clearly, President Trump meets these qualifications, yet the Social Justice Warriors continue to claim he does not.

These are just of few of the more recent incidents that demonstrate that not only is social justice not the equivalent of justice, it is actually often its antithesis.  Social Justice will support lying to further its cause.  It accepts bearing false witness and accepts manufacturing facts that support its narrative and its causes.  It accepts and supports violation of our Constitution and our protected rights if those rights stand in the way of furthering the causes of the Social Justice Warriors.

This approach of the Social Justice Warriors goes hand-in-hand with identity politics that try to pit one identifiable group against another for political gain.  Identity politicians often try to pit a group that is less well-off in some way against another group with more of what the less well-off group lacks.  Socialists and Communists have long pitted the “workers” against the “bosses,” promising a better life to the workers if they will support the Socialist/Communist leaders. 

Identity politicians also pit one group against another; they convince one group that all their problems are due to another group and promise the first group that their life will be better if they support the identity politicians in their fight against the second group.   Look again at the list of social justice causes and see how they compare to identity political hatred:  race – fomenting minority anger against alleged White privilege; sexual orientation – fomenting LGBTQ anger against those whose religious beliefs, while demanding tolerance of diverse orientations do not condone such practices among their believers; nationality – fomenting anger of immigrants and especially illegal immigrants against all those who seek to contain illegal immigration regardless of their views on how broadly or narrowly the legal immigration laws should be drawn. 

Identity politics have always been with us to some extent, though I would argue that beginning with the previous administration they became a much more prevalent tactic, especially of the political Left.  But now, we have that Left using those tactics along with their claims of social justice as a way to negate a legitimate election and silence all who do not fully accept their views.  And the real victims in all of this are facts and the rule of law – the two things that are necessary for justice to prevail.

True Justice, true Fairness, requires that all be treated equally and that the rights of all, not just those of this or that favored group, be protected.  For rights to be protected, facts must be heard, verified, and accepted.  Partisans can argue over what the facts mean and what is their significance, but they cannot deny or make up facts to suit their purposes. 

The problem currently is that the partisans, with the help of the 24-hour news cycle and a partisan press, rile up their appropriate identity groups first.  Then, when facts are revealed, those facts no longer matter as the mobs scream for their latest social justice cause.  Worked into a frenzy, rationality is lost.  That is just the state that the Social Justice Warriors need their supporters to be in – a state where feelings can be used and manipulated, a state where specific identity groups can be characterized as enemies not entitled to basic rights, or to fair treatment under law, a state where the chosen identity group will believe the promises that they will have all their wants as well as needs fulfilled if they only support their social justice warriors. 

The problem with social justice and its identity political practices today is that it is by its very nature unfair.  The Social Justice Warriors believe that their chosen groups should have all that they demand while at the same time believing that it is appropriate and acceptable to silence and deny even basic rights to the groups they have designated as enemies and those not in line with their “social justice” positions.  Thus, for example, the Left assert their free speech rights, while seeking to deny free speech to those supporting the opposition – it is acceptable to silence and destroy those wearing MAGA hats, while supporting threats and attacks (both verbal and physical) by those on the Left against those on the Right.

Blacks Law Dictionary, defining law in jurisprudence, states that justice is “The constant and perpetual disposition to render every man his due.”  This is very different from rendering every person, or every person on your side only, their every desire.  Justice is fairness – to all, not just to one favored group over another.  It takes into account the actions of the individual as a person, not as a mere identity caricature.  And, it requires a respect for the facts and the law. 

Social Justice may be based on high ideals; it can be simply a partisan political tactic.  In either event, it is not a synonym for Justice.    And while Justice allows for Social Justice to push its causes, Social Justice as currently practiced does not allow Justice for all.

Why Every Senator Must Vote YES

Every Senator who cares about this country must vote Yes on the Kavanaugh nomination.

At this point if his nomination fails they are authorizing the sort of smear campaign against any and every future nominee that we have seen play out against Judge Kavanaugh.

What we have is a good nominee who was faced with unsubstantiated accusations the investigation of which (along with the search for dirt) may have found some less than honorable episodes or words in his youth (throwing ice in a bar; perhaps becoming over intoxicated; using sophomoric jokes in yearbook; etc.)  Let’s remember that we are all human, none of us is perfect, and if we search hard enough we will find some less than honorable event in the life of everyone, even a saint.

Now having been accused of poor character and his character smeared beyond belief, we are told he cannot be a judge because of that character.  We are told that righteous indignation in the face of allegations which he claims are false is sufficient to keep him from the Bench – essentially that his claims of innocence are proof of guilt, or should at least disqualify him from this nomination.  This is a catch-22 that is not democratic, not the way this country operates.

We cannot let the screams of hatred and anger intimidate the country into complicity with and authorization of this horrendous political assassination tactic along with its obvious use of troubled individuals for nothing more than political gain.  We cannot let the stall tactics of the democrats continue as they now attack the investigation that they called for.

I understand that Judge Kavanaugh might not be the individual that some would pick for the Supreme Court if their role was to nominate, but that does not mean that he is not highly qualified for the position.  The Senate’s role in confirmation is not one of personal preference.  In its role of advice and consent I would hope that the Senate would look to those legitimate qualifications and not at the distracting political circus and its many red herrings that have been produced over the past few weeks.

I will not rehash all the appalling events and red herrings of that circus.  Let me just point out a few that are most troubling:  the disregard of our Constitution, the rule of law, and core principles of democracy such as innocence until proof of guilt; the callous use of a clearly troubled woman for political purposes and with little if any regard for that woman herself, despite Democrat claims of this being about protecting women; the inflation of this nomination into a representative battle of various identity groups; the complete failure to focus on the qualifications and record of the nominee that are relevant to his service as a justice and failure of the Senate to properly carry out its role of Advice and Consent; the effect that this willingness to use smear tactics reminiscent of the Inquisition, McCarthyism, and Communist Russia will have on the likelihood of qualified individuals entering public service in the future.

The bottom line is that the tactics used by the Democrats to stall this nomination should be unacceptable to every American.  The end does not justify by any means necessary.  To accept that premise is to deny the importance of the principles of our Constitution and our democracy.   It is those principles that allow for an honest and fair opposition, not the Stalinesque tactics that we have seen employed over the past few weeks.  A no vote on Kavanaugh effectively endorses those undemocratic tactics.

We have a qualified candidate for Supreme Court Justice.  Personal preferences aside, there is no reason not to vote YES.  In this instance, that YES vote will further indicate a stand against the unsavory tactics demonstrated by the Democrats over the past weeks. 

Anyone who believes in fairness and justice must now stand up for what is right, renounce the political assault we have been witnessing, and urge the Senate to confirm this highly qualified jurist.

The Play Book Is Truly Frightening

So, here is the play book:  Accuse a good man of poor character, based on unsubstantiated allegations and his denial, then, argue that the man is not qualified because of his poor character.  Continue to demand investigation upon investigation, forever if necessary, until he is eliminated. (Even before its release, the Democrats claim that the FBI investigation is not sufficient and demand more)

I can think of several labels for this:  Catch 22; Salem Witch Trials; McCarthyism; Kafkaesque; Black lynchings in the segregated South; Stalin Show Trials; the Inquisition.  None of these should be part of America in the 21^st Century.

Perhaps the political assassins don’t think we will notice.  They distract us with all sorts of red herrings (A “red herring” is defined as “something, especially a clue, that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting.”).   Failure to produce classified documents; questionable and unfounded allegations; media frenzy about whom to believe and who put on the better “performance.”; juvenile humor in a high school yearbook; claiming outrage of a man who claims his innocence is proof of his poor character; the need to believe women and treat them with special care; etc. etc. 

These questions are red herrings.  The country’s obsession with them is distracting us from the violation and rape of the Constitution that is occurring under our noses as the Democrats turn their role of Advice and Consent into an inquisition designed to serve their own political agenda to the detriment of our Country and with the destruction of a man and his family as some sort of collateral damage.

What we have is a good nominee who was faced with false accusations the investigation of which may have found some less than honorable episodes or words in his youth.  Let’s remember that we are all human, none of us is perfect, and if we search hard enough we will find some less than honorable event in the life of everyone, even a saint. 

What we are witnessing is political assassination by a group of people who are unwilling to accept the fact that they are not in power, that the people of this country elected a president the Democrats do not like and that the election was a signal that their policies were not the direction that the country wanted to go.  This assassination attempt in itself is bad enough, but it sets a precedent for future behavior as well as a warning to anyone who might seek public office in the future.  This smear and scare campaign is detrimental to us all.

It is apparent today that many are willing to ignore the Constitution when they believe that it furthers their political or social agenda.  There are many pretexts for this act of ignoring the constitution, all of which are nothing more than excuses that boil down to justifying “by any means necessary” to get one’s way.  There are small excuses: “this is just a job interview” (of course, questions such as many of those being asked of Kavanaugh would be impermissible and often illegal at a job interview).   There are the rumblings of underlying revenge:  for failure to put Merrick Garland on the bench, for the nomination of a constitutional conservative, simply for the fact that the country elected Donald Trump.   And, some come from the “social justice warriors” who in the case of the Kavanaugh hearing seem to less concerned about the questionable allegations here than in fighting for justice for all women or against all men or at least powerful men.  The problem with ignoring the constitution in this social justice battle is that it is that very constitution that allows those warriors to fight their battle.

Our country is far from perfect, but it is our country’s democracy and its Constitution that allow us to improve ourselves.  It was the 1^st Amendment and its freedoms of speech and assembly that allowed the suffragettes to be heard and gain the vote for women.  Similarly, it was our Constitution that allowed the civil rights movement to arise and become successful.   It is the Constitution that allowed the President to enforce the orders for school desegregation.  Without the freedoms and the rights provided to the people in the Constitution these movements and many others could have been stopped before they even began.

In this era of the 24-hour news cycle, of social media, of the need for instant gratification of every desire, it is hard to have the patience that a democracy requires.  On top of that, people are encouraged in intimidation tactics when, because of those very tactics, even our representatives are afraid to stand up to them and for what is right.  We must not let the screams of hatred and anger from his opposition intimidate us into complicity with and authorization of this horrendous political assassination tactic.  We must remember that we are a country with a constitution and the rule of law and basic concepts including innocence until proof of guilt.

Changes happen, but they happen slowly.  Most importantly, they happen via and because of the rule of law.  Those who want to rectify all the wrongs instantly and without the process that democracy requires are making a huge mistake.  I can perhaps understand the emotional need for instant results, but that need is complicit with those who would change our constitutional democratic republic to some other form.  The red herrings that they conjure and present may seem to be the key issue but they are not.  They distract those who, in the passion and sincerity of their plea for change, fail to look beyond those red herrings and see the bigger picture along with the underlying and real issue of the method by which they are seeking change.

In the case of Judge Kavanaugh the tactics used from the beginning have not been for the people, not for the accusers, not for women, not for justice.  They have been only for political power of those who now find themselves out of power and are hoping that will change with the midterm election.  No one should stand by and let this happen; no one should stand by as if this were OK. We are seeking a qualified jurist.  Judge Kavanaugh is that.  It is because he is that, because he cannot be challenged on his credentials, that the smear campaign was undertaken. 

At this point, anything other than a Yes vote on his nomination sends a frightening message to our leadership – that all the stops are out, all systems go – assassinate at your will, ruin families and lives, all for your own power and with complete and total disregard for the people whom you were elected to represent.  This is not the playbook that we should be using in America.

What We Learned From Today's Hearing

The testimony of Ford and Kavanaugh ended about an hour ago.  So here are my initial observations about what have we learned today:

1. That some people do not find Ms. Ford credible while others do, and some feel that they must defer to her simply because she is a woman.  Some find Ms. Ford credible in the sense that something happened to her or that she truly believes that something happened.  As Sen. Booker said, she “told her truth.”

2. We don’t really know what “her truth” is.  There is absolutely no proof that her truth is actually the true facts of what happened.  Ms. Ford has produced no corroborating evidence and the supposed witnesses she produced have all denied under penalty of perjury that what she claims happened did not happen.

3. Once the allegation that the Democrats held secretly for weeks was made public, the Republican members have conducted investigations that the Democrats refused to participate in.  The senate judiciary website documents the investigations in detail.  These investigations are not unlike the investigations that would be conducted by the FBI; an FBI investigation would simply ask the same questions that have already been asked.  An FBI investigation does not make conclusions about the testimony.

4. Judge Kavanaugh steadfastly denies the accusations against him.  He actually has some contemporaneous evidence in the form of his calendar/diary for the period of time during which Ms. Ford claims the event occurred.  That calendar/diary records the events, including gatherings and parties, that Judge Kavanaugh attended during the summer of 1982 (when the event allegedly occurred).  The party that Ms. Ford describes is not listed.

5. What we have is two people whose testimony conflicts.  The accuser has brought forward no corroborating evidence and that which she proffered to the committee did not support her testimony.  It is not Judge Kavanaugh's duty to prove himself innocent, but the duty of an accuser to prove her allegations.

6. The Democrats could have brought Ms. Ford’s allegations forward to the committee and had them investigated out of the public eye as was Ms. Ford’s wish, but instead they chose to use them politically as a means of stalling the appointment of a Justice to the Supreme court.  Their plan, long before Ms. Ford came forward, was to keep Kavanaugh from the court by any means necessary.  Ms. Ford, sadly, became a weapon of the Democrat’s political agenda.

7. Democrats do not believe that these accusations entitle Kavanaugh to due process.  Yet, these are criminal allegations and while they may have been brought forward in the wrong venue (i.e. not the court of law where she still could have brought the charges), in this country under our Constitution, an accused is entitled to due process.  One is not found guilty of criminal charges without proof beyond a reasonable doubt.  To determine, based on allegation alone, that Ford's story is true in essence finds Kavanaugh guilty of the accusations, requiring him to live with that pronouncement for the remainder of his life.

8. The argument that this is not a criminal prosecution so no need for proof just does not fly.  It reeks of McCarthyism and Communist Show Trials.  Yes, it is not a criminal trial in the sense that it is not taking place in a court of law, but rather in some way attached to the nomination hearing.  Nonetheless, the effect is the same on the accused; in fact, it is really worse because if a decision is made just on who is “more believable” then there is never a definitive decision about the guilt or innocence of the Judge and he will live the rest of his life with this question hanging over his head.  Similarly, Ms. Ford will spend the rest of her life with the question of whether he story was provable or not/whether it was really true or not.

9. Democrats’ search and destroy mission continues as they have already obtained a URL for the next website dedicated to stopping the next judge.

10. To keep a qualified jurist from the Supreme Court because of unsubstantiated allegations is a new low for the politics of hatred and a serious wound to our Constitution and our Democracy.

11. There is also the effect on women and the MeToo movement which I have previously addressed.  Suffice it here to say that demanding all women be believed or that all men must be guilty not only destroys a basic tenet of our Constitution, it also has a way of minimizing the true and serious allegations of sexual misconduct while at the same time demeaning women with the implication that they must be so weak that they can’t stand up to the demands of proving their case.  It also has a way of creating a victim mentality in all women.

12. This is a completely unsubstantiated allegation against the nominee (note, I am not saying that Ms. Ford did not suffer some sort of sexual encounter with someone, nor am I saying that she does not believe it was with Kavanaugh, nor am I saying we should not have sympathy for whatever it is that she is going through).  An accusation, without more, is not enough to give rise to a no vote against an otherwise qualified candidate.  That is true regardless of one’s political views or views about women or the MeToo movement or anything else.   We know what the votes were going to be before these allegations were made.  Despite delays and efforts to find some sort of corroboration, they still have no proof other than the words of the accusers. The Democrats would have us delay further, conduct duplicate investigations,  as they search for something/anything to completely destroy the judge. What they are doing is making a mockery of the nomination process.  Anyone who changes their vote based on the flimsy accusation presented here should not be reelected; it is clear that they have no understanding of fairness or our constitution or our democracy.

Kavanagh – Today’s Thoughts.

So, now the Thursday hearing is in jeopardy and suddenly more accusers have discovered their memories.  Just a few points:

1. Ms. Ford has received far too many concessions already.  If this accusation had been brought in a court of law (as it should have been if the goal was justice and not political gain), a hearing date would have been set, Ford would have had to appear or her claim would be dismissed, and she would have no choice about who would question her or the format of the questions or of the hearing.  Fairness and due process would have been afforded to both parties.

2. This is not about justice for what Ms. Ford alleges happened.  This is about destroying a man whose views are not in accord with those who are now using Ms. Ford and a smear campaign to keep a qualified jurist from the bench.  They are willing to throw out rules of fairness, justice, democracy in order to further their own power.  They don’t care about Ms. Ford or the American people.  They just want to destroy their opposition.

3. The question before the Senate is whether or not Judge Kavanaugh should become Justice Kavanaugh, not whether rules of fairness and justice, including the concept of innocent until proven guilty, should be waived for any woman with an unsubstantiated accusation.

4. Nor should this one alleged incident be the sole criteria for the nomination.  Even if this were proven true, it would be one event – one teenage act of poor judgment – to be weighed with 30+ years of adulthood, and with especial emphasis on his proven abilities as a judge.  If one incident during the teen years when the mind is not fully developed is enough to destroy one’s life forever, than there are few people on earth whose lives should not be ruined.  In a court of law, crimes, including murder, that take place before adulthood are usually tried and sentenced in juvenile courts with likely expungement of records when adulthood is reached.  The law recognizes the difference between a teen indiscretion and an intentional adult act.

5. Women are not victims as the MeToo movement would have us believe.  Giving a MeToo accuser everything she wants simply because she brings forth an accusation does nothing for women’s rights.    We all know that not all accusations are true and that there are many reasons for bringing an accusation forward.  But to treat all accusations, especially those with no supporting evidence, as true cheapens those that are true and provable and in a way makes them more suspect.  Additionally, demanding that a woman be believed without more, without the due process that justice demands, in a way makes all women victims – they are apparently unable to stand up for themselves but instead must be coddled and believed with nothing more.  This is unfair to both men and women and horribly contrary to the justice that we all should demand.

6. I think women are strong – stronger than the treatment of Ms. Ford would have us believe.  When she decided to come forward (and especially because she had hired legal counsel) she knew what she was getting into.  She is a well educated woman; it is time we stopped babying her.   While she may or may not be emotionally distraught, this is America; we do not let any type of accuser (even those who represent some cause or identity group that many support) destroy another human being without far more than an accusation.  I suspect that Ms. Ford knows that even if she is being counseled otherwise.

7. Perhaps what Ms. Ford claims happened indeed did happen.  Perhaps there is more to the story.  Perhaps different individuals were involved.  Perhaps this is a memory that she has somehow constructed in her mind over the course of 36 years and truly believes it is true, even if it is not.  Or perhaps it is all a fabrication.  Since she has brought this allegation forward, she must allow her allegation to be questioned and examined in a way that is fair and just to both individuals involved.

8. This is a criminal allegation and should be given the due process standards that criminal allegations deserve.  It should not be tried in the media or the court of public opinion or based upon a political or identity group’s agenda.

9. These hearings are a complete farce.  Before they began we had the Democrats in unison telling us they would not vote for Kavanaugh no matter what was said at the hearings.  They had Ms. Ford’s accusation but did not bring it forward.  They waited, hoping it would look like Kavanaugh would not get the votes he needed, but, when the hearings ended and he had proven himself to be an outstanding jurist and the vote seemed certain in his favor, the Democrats then brought forward the unsubstantiated allegation and demanded a hearing.  That served as a nice delay.  And delay.  And delay.  And still delay.  The accuser and her Democrat attorneys made demands for the hearing that essential threw out any semblance of fairness, instead weighting the hearing in the accuser’s favor before it has even begun.  Sadly, the Republican leadership, apparently fearful of this woman who can’t stand up for herself or show up at a hearing, caved to many of the demands.  Yet we still have no certain hearing as demands continue.  And now, the call having been put out for more, we have other accusers.  Yet, all the witnesses named by the accusers have said nothing happened.  No matter.  It’s all about delay and keeping a good jurist from the bench.

10. We can easily infer that the Democrats’ concern is not with Ms. Ford or women victims of violence when we look at their reactions to members of their own party who have been accused with actual substantiating evidence, unlike this case.  When it is one of their own, the women are ignored, shamed, or in some other way silenced while excuses are made and inquiries are not held.  In those instances it is rare that there is a demand that the woman must always be believed.

11. This has really got to stop.  I don’t care how many more “memories” are suddenly found.  I don’t care what other concessions Ford and her attorneys demand.  There is a hearing set for Thursday.  She can come testify or she can go home.  Anyone else has had plenty of time to come forward.  They have lost their chance to testify here.  If they really feel aggrieved, let them go to a court of law and seek justice as Ms. Ford should have done.

12. This smear campaign, in addition to making a mockery of the judicial nomination process, has a frightening chilling effect on the future of our democracy.  If those who step forward to serve are forced to face what Judge Kavanaugh is now enduring, how can we expect good people to come forward?   This is a way of silencing those views with which one party does not agree.  A democracy requires diverse views.  It deserves good public servants who do not have to go through the equivalent of a Salem Witch trial and risk the destruction of their lives as well as the lives of their families in order to serve.

13. This whole circus is a full out attack on Democracy.  It is time that it stop, that a vote is taken and that decisions are made based on the criteria for sitting as a Justice, not on the basis of a 36 year old unsubstantiated teenage allegation and the undemocratic demand that all women must be believed, period, without more, without proof,  without due process for the accused, and in direct opposition to democracy’s core belief in innocent until proven guilty.  Proof does not and cannot consist of someone’s accusation alone.

14. I have trouble keeping up with this ridiculous spectacle.  I want to ignore it, but no American should.  Rather, we should all stand up against what is going on and demand a return to fairness, justice, and the rule of law.

My past 3 blogs have addressed some of the above and some other points in more detail – I encourage you to read them:

https://ps.pinkspolitics.com/2018/09/this-is-crucial-moment-for-america.html  This addresses the convergence of tactics used by the Left for over 30 years to keep conservative, non-activist jurists from the Appellate and Supreme Court benches with the use of identity politics and its companion hatred as a weapon against those standing in the way of a political agenda.

https://ps.pinkspolitics.com/2018/09/purging-enemies-of-party-with.html This includes the parallels between this demand of a guilt sentence upon accusation alone to the same tactics of accusation alone used by dictatorships to silence and remove the opposition.  It discusses democracy’s need for due process and fairness and a real belief in innocence until proof of guilt is shown.

https://ps.pinkspolitics.com/2018/09/its-about-more-than-nominee-its-about.html  This is about the broader implications for our country of this nomination and the farce that it has become.  If we let the Democrats get away with their antics, if we let them stop a perfectly valid nomination based on accusation and innuendo alone, then we are empowering further their assault on our democracy and we are well on the way to losing America as we know it.

See also: https://ps.pinkspolitics.com/2017/11/me-too-does-not-empower-you.html, a post from last year about the MeToo movement

It’s Time To Demand Our Representatives Represent Us

How many times have you or someone you know written to an elected representative and received nothing more than a form letter in response?  While the form response is usually signed by the official, I think most people assume that it was prepared by a staff person likely without the actual official having ever read the initial letter.   Why do we accept this?

I recently emailed my senators about the Kavanaugh hearing and my hope that they would vote for the judge.  The one that replied did so with a compilation of boilerplate paragraphs that were nothing more than the talking points that he had used before the hearing began.  Beyond the fact that the form paragraphs each related to the Kavanaugh nomination, there was no direct response to the specific points raised in my email. 

Why do we accept these sorts of form responses?  We pay the salaries of our elected officials; they represent all of their constituents whether or not an individual constituent voted for them or not.  Our representatives have an obligation to listen to us (for without listening, how can they represent us?).  Rather than just send us the pre-made talking points on whatever issue we are writing about, they should respond to us in a way that indicates that they actually read our correspondence and respond to that rather than just reading the subject line and sending the appropriate form.

Whether our elected official agrees or disagrees with our position on a particular issue, we are entitled to a thoughtful individual response to our correspondence.  But unless we demand that, we will continue to write letters that may or may not be read and then receive generic responses to our letters.  It amounts to a tacit approval on our part that our officials go about doing what they want to do rather than representing the wishes of those who elected them.

Do they not understand that we are capable of finding their talking points without sending a personal correspondence?  I think that most people write to their elected representative in an attempt to share their individual view on an issue and perhaps to try to persuade that representative to take a particular action on an issue.  It is an attempt to have a dialog with someone who has been elected to consider the views of all the individuals within his or her constituency.  One would hope that the response would reflect that the representative had some interest in that – some interest in hearing constituents’ thoughts and responding to them.  That does not mean that the constituent should expect the representative to take the constituent’s  position, but it does mean that the representative should listen to that position and, as in any dialog, even a written one, the constituent should be able to expect a response to what was specifically said, including perhaps an explanation (beyond talking points) of why the representative will not adopt the constituent’s position. 

When I received my most recent reply, I was inclined to think, “well, typical” and consider that the end of it.  But, instead of accepting this as I usually do, I replied, asking if the senator had even listened to the hearings and, then, once again making my points.  We will see what, if any, response I get.  I plan to continue writing to this elected official, my elected representative, until I receive something more than a form letter response.  I hope to eventually get some indication that he actually read my letter/listened to my thoughts.

I do not think that it is too much to ask that an elected official listens to his or her constituents, for, without listening how then can they actually represent us?  A reply that is specifically responsive to a constituent’s piece of correspondence and the specific concerns raised therein is some indication that the official has listened and, if the representative actually does listen to all of his or her constituents then those constituents are more likely to be represented by that official.  I think it is reasonable for we who pay their salaries to demand this of our elected officials, and I hope that we all begin to do so.

It is only when our officials listen to us that can they represent us.  That is their job.  We should all demand nothing less than that they do their jobs.