Tag Archives: Abortion

News

Did Christine Ford name Kavanaugh as her attacker before his Supreme Court nomination?

11 Comments
Brett Kavanaugh, his wife, and his two daughters
Brett Kavanaugh, his wife, and his two daughters

I wanted to post something that collects together what we know about Christine Ford’s accusation against Kavanaugh. She released her opening statement for the Thursday hearing on Wednesday night. I read various articles from conservative and liberal sources to ferret out the most interesting details of this case for you. I hope you will enjoy it.

National Review posted about it:

Ford repeats her accusations against Kavanaugh but names no new witnesses and gives no new information. She also confirms that she did not name Kavanaugh as the alleged assailant to anyone “outside of therapy” “until July 2018” when she “saw press reports stating that Brett Kavanaugh was on the “short list” of potential Supreme Court nominees”:

I do not recall each person I spoke to about Brett’s assault, and some friends have reminded me of these conversations since the publication of The Washington Post story on September 16, 2018. But until July 2018, I had never named Mr. Kavanaugh as my attacker outside of therapy.

This all changed in early July 2018. I saw press reports stating that Brett Kavanaugh was on the “short list” of potential Supreme Court nominees. I thought it was my civic duty to relay the information I had about Mr. Kavanaugh’s conduct so that those considering his potential nomination would know about the assault.

This part is important:

Per the Washington Post, Kavanaugh’s name is not in the therapist’s notes:

The therapist’s notes, portions of which were provided by Ford and reviewed by The Washington Post, do not mention Kavanaugh’s name but say she reported that she was attacked by students “from an elitist boys’ school” who went on to become “highly respected and high-ranking members of society in Washington.”

And it concludes:

Which is to say that we have an accusation that has not been corroborated by any of the named witnesses, all of whom have either said that it categorically did not happen, or that they do not know Brett Kavanaugh, or that they have no memory of any such party or event; that is strenuously denied by the accused; and that was not fleshed out to anyone other than the accuser’s husband until the day Kavanaugh’s name became national news.

Ford’s only support comes from sworn affidavits of people who say that she TOLD THEM that she was assaulted. Did she name Kavanaugh to them? I looked over the affidavits. Her husband’s affidavit says that she named Kavanaugh in 2012 to the therapist. But we KNOW from the Washington Post that the therapist’s notes don’t name Kavanaugh, so we don’t have evidence that her husband told the truth. And he’s hardly an unbiased witness. The Keith Koegler affidavit names Kavanaugh, but only from an e-mail he got from Ford on or after June 29, 2018. And two others (Adela Gildo-Mazzon and Rebecca White) don’t mention Kavanaugh by name AT ALL. Just that she said she was attacked.

Remember, all these affidavits prove is that she TOLD THEM about an attack, NOT that the attack actually happened the way she is telling now.

Something else she claimed was also falsified.

The Daily Caller reports:

Ford’s claim that there were “4 boys and a couple of girls” at the party contradicts Ford and her lawyer’s other accounts of how many people were present.

In her letter to Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Ford claimed that there were “four others” present. She also told The Washington Post that there were “four boys at the party” and two — Kavanaugh and his friend, Mark Judge — in the room where the assault allegedly occurred.

Ford’s lawyer, Debra Katz, later told CNN that there were four guys and one other girl at the party.

[…]Since Ford’s allegations were first made public, there have been three different accounts of how many people were at the party she claims to have been assaulted at: four boys, four boys and one girl, and four boys and a couple of girls.

Kavanaugh, Judge and two other alleged party attendees all say they do not recall the party in question or any assault.

One of her named witnesses is her lifelong friend Leland Keyser.

The anti-Trump Weekly Standard notes:

On Saturday night, Leland Ingham Keyser, a classmate of Ford’s at the all-girls school Holton-Arms and her final named witness, denied any recollection of attending a party with Brett Kavanaugh.

“Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford,” lawyer Howard J. Walsh said in a statement sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

CNN reports that “Keyser is a lifelong friend of Ford’s.”

Keyser previously coached golf at Georgetown University and is now executive producer of Bob Beckel’s podcast. Keyser is the ex-wife of Beckel, a former Democratic operative and commentator. A search on OpenSecrets.org reveals Keyser’s only political donation has been to former Democratic senator Byron Dorgan.

What about the polygraph? Well, her lawyers administered a polygraph in August 2018, that consisted of only two questions.

CBS News explains:

Following Ford’s interview she was given a polygraph examination with the following two questions:

  1. Is any part of your statement false?
  2. Did you make up any part of your statement?

Ford answered “no” to both questions.

Kavanaugh was not named in the two-question polygraph test.

Ford’s lawyers are refusing to release details about the polygraph to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

A Wall Street Journal columnist tweets:

Kimberley Strassel @KimStrassel Potomac Watch columnist for Wall Street Journal.
Kimberley Strassel is a columnist for Wall Street Journal.

Polygraphs are inadmissible in court because they are considered to be unreliable as evidence.

Could Ford have gotten Kavanaugh mixed up with a different man? Yes! In fact, two men have come forward claiming to be Ford’s attacker.

The Daily Wire reports:

Politico congressional reporter Burgess Everett reported the summary from the Judiciary Committee, which stated: “Committee staff have a second interview with a man who believes he, not Judge Kavanaugh, had the encounter with Dr. Ford in the summer of 1982 that is the basis of her allegation. He described his recollection of their interaction in some detail.”

A second Politico reporter, Elana Schor, added that the Judiciary also had a phone interview with a second man who also believed that he may have assaulted Ford in the summer of 1982.

That would explain why she told the people in her affidavits about the attack, but only recently named Kavanaugh as the attacker.

News

Kavanaugh: “I did not have sex in high school or for many years thereafter”

7 Comments
Brett Kavenaugh, his wife, and his two daughters
Brett Kavanaugh, his wife, and his two daughters

So, Brett Kavanaugh did an interview where he and his wife answered questions about the vague and unsupported charges being made against him by registered Democrat women. In the interview, he explained that he did not have sex in high school or for many years thereafter, which is what you would expect from a Christian conservative.

Here’s part of the transcript from Daily Wire:

Brett Kavanaugh: […]When I was in high school – and I went to an all boys catholic high school, a judgment (ph) high school, where I was focused on academics and athletics, going to church every Sunday at Little Flower, working on my service projects, and friendship, friendship with my fellow classmates and friendship with girls from the local all girls Catholic schools.

And yes, there were parties. And the drinking age was 18, and yes, the seniors were legal and had beer there. And yes, people might have had too many beers on occasion and people generally in high school – I think all of us have probably done things we look back on in high school and regret or cringe a bit, but that’s not what we’re talking about.

We’re talking about an allegation of sexual assault. I’ve never sexually assaulted anyone. I did not have sexual intercourse or anything close to sexual intercourse in high school or for many years there after. And the girls from the schools I went to and I were friends —

Martha MacCallum: So you’re saying that through all these years that are in question, you were a virgin?

Brett Kavanaugh: That’s correct.

Martha MacCallum: Never had sexual intercourse with anyone in high school –

Brett Kavanaugh: Correct.

I know this is going to be hard to believe for the average Democrat, since they seem to be incapable of understanding how seriously religious people take the moral demands of their religion. But take it from me, there are Christians who take the Bible’s teaching on sobriety and chastity seriously. I’m in my early 40s and still a virgin, and I’m sure I’m not the only one. Sex is for marriage. Period. People who are serious about their faith order their lives in a way such that they maintain their sobriety and chastity. Real Christians do.

Anyway, here’s a short clip showing his response above:

The full video is here.

But there’s something else I want to say about this, and about my alias.

Clarence Thomas

You see, I have known that women on the secular left made false charges for some time. My first exposure to the idea that women lied against innocent men for their own reasons was in Harper Lee’s book “To Kill a Mockingbird”, which I read in my freshman year of high school. The victim of the lies was a colored man, like me. I understood the message of the book very clearly.

This story came to life during the nomination of my favorite Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas. Clarence Thomas looks a bit like me – we’re both non-white males. When I saw the Democrats put forward a woman who made unverifiable claims to try to stop a pro-life man from reaching the Supreme Court, I learned a valuable lesson. Secular leftists women will lie and ruin a man’s career in order to protect their right to have sex with hot bad boys, and escape the consequences. That’s what this is all about – promiscuity and abortion.

Take a look at Clarence Thomas’ response to the Democrat lies, and think about how this would have affected a young non-white male watching this, and thinking about his future, and wanting to have an influence as a Christian:

Sometimes, I look back on this testimony and think whether what happened to Clarence Thomas made me distrust women. Once I realized that women – that any woman – was capable of lying like this to punish a good man, I stopped believing that women were trustworthy by default. Certainly, what happened to Clarence Thomas pushed me towards becoming a software engineer – a high-earning, male-dominated field where I would have limited exposure to false accusations.

Later on, I would read the exit polls of elections. I experienced shock and disbelief about how many young, unmarried women wanted to identify as Democrats and support Democrat policies. It really became clear to me that I had to make decisions about education, career and finance that would avoid the risk of secular leftist women finding out what I really believed, and making false accusations at me to hold me back in my career, and in my life plan. I wasn’t quick enough at this, because once a woman who found out that I was a virgin and believed in chastity before marriage spread it all over a company I was interning with. Fortunately, this was just a contract job. But I was not offered a full-time job with them afterwards. I learned my lesson from that. Most good men can probably tell you a story like that – when they learned that being a good person would draw a hostile response from women who were interested in pursuing fun and thrills against the moral law, then escaping judgment and consequences afterwards.

I think women who imagine that they want to get married some day should really think about what message their silence in the face of injustices to people like Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh sends to young, successful conservative Christian men. Women, we are watching you. And we are evaluating you to see whether you are on the side of the radical feminists, or on the side of Christianity and conservative pro-family policies. So far, most women I’ve met seem to have a lot more allegiance for feminism than they do for morality, marriage and family.

Defending good men is not something that you can cram for at the last minute after wasting your life having fun with the wrong people and pushing policies that promoted selfishness. Good men will ask you questions, and if you’ve been on the secular left most of your life, you won’t know how to respond, and you won’t have any demonstrated actions to show that your allegiance is with us, instead of with the liars.

Don’t cry to good men later that you want marriage when you didn’t do anything to defend the honor and reputation of good men when we were under attack.

News

Pro-life journalist gets police protection after receiving death threats and rape threats

16 Comments
Abortion Rights March
Abortion Rights March

Most pro-lifers tend to focus more on persuading a woman not to kill a child she’s already conceived. My view on abortion debating goes even further: I think that we should be persuading women not to have irresponsible sex in the first place. DC McAllister tweeted out something that I agree with, and now she’s getting death threats and rape threats. This is why I have an alias.

PJ Media explains:

Last week, PJ Media contributor and Fox News guest Denise McAllister sent out a powerful tweet denouncing the abortion movement. Little did she know, days later she would be in hiding, scared for her life. When she went public about receiving death and rape threats, pro-abortion Twitter users championed the threats against her.

“At the root of [abortion] hysteria is women’s unhinged desire for irresponsible sex. Sex is their god. Abortion is their sacrament,” McAllister tweeted. “It’s abhorrent as women have flung themselves from the heights of being the world’s civilizing force to the muck and mire of dehumanizing depravity.”

Now, I do think it’s important to be able to make a defense for the humanity of the unborn using reason and evidence. But I like what she tweeted here. We have to also make a case that a woman should view sex outside of marriage as a mistake. A mistake that is unlikely to work out in the long run.

Anyway, you can imagine what pro-abortionists did next… these are people who think you can kill unborn babies, after all. Not the best at moral virtue. Because “don’t kill the babies” is pretty much the most obvious moral rule there is.

More:

McAllister told PJ Media that she received death and rape threats, over multiple forms of private communication.

“They are threats outside of Twitter, stating they know where I live,” McAllister said. “Threats of rape and strangling. I spoke to the police. I am on home watch.”

“My children are very frightened,” she added.

On Sunday, she went public about the threats. “I am facing legit death & rape threats because I have dared to call out women who are hysterical about abortion and to challenge them to be responsible and not to elevate sex to the point that they’re willing to kill human life to avoid their responsibilities. How sick is that?” McAllister tweeted.

Some people responded with sympathy … to the person making the death and rape threats!

“People don’t react well to your extremism,” a user named Monika D. responded.

I took a look at her Twitter feed to see how things were going, and she had gone into hiding with her family, because of the rape threats, strangling threats, and death threats. Then, after she got police protection, she returned to social media. Police protection is not given unless the threat is credible.

Anyway, here’s what I want to say about this. I understand that women who have abortions are stressed and not in their right minds. But what about pro-abortion activists? When you meet someone who is pro-abortion, you’re talking to someone who is cannot answer the simplest moral questions correctly. There just is not factual, science-based case against the full humanity of the unborn. The justifications given for taking the life of an unborn child simply aren’t capable of making the act morally permissible.

Abortion is this generation’s slavery. It’s the exploitation of one class of weaker individuals by a class of stronger individuals, for the selfish gain of the stronger individuals. It really is nothing more than “I want to have sex with that hot guy, to boost my self-esteem”, followed by “I want to kill my baby so I can go on living for myself”. The point is that just like slavery, abortion is rationally indefensible to anyone capable of even basic moral reasoning. Everyone who is pro-abortion today would have own slaves. Everyone who is pro-life today would have been an abolitionist.

So, we shouldn’t expect people on the pro-abortion side of the aisle to be very concerned about doing what’s moral when it conflicts with their self-interest.

So, how far does this inability to think about right and wrong go?

Consider a few stories from the past summer:

Look. When you’re willing to kill an unborn child, simply because the child is the wrong race, or because the child is the wrong sex, because of how it impacts you, then anything is possible. Morality simply isn’t a concern for you. If you’re willing to do the worst thing, then you’re willing to do anything.

These are not good people, and it shows.