Christine Ford’s ex-boyfriend told the Senate Judiciary Committee under oath that he witnessed her coaching a friend on how to take a polygraph. So what? Well, Ford told the Senate Judiciary Committee that she “NEVER” (her words) coached anyone else about polygraphs. Looks like someone is going to be facing perjury charges all right, and not about farting or drinking beer!
First, The Federalist recalls how Ford answered questions about her polygraph at her Senate Judiciary Committee hearing:
At last week’s hearing, Ford was specifically asked by Rachel Mitchell, an experienced sex crimes prosecutor who was hired by the committee to question Ford and Kavanaugh, whether she had advised anyone on how to take a polygraph.
“Have you ever had discussions with anyone, beside your attorneys, on how to take a polygraph?” Mitchell asked.
“Never,” Ford responded.
“And I don’t just mean countermeasures,” Mitchell said, “but I mean just any sort of tips, or anything like that.”
“No,” Ford said.
“[H]ave you ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test?” Mitchell continued.
The statement was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.
Dr. Ford’s lawyers didn’t respond to a request for comment.
The writer’s name was redacted. In the letter to the committee, the writer said that he dated Dr. Ford from 1992 to 1998, found her to be “truthful” and said he had no ill will toward her.
He wrote that she never told him she was a victim of sexual assault or mentioned Judge Kavanaugh’s name.
He said that while they were dating, Dr. Ford lived with a female friend. That person was interviewing for a federal job. The writer said he witnessed Dr. Ford help her friend prepare to take a lie-detector test.
Because of her background in psychology, the writer said, Dr. Ford was able to help her friend understand “what to expect, and how polygraphs worked,” putting her mind at ease about the forthcoming test.
In his letter, Sen. Grassley wrote that Dr. Ford’s testimony at the hearing “raises specific concerns about the reliability of her polygraph examination results. The Senate therefore needs this information.”
The two dated for six years and Ford never expressed a fear of flying or closed spaces, traits she told the committee she struggles with, he said.
The man also claims Ford lied about and then admitted to charging a credit card they used to share for about $600 of merchandise.
Personally, I don’t believe her story, and now that we have evidence that she perjured herself, I’d like to see her face criminal charges and spend some time in prison.
And I’d like to see her lawyers investigated and disbarred, if they are found guilty. And I want them to explain who is paying their lawyer fees and for Ford’s polygraph. If Ford or Ford’s lawyers are linked to George Soros, then we can certainly do something about George Soros’ influence in America.
And we can have an FBI investigation of Diane Feinstein’s on-staff Chinese spy – and find out what he was doing working for her for 20 years. I’d like that investigation to last as long as the media took smearing Trump with Russia collusion nonsense.
But first, let’s confirm Kavanaugh. This week. I want all the Democrat senators in red states to go on the record on where they stand on Kavanaugh. I want it done before the mid-terms, so everyone in Indiana, Montana, West Virginia, North Dakota, and Missouri are very clear about who they should vote for in the mid-terms.
Note: at the time of writing (Tuesday night) this story had only been reported on National Review, The Federalist, the Washington Examiner, Fox News, the Daily Caller, and other right of center outlets. Not one far-left news media source, e.g. – CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, WaPo, etc. had a thing to say about it. This failure to report happens ALL THE TIME (remember the Gosnell trial?) Remember that next time you are consuming fake news from the progressive mainstream news media. They lie.
Although I had a lot of fun attacking feminism in Tuesday’s post, it wasn’t my intention to attack feminism again today. But I feel I have to say something about a news story about New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. Although he was a major figure in the #MeToo movement, he resigned after being accused of sexual assault by four different women.
New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman wants women to be free?
Now, let’s be clear about what abortion is. Abortion is ending the life of an innocent unborn child that has human DNA distinct from either the mother or the father. It happens after two strong grown ups have agreed to have recreational sex with no plan to welcome and care for a child that they might create. They don’t want to be responsible for the consequences of their own choices. If a child is conceived, then the powerful grown-ups resort to murder in order to keep the good times rolling for themselves.
That’s what Democrat Attorney General Eric Schneiderman supports. And many, many young unmarried women voted for this man, precisely because he held this self-centered and irresponsible view of women, relationships and children.
In fact, radical feminists not only prefer men who have this view of relationships and sex, they insist on it.
If you’re considering a sexual relationship that could potentially lead to pregnancy, holding conflicting views on abortion can cause a lot of tension. If you can get pregnant, you’ll want to know whether someone will respect your choice to handle the pregnancy as you see fit. And if you can get someone pregnant, you want to make sure you’re on the same page about what will be done about it. Even if you’re not in a relationship that could lead to pregnancy, someone’s views on abortion can speak volumes about their level of misogyny as well as their respect for others’ bodily autonomy.
Got that? Pro-life men are mysogynistic and deny bodily autonomy. But pro-abortion men aren’t misogynistic, and respect women’s bodily autonomy. That’s what radical feminists believe.
With that said, let’s take a look at the charges against Eric Schneidernman, as reported by the New York Post.
Excerpt:
State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman called his Sri Lankan girlfriend his “brown slave” and wanted her to refer to him as “Master,” the woman says.
Harvard-educated activist writer Tanya Selvaratnam told the New Yorker magazine that her yearlong affair with Schneiderman “was a fairytale that became a nightmare” — and quickly escalated into violence in the bedroom, even as he begged for threesomes.
“Sometimes, he’d tell me to call him Master, and he’d slap me until I did,” Selvaratnam said.
“He started calling me his ‘brown slave’ and demanding that I repeat that I was ‘his property.’”
Selvaratnam said, “The slaps started after we’d gotten to know each other.
“It was at first as if he were testing me. Then it got stronger and harder. It wasn’t consensual. This wasn’t sexual playacting. This was abusive, demeaning, threatening behavior.”
She said that as the violence grew, so did his sexual demands.
“He was obsessed with having a threesome and said it was my job to find a woman,” Selvaratnam said. “He said he’d have nothing to look forward to if I didn’t and would hit me until I agreed.”
She said she had no intention of adding a second woman to their bed.
The abuse increased until Schneiderman was not only slapping her but spitting on her and choking her, she said.
“He was cutting off my ability to breathe,” she said.
Soon, “we could rarely have sex without him beating me.”
The attorney general was often fueled by booze, Selvaratnam said.
And he would push her to drink, too, she said.
“Drink your bourbon, Turnip,’’ she said he ordered her, using his nickname for her.
This is just the tip of the iceberg, there’s a lot more here at the Washington Free Beacon.
This was interesting:
“Now that I know it’s part of a pattern, I think, God, I should have reported it,” the accuser said. “But, back then, I believed that it was a one-time incident. And I thought, He’s a good attorney general, he’s doing good things. I didn’t want to jeopardize that.”
This man is a hero of radical feminists. Here is a video featuring feminist comedian Samantha Bee:
Most women support pro-abortion men like Eric Schneiderman:
GALLUP polling: Women support abortion more than men
According to 2008 exit polls, 77% of young, unmarried women voted for a pro-abortion Democrat (Obama). Obama even voted against banning infanticide as a state senator in Illinois. Young, unmarried women had no problem voting for a supporter of infanticide (killing a baby born alive).
We know about lots of Democrats who talk about women’s rights in public, and mistreat them in private, e.g. – Ted Kennedy, Bill Cinton, John Edwards, Elliott Spitzer, Harvey Weinstein, Al Franken, etc. Some pro-abortion Democrat men kill women. Some rape women. Some sexually assault women. They are all willing to destroy a defenseless unborn child in order to escape the consequences of their selfish choices. If they are willing to kill an innocent, defenseless unborn child, they are certainly willing to sexually assault a grown woman.
Pro-abortion men are NOT the kind of men that a woman can depend on for love, fidelity, commitment and respect. It doesn’t matter how hot they are, how rich they are, or how powerful they are. If the goal is a faithful, life-long committed relationship that persists through the woman’s old age, then the answer cannot be a pro-abortion man. Just because young, unmarried women are attracted to men who are hot and non-judgmental, that does not translate into a long-term relationship where the man will be loving and leading the woman well. Women need to stop thinking that moral character doesn’t matter when evaluating a man for a relationship. A man’s refusal to condemn irresponsible behavior is not a sign of good character. A man’s mistreatment of others around him is not a sign of good character. Men who don’t have good character should not be chosen for relationships. Having feelings of attraction for a man does not mean that his character is suitable for loving and caring for others. Men need to be chosen based on their ability to do the job, not based on feelings of attraction.
The same women who support the pro-abortion rapists, sexual assaulters, etc. also OPPOSE men like Billy Graham and Mike Pence, who are so serious about their marriage vows that they refuse to even put themselves into situations where they might be tempted. I blogged before about how radical feminists jeered at the rules that good men impose on themselves in order to avoid even the appearance of an affair. Feminists consider Mike Pence to be a terrible person, but one feminist journalist said of Bill Clinton “I’d be happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal”. This is the same Bill Clinton who cheated on his wife with his female subordinates, and was credibly accused of rape. But he gives feminists the tingles. Who cares about character? He’s hot. And he supports abortion.
The alternative
Now, just to be clear, I am the worst freaking nightmare of a radical feminist. I am a virgin. I will not even kiss on the lips unless it’s to seal an engagement. I don’t buy drinks for women, unless it’s one beer in a restaurant, and we’re sharing it. And as far as abortion, I think life begins at conception. I also think that marriage is solely between one man and one woman, for life. Whatever it is that I’m going to do to convince a woman to marry me, it’s going to be done outside of the bedroom, when she’s stone-cold sober. I will get the consent of her father, first.
It is important to me that I am able to demonstrate my ability to be self-controlled and faithful to one woman, and to speak the language of love outside of the bedroom. That’s what chastity is for – it demonstrates the ability to love totally apart from selfishness and lust. Fidelity is not free. Women need to be chaste themselves, and they need to insist on chastity in the men they choose. Fidelity and self-control cannot be left to chance. They are more important than surface level concerns. Instead of looking for men who want to murder children, women should be looking for men who are comfortable taking on demanding relationships and keeping their commitments even if they become difficult.
Since I have a Christian view of marriage, my marriage has a customer. My choices with women and marriage will be designed to manufacture a result for my Commanding Officer. Treating women and children badly would cause them to move away from God, and so these things are just not permitted. Women dealing with me always have that leverage – the ability to hold me accountable to that vertical commitment to our common Boss.
What is important for everyone to realize is that many women today, thanks to radical feminism, do not go after men who are prepared and suited to marriage. They do not want to marry early and have children. They want to ride the carousel with hot pro-abortion bad boys until their looks and youth start to fade. They see marriage as boring, and children as distractions from travel and fun. They smash themselves up against pro-abortion men, and get very bitter, disrespectful and selfish. It is very hard for a marriage-minded man to marry women who graduate from the Eric Schneiderman school of relationships. Maybe we should tell women the truth for a change.
Man helping a woman with proper handgun marksmanship
An article from the American Thinker answers the question that vexes many men. As you read this excerpt below, ask yourself if it is a man or a woman writing this.
First of all, liberal women seem to be having an awful lot of sex these days. They are losing their virginity early, and working their way through as many “alpha males” as possible, but all the while they insist that a stream of recreational-sex relationships is somehow a path to lifelong married love. Can you turn a man who wants nothing more than recreational sex into the perfect husband, simply by invoking the magical power of vagina?
Liberal women think that you can:
On the one hand, liberal women believe wholeheartedly in the idiotic social construct they call, “sexual liberation.”They pride themselves on losing their virginity, as though that “accomplishment” had ever been above the challenge-scale of an alley cat in heat.
These liberal women I’ve known, having given away their female V-card over and over and over again, all the while scour their host of intimate “trial runs” searching for that mythical, Hollywood-construct, Mr. Right. This Mr. Right guy, for whom they are searching, is known to them up front as even more sexually-liberated than they, but this little factoid seems not to register in their liberated little heads as they frantically search for the equally mythical family home with the white picket fence, which somehow never gets hit by any of life’s roving tornadoes. One can almost hear them say in unison, “And they all lived happily ever after.”
I think it’s one of the deepest mysteries of the world why women think that a man who has lots and lots of recreational sex is somehow marriage material. When I think of men who are qualified for marriage, I think of men who have studied hard subjects, gotten marketable skills, worked and worked, saved and saved, and shown that they can be faithful in marriage by exhibiting self-control in the courtship. But liberal women think that all of this reasoning is junk, and you must just jump right into sex to see if the relationship will “work out” or to find out what you “like”. Recreational sex, they insist, is a superior way of finding a husband. Discussing who will do what in an actual marriage and what the actual marriage is for is apparently ineffective.
More:
Evidently, the liberal woman is capable of the most severe form of psychological denial known to humankind. Certain that one of the men with whom she has copulated without strings will suddenly morph into a faithfully monogamous creature the minute she can convince one of them to say “I do” in front of a few witnesses, the liberal woman marches blindly down the aisle towards near-certain, adulterous doom. Yet, no amount of honest reason can dissuade liberal women from this self-destructive, moral myopia.
What other term but “morally schizoid” could possibly describe this blatantly contradictory tendency among liberal women?
Having spent their youth casually throwing their own sexual morality to the winds of fairytale “liberation,” these liberal women still steadfastly cling to the faithfully monogamous ideal for that sometime-later moment when they actually do desire all the traditional things — the husband, the kids, the white picket fence — those pesky female-nature embedded longings, which coincidentally ensure the continuation of the human race.
But these liberal women somehow — in perfect schizoid manner — convince themselves that once married, they will be the gratuitous beneficiaries of the monogamous respect they still desire, but have never once demanded or deserved. Intuitively, women know that strict monogamy provides the only real security for themselves and their own offspring. Yet, they continue themselves to spurn the demands of monogamy until the very last minute, believing that fidelity springs forth naturally in miraculous profusion among all “married” humans. Such pure poppycock can only be explained as a mental disorder.
I think women need to ask themselves questions honestly and rationally:
can recreational sex make an unemployed man get a job?
can recreational sex make a violent man be courteous and respectful?
can recreational sex make an atheist turn into a Christian?
can recreational sex make a male slut stay faithful?
can recreational sex make wastefulness turn into frugality?
can recreational sex make laziness turn into diligence?
can recreational sex make irresponsibility turn into commitment?
Marriages last because both partners have prepared themselves for self-sacrifice, rational discussions, problem solving and cooperation.
WINTERY KNIGHT 