The Pink Flamingo Life is tacky. Deal with it! Tue, 16 Oct 2018 10:30:56 +0000 en-US hourly 1 The Pink Flamingo 32 32 First Nation’s DNA & Tribal Membership Tue, 16 Oct 2018 10:30:56 +0000

The first thing you need to know is that with the overwhelming evidence (not) someone like Elizabeth Warren has pointing to First Nation’s DNA, there is what is called a FALSE POSITIVE.

“…The concept of genetic testing to prove Native American ancestry is one that is discussed more frequently in recent times, but there are many problems with the idea.Å Perhaps foremost of these problems is that to make a genetic test the arbiter of whether someone is Native American or not is to give up tribal sovereign ability to determine membership and relations.Å But even taken on their own scientific terms, the tests cannot do much to identify who is and who is not Native American. This is because they yield many false negatives and false positives (they readily misidentify non-Native people as Native, and misidentify Native people as non-Native), and the positive results they do yield at best are only probabilities, not certainties.Å If these were medical diagnostic tests, they would never be approved or adopted…”

But the most important argument against this type of testing to establish tribal affiliations is that biology (and genetics) track just part of our tribal inheritance. These DNA tests treat ÒNative American biology as though all Indians were essentially the same. But in reality, our traditions make us who we are, not just our biology.

My nephew-in-law is a registered member of a specific First Nation’s tribe here in the United States, inheriting his ancestry from his mother.  His family recently registered Evelyn Sage, who is pushing two-and-a-half.  In order to receive registered tribal membership, a person must be able to prove their genealogy.  There is a substantive difference between taking a DNA test, which basically proves very little, and having actual provable ancestry.

This is where I could do a rant and rave about these stupid Ancestry DNA tests, but why bother.  All it does is tell you a few genetic markers. It DOES not prove ancestry.  It will NEVER get you into the DAR.  It doesn’t do much of anything.  There is a difference between an ancestry DNA test and genetic testing to prove parentage.

The various articles spewing forth gushing accolades about Elizabeth Warren‘s DNA are a joke.  There is a reason the whole thing is political and not scientific.  According to the DNA report, her bloodlines were cross-studied with Native populations from Utah. If you know anything about our First Nation’s populations you would know that the groups in & around Utah are Ute, Navajo, Hopi, Zuni, Comanche.  Warren claims to have Cherokee ancestry.  I grew up in South Carolina.  A huge segment of the population has very real Cherokee ancestry.  Why did the ‘specialist’ not use established DNA databases from Ancestry where people have identified themselves as Cherokee?

I smell a rat.

Stanford University professor Carlos D. Bustamante, is a liberal activist who says that he has no real database of actual First Nation’s DNA to use because he states people who are Native American don’t want their DNA profiled.  His patronizing racism harkens back to the days when everyone said primitive Indians would not allow photos because they were so backward.  Various tribes do different things, and it is NOT about being anti-science, but tied up in legalities.  If the DNA profile is correct, Warren DOES NOT have Cherokee ancestry as she claims. Thing is, contrary to what Bustamante has said, there is a way to profile for genetic markers pointing to Cherokee.  Warren has NONE of those markers.

Bustamante spews the party lie about First Nations DNA tests.  The following is from the American Indian & Alaskan Native Genetic Research Center.  Now, if you read what Bustamante days, we can assume such a group does not exist, but it does.  Why did Warren not reference them?

“…As research generates more information, some genetic markers, such as SNPs, appear more commonly in some populations than others. However, these genetic markers do not reflect all of the genetic information in a person’s ancestry. With genetic ancestry testing, there are limits to the information available for AI/AN individuals because there are few samples from the AI/AN population in the current databases being used for these tests. Further, these tests do not provide information about all of a person’s ancestors. Kim TallBear describes this limitation well in her articles, including an explanation of how a person with AI/AN ancestry may not show up on a genetic test as AI/AN, or may be told they are of East Asian or other descent (TallBear 2003, TallBear and Bolnick 2004).  Brett Shelton and Jonathan Marks have also described thelimits of DNA testing with respect to Native identity. There is also some concern, highlighted by Marks and Shelton, thatboth false positives and false negatives occur in these tests. In other words, genetic ancestry testing using AIMs is not totally accurate or precise. With this testing, an individual can be misidentified as AI/AN even if they do not have the genetic markers that are more common among AI/AN peoples. On the other hand, an individual could be misidentified as non-AI/AN even if they do have the genetic markers found more often in AI/AN groups. For this reason, genetic ancestry testing can be viewed as just one piece of a larger puzzle about an individual’s ancestry. Other tools should be used to fill in the information throughout the puzzle, or the enrollment application. Kenneth Weiss and Jeffrey Long highlight that “not many documented single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are useful [ancestry informative markers]….For example, an AIM intended to reveal Native American ancestry may also be common in East Asians, and not private after all.”  These authors conclude that “Although DNA data have the aura of providing definitive answers to population and individual ancestry questions, they require careful interpretation in terms of both the laws of inheritance and the evolutionary process. Untrained individuals, and even some professionals, will have a difficult time reconciling the nuances of interpretation with the bottom-line aura that DNA carries” (Weiss and Long 2009). Thus, scholars have argued that genetic ancestry tests should be interpreted with caution, especially because there is currently not enough data from AI/AN populations to make specific claims to ancestry based on genetic testing.…”

Bottom line – there is no real test to do what Elizabeth Warren says she has done.  Some tribes use DNA testing, others do not.


]]> 0
Reason Number Million and One Why I Love History Mon, 15 Oct 2018 10:24:04 +0000 An archaeological study reveals that the slingshots used by Roman soldiers were so powerful and accurate, being hit by one was like being shot by a Magnum .44.  Put that into perspective with the story of David and Goliath.

“…Researchers have found 400-some lead slingshot balls at the site of a Roman siege in ancient Scotland and say the balls would have struck the natives with nearly the force of a .44 Magnum handgun—one of the most powerful pistols in the world….”

We now literally have a scientific explanation as to why a humble shepherd could so easily take out a powerful warrior.  History is way cool!


]]> 0
Sunday Morning Opera: Pavarotti Sun, 14 Oct 2018 10:30:42 +0000 The Great Luciano would have been 83 on October 12.  We have another operatic birthday on October 16.  I can’t do it.  Just thinking about it, and what we’ve lost makes me cry.  Maybe next year we can celebrate a magnificent life and our very favorite, but I can’t do it this year. It has been almost a year.  I still can’t handle the sound of his voice.  It will be a year, November 22.  I know, it’s ironic.

I saw Pavarotti quite a few times at the Met. He was incredible.

I suspect I’m not alone in admitting I think he was best in L’elisir d’amore. I want to smile, every time I think of his performance.

]]> 0
Lovely Liberal Thugs Sat, 13 Oct 2018 10:30:04 +0000 In Portland, the mayor  has told the cops to allow Antifa to do what they want, bully who they wish, and basically make life a living hell for anyone who disagrees.

In NYC, Antifa vandalized the city’s GOP office.

Various high-profile Dem leaders keep telling their minions to get in the face of Republicans.  Joe Biden has called us every possible offensive term possible.  Hillary Clinton suggests we must be brutalized.  The whole process is one of dehumanizing the opposition.

This has happened at various times in history, most notably in Germany in the 1930s.

What is going to happen in places like Portland when the Antifa mobs grow larger and more violent?  Does the very liberal mayor allow them to take over the city, or put a stop to them?  Either way, he has released the vicious genie from his radioactive bottle.  The Democrats don’t mind trying to destroy anyone who is standing in the way of their power.

It’s that simple.

]]> 0
Financial Sandbagging Fri, 12 Oct 2018 10:30:02 +0000 During the early summer of 2008, when the economy started going south, I remember a conversation I had with my father.  He had yet to be diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, and was quite with-it.  (I can’t believe it was 10 years ago). He was beginning to think some of the economic distress we were experiencing was engineered to destroy John McCain’s White House chances.  I’ve thought about it, repeatedly, over the years.

The past few days have seen a dramatic drop in the market, due primarily to the Fed’s third increase in interest rates in a row.  Last night, I began wondering if part of this was not to sandbag President Trump.  Low and behold, I’m not the only one who is thinking the same thing.

“…Charles Payne is a highly successful and respected market expert whose life remains an example of self-made hard work whether it was during his time serving in the military, his years at E.F. Hutton, or running his own financial analyst business since 1991. 

When it comes to market manipulations the man knows his stuff and right now he’s calling out the Federal Reserve for politicizing its current monetary policy trend that he thinks is intended to put a damper on the remarkable Trump economy…”

To me, the whole thing is just a little too coincidental – just a few weeks before the midterms?


]]> 0
Mean Girls Thu, 11 Oct 2018 10:30:57 +0000 Girls and women don’t lie about rape?

“…Several high school girls — dubbed “mean girls” — claimed a male student sexually assaulted them because they “just don’t like him.” Now the school district and district attorney are facing heat over the fact that neither punished the young women at all.

Now the boy’s parents, Michael J. and Alicia Flood, are suing the parents of the five girls and the Seneca Valley School District in Pennsylvania over their son’s treatment. They say in their 26-page lawsuit their son “was forced to endure multiple court appearances, detention in a juvenile facility, detention at home, the loss of his liberty, and other damages until several of the girls reluctantly admitted that their accusations were false.”…”

They’ve ruined this kid’s life.  Even the school system refuses to apologize to him.  I keep saying if this trend continues, it’s going to be almost impossible for women to be believed when they are raped.

]]> 0
A Little Columbus Perspective Wed, 10 Oct 2018 10:26:58 +0000 I love history. Andrew Boston has an excellent history lesson about Columbus and the Spanish battle against the Moors.  He puts things into perspective.   The Spanish throne was also in need of money – gold. The story about Columbus looking for a way to get to India for the almost mythological riches of the region are not legend, but reality. The Mediterranean was basically controlled by Islamic interests. Deleted from modern history is the devastating effects of Islamic slavers. The riches brought back from the New World helped fuel the power of the Spanish throne, enabling Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, his battle with Henry VIII over the divorce with Katherine. His successor Phillip II married Mary Tudor. More importantly, Charles V’s illegitimate son, Don Juan of Austria to seriously defeat the combined Islamic naval forces at Lepanto in 1571. As an aside, had Don Juan survived, and led Phillip’s Armada in 1588, we would probably all be speaking Spanish, today.

One of the reasons there is so much bad press about Christopher Columbus is quite simple.  He was Jewish. The veiled antisemitism of the liberal left, especially intelligentsia never ceases to amaze me.  It is the worst I’ve seen in my lifetime.   If Columbus were a different religion, he would be treated much kinder by today’s revisionism.

]]> 0
Toxic Liberal Sisterhood Tue, 09 Oct 2018 10:30:25 +0000 Toxic Sisterhood is about hate and intolerance.  Like all good liberals, women must now destroy anyone who disagrees with them, totally and completely destroy them.  It doesn’t matter if a person is a saint, if they do not march goose-step with liberal sisterhood, then they need to be nuked.  This is not a good thing.  By giving in to their agenda of pure, toxic hate, liberal women are making jokes of themselves.  They begin to exhibit the qualities that have plagued women since the beginning of time.

Case in point is the truly vile young woman who accosted an elderly man on the Supreme Court steps on Saturday.  I’m having a difficult time locating the original video, which appears to have been scrubbed by Google.  I can link to James Woods twitter account for a copy of the video.  We do know she appears to have been arrested, later.

If this is feminism, then it is absolutely toxic.  If this is sisterhood, leave me out of it.  It is evil.

]]> 0
The Toxic Sisterhood of the Perpetually Offended Mon, 08 Oct 2018 10:26:31 +0000 I am on record stating that I think the modern version of post-modern feminism is abjectly toxic and self-serving. It is a recipe for mediocrity.   Women, who once had to fight and struggle to achieve any career remotely non threatening, now have things handed to them on a silver platter. When I battled as a lobbyist, working with the space program, I worked twice as hard as the men involved.  In the spring of 1983, the weekend before the first Challenger launch, I attended a space conference in Houston. The first thing I did when arriving in the area was to hit NASA for my press credentials.

“What does a sweet little thing like you need with something like that?” the guard at the gate asked me.

What was the use replying?

The conference was even worse.  Not a single woman was scheduled to speak, even if we were prepping for Sally’s ride.  There were about twenty of us sitting in the lobby, Sunday morning, fuming.  The special guest speaker was the founder of the Congressional Space Caucus, and low man on the Congressional totem pole at that time.  Considered by many to be a total flake because of his advocacy for NASA and human conquest of space, he stopped by to tell us to stop pouting and do something about it.  We did.  We formed the Woman’s Space Network.  Our greatest achievement was networking one of the founders of the group into orbit!  The Congressman, who was considered a flake at the time went on, a few years later, to become the Speaker of the House of Representatives – Newt Gingrich.

Life was like that.  If a woman achieved anything, we all knew she had worked longer and harder, and was far more qualified than her male counterparts. Unfortunately, today, this is not the case.  Women are quota monsters.  All a woman needs to do is cry, become outraged, and she becomes the poster child for social promotion, no matter what the field.  Unfortunately, an entire generation of them, along with their older enablers, drunk on their success, now demand achievement without any form of equity.  They must be allowed to achieve their goals, no matter how inferior they are.

Today’s toxic sisterhood demands an end to patriarchy.  In order for them to flourish, men must be destroyed.  According to the new rules of toxic sisterhood, those of us who are conservative are brain-dead, dim-witted dupes and apologists for the patriarchy.  According to toxic sisterhood, all men must be punished for the sins of a few.   Something like 26 out of 100K women in the US were raped in 2010.  That’s about 250 per million.  No person should be raped, but to require all men, especially those who are conservative, be held accountable for sins they did not commit is barbaric. While we are on the subject, I am expecting the number of rapes on college campuses to continue to rise, simply because today’s snowflake is so entitled, with such a day-care mentality, he more than likely, thinks he is entitled.

This brings us to the total and abject contempt the average conservative woman has for the minions of toxic sisterhood.  There is nothing wrong with opposing someone nominated for any office.  There is nothing wrong with a lobby effort to stop that person.  I’ve been there and done that, and have some interesting accomplishments.  I did not put on a pink hat, scream shout, have a meltdown or make threats.  That’s for amateurs and toxic sisterhood.

I think each and every American citizen should be working, vigorously, involved in politics.  I don’t care if you are liberal, conservative moderate, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, progressive, socialist, or whatever. Our country works best when we are all involved.  But, one must learn how to do things, behave, mind your manners, and quit acting like a total ass.   Grow up and act like a professional.  Dress like a professional.  Dump the signs and t-shirts. Quit screaming and crying.  Most of the country is laughing at you.

The problem with toxic sisterhood is it propels women into an eternal position of being nothing but a little girl, screaming and crying, demanding her way or she’s going to hold her breath and have a temper tantrum. No amount of delusional self-discovery is ever going to change that eternally wounded woman-child.  One of these days people are going to discover how obsessively incompetent, ill-educated, and emotionally stunted these women are.  Until then, we’re stuck with them, no matter how rude, vicious, cruel, and bullying they are.  Let’s face it they’re nothing more than the mean girls, gone wild.


]]> 0
Sunday Morning Opera: Montserrat Caballé Sun, 07 Oct 2018 10:30:06 +0000 We’ve lost another of the all-time greats.  Montserrat Caballé, 12 April 1933 – 6 October 2018, has died in her beloved Barcelona.  Her bel canto was magnificent.   I was fortunate to be able to see her several times at the Met.

]]> 0
It Takes a Woman Fri, 05 Oct 2018 10:30:50 +0000 Susan Collins proves it takes a woman to do things the right way.  I just plain old stole it from her website.  Fortunately, it is public domain.   While this process has shown us some of the very worst the United States Senate has to offer, taking us back to the days of McCarthyism, it has also shown us some abjectly remarkable moments which will go down in history.  Lindsey has been extraordinary.  Mitch McConnell has risen to the occasion.  And now, Susan Collins has just shown the world a woman knows how to do it in such a way as to make those opposing a good man, look like dirt.

“…Mr. President, the five previous times that I have come to the floor to explain my vote on the nomination of a justice to the United States Supreme Court, I have begun my floor remarks explaining my decision with a recognition of the solemn nature and the importance of the occasion.

But today we have come to the conclusion of a confirmation process that has become so dysfunctional it looks more like a caricature of a gutter-level political campaign than a solemn occasion. 

The President nominated Brett Kavanaugh on July 9th.  Within moments of that announcement, special interest groups raced to be the first to oppose him, including one organization that didn’t even bother to fill in the Judge’s name on its pre-written press release – they simply wrote that they opposed “Donald Trump’s nomination of XX to the Supreme Court of the United States.” A number of Senators joined the race to announce their opposition, but they were beaten to the punch by one of our colleagues who actually announced opposition before the nominee’s identity was even known. 

Since that time, we have seen special interest groups whip their followers into a frenzy by spreading misrepresentations and outright falsehoods about Judge Kavanaugh’s judicial record.  Over-the-top rhetoric and distortions of his record and testimony at his first hearing produced short-lived headlines which, although debunked hours later, continue to live on and be spread through social media.  Interest groups have also spent an unprecedented amount of dark money opposing this nomination.

Our Supreme Court confirmation process has been in steady decline for more than thirty years.  One can only hope that the Kavanaugh nomination is where the process has finally hit rock bottom. 

Against this backdrop, it is up to each individual Senator to decide what the Constitution’s “advice and consent” duty means.  Informed by Alexander Hamilton’s Federalist 76, I have interpreted this to mean that the President has broad discretion to consider a nominee’s philosophy, whereas my duty as a Senator is to focus on the nominee’s qualifications as long as that nominee’s philosophy is within the mainstream of judicial thought. 

I have always opposed litmus tests for judicial nominees with respect to their personal views or politics, but I fully expect them to be able to put aside any and all personal preferences in deciding the cases that come before them.  I have never considered the President’s identity or party when evaluating Supreme Court nominations.  As a result, I voted in favor of Justices Roberts and Alito, who were nominated by President Bush, Justices Sotomayor and Kagan, who were nominated by President Obama, and Justice Gorsuch, who was nominated by President Trump. 

So I began my evaluation of Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination by reviewing his 12-year record on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, including his more than 300 opinions and his many speeches and law review articles.  Nineteen attorneys, including lawyers from the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, briefed me many times each week and assisted me in evaluating the judge’s extensive record.  I met with Judge Kavanaugh for more than two hours in my office.  I listened carefully to the testimony at the Committee hearings.  I spoke with people who knew him personally, such as Condoleezza Rice and many others.  And, I talked with Judge Kavanaugh a second time by phone for another hour to ask him very specific additional questions.

I have also met with thousands of my constituents, both advocates and many opponents, regarding Judge Kavanaugh.  One concern that I frequently heard was that Judge Kavanaugh would be likely to eliminate the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) vital protections for people with preexisting conditions.  I disagree with this contention.  In a dissent in Seven-Sky v. Holder, Judge Kavanaugh rejected a challenge to the ACA on narrow procedural grounds, preserving the law in full.  Many experts have said his dissent informed Justice Roberts’ opinion upholding the ACA at the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, Judge Kavanaugh’s approach toward the doctrine of severability is narrow.  When a part of a statute is challenged on constitutional grounds, he has argued for severing the invalid clause as surgically as possible while allowing the overall law to remain intact. 

This was his approach in his dissent in a case that involved a challenge to the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (PPH v. CFPB).  In his dissent, Judge Kavanaugh argued for “severing any problematic portions while leaving the remainder intact.”  Given the current challenges to the ACA, proponents, including myself, of protections for people with pre-existing conditions should want a Justice who would take just this kind of approach.

Another assertion I have heard often is that Judge Kavanaugh cannot be trusted if a case involving alleged wrongdoing by the President were to come before the Court.  The basis for this argument seems to be two-fold.  First, Judge Kavanaugh has written that he believes that Congress should enact legislation to protect presidents from criminal prosecution or civil liability while in office.  Mr. President, I believe opponents miss the mark on this issue.  The fact that Judge Kavanaugh offered this legislative proposal suggests that he believes that the President does not have such protection currently.

Second, there are some who argue that given the current Special Counsel investigation, President Trump should not even be allowed to nominate a justice.  That argument ignores our recent history.  President Clinton, in 1993, nominated Justice Ginsburg after the Whitewater investigation was already underway.  And she was confirmed 96-3.  The next year, just three months after Independent Counsel Robert Fiske was named to lead the Whitewater investigation, President Clinton nominated Justice Breyer.  He was confirmed 87-9.

Supreme Court Justices have not hesitated to rule against the presidents who have nominated them.  Perhaps most notably in United States v. Nixon, three Nixon appointees who heard the case joined the unanimous opinion against him.

Judge Kavanaugh has been unequivocal in his belief that no president is above the law.  He has stated that Marbury v. Madison, Youngstown Steel v. Sawyer and United States v. Nixon are three of the four greatest Supreme Court cases in history.  What do they have in common?  Each of them is a case where the Court served as a check on presidential power.  And I would note that the fourth case that Judge Kavanaugh has pointed to as the greatest in history was Brown v Board of Education.

One Kavanaugh decision illustrates the  point about the check on presidential power directly.  He wrote the opinion in Hamdan v. United States, a case that challenged the Bush Administration’s military commission prosecution of an associate of Osama Bin Laden.  This conviction was very important to the Bush Administration, but Judge Kavanaugh, who had been appointed to the DC Circuit by President Bush and had worked in President Bush’s White House, ruled that the conviction was unlawful.  As he explained during the hearing, “We don’t make decisions based on who people are, or their policy preferences, or the moment.  We base decisions on the law….”

Others I met with have expressed concerns that Justice Kennedy’s retirement threatens the right of same sex couples to marry.  Yet, Judge Kavanaugh described the Obergefell decision, which legalized same gender marriages, as an important landmark precedent.  He also cited Justice Kennedy’s recent Masterpiece Cakeshop opinion for the Court’s majority stating that: “The days of treating gay and lesbian Americans or gay and lesbian couples as second-class citizens who are inferior in dignity and worth are over in the Supreme Court.” 

Others have suggested that the judge holds extreme views on birth control.  In one case, Judge Kavanaugh incurred the disfavor of both sides of the political spectrum for seeking to ensure the availability of contraceptive services for women while minimizing the involvement of employers with religious objections.  Although his critics frequently overlook this point, Judge Kavanaugh’s dissent rejected arguments that the government did not have a compelling interest in facilitating access to contraception.  In fact, he wrote that the Supreme Court precedent “strongly suggested” that there was a “compelling interest” in facilitating access to birth control. 

There has also been considerable focus on the future of abortion rights based on the concern that Judge Kavanaugh would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade.  Protecting this right is important to me.   

To my knowledge, Judge Kavanaugh is the first Supreme Court nominee to express the view that precedent is not merely a practice and tradition, but rooted in Article III of our Constitution itself.  He believes that precedent “is not just a judicial policy … it is constitutionally dictated to pay attention and pay heed to rules of precedent.”  In other words, precedent isn’t a goal or an aspiration; it is a constitutional tenet that has to be followed except in the most extraordinary circumstances.

The judge further explained that precedent provides stability, predictability, reliance, and fairness.  There are, of course, rare and extraordinary times where the Supreme Court would rightly overturn a precedent.  The most famous example was when the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education overruled Plessy v. Ferguson, correcting a “grievously wrong” decision–to use the judge’s term–allowing racial inequality.  But, someone who believes that the importance of precedent has been rooted in the Constitution would follow long-established precedent except in those rare circumstances where a decision is “grievously wrong” or “deeply inconsistent with the law.”  Those are Judge Kavanaugh’s phrases. 

As Judge Kavanaugh asserted to me, a long-established precedent is not something to be trimmed, narrowed, discarded, or overlooked.  Its roots in the Constitution give the concept of stare decisis greater weight such that precedent can’t be trimmed or narrowed simply because a judge might want to on a whim.  In short, his views on honoring precedent would preclude attempts to do by stealth that which one has committed not to do overtly.

Noting that Roe v. Wade was decided 45 years ago, and reaffirmed 19 years later in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, I asked Judge Kavanaugh whether the passage of time is relevant to following precedent.  He said decisions become part of our legal framework with the passage of time and that honoring precedent is essential to maintaining public confidence.

Our discussion then turned to the right of privacy, on which the Supreme Court relied in Griswold v. Connecticut, a case that struck down a law banning the use and sale of contraceptives.  Griswold established the legal foundation that led to Roe eight years later.  In describing Griswold as “settled law,” Judge Kavanaugh observed that it was the correct application of two famous cases from the 1920s, Meyer and Pierce, that are not seriously challenged by anyone today.  Finally, in his testimony, he noted repeatedly that Roe had been upheld by Planned Parenthood v. Casey, describing it as “precedent on precedent.”  When I asked him would it be sufficient to overturn a long-established precedent if five current justices believed it was wrongly decided, he emphatically said “no.”   

Opponents frequently cite then-candidate Donald Trump’s campaign pledge to nominate only judges who would overturn Roe.  The Republican platform for all presidential campaigns has included this pledge since at least 1980.  During this time, Republican presidents have appointed Justices O’Connor, Souter, and Kennedy to the Supreme Court.  These are the very three justices—Republican president appointed justices—who authored the Casey decision, which reaffirmed Roe.  Furthermore, pro-choice groups vigorously opposed each of these justices’ nominations.  Incredibly, they even circulated buttons with the slogan “Stop Souter Or Women Will Die!”  Just two years later, Justice Souter coauthored the Casey opinion, reaffirming a woman’s right to choose.  Suffice it to say, prominent advocacy organizations have been wrong.

These same interest groups have speculated that Judge Kavanaugh was selected to do the bidding of conservative ideologues, despite his record of judicial independence.  I asked the judge point blank whether he had made any commitments or pledges to anyone at the White House, to the Federalist Society, or to any outside group on how he would decide cases.  He unequivocally assured me he had not. 

Judge Kavanaugh has received rave reviews for his 12-year track record as a judge, including for his judicial temperament.  The American Bar Association (ABA) gave him its highest possible rating.  Its Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary conducted an extraordinarily thorough assessment, soliciting input from almost 500 people, including his judicial colleagues.  The ABA concluded that “his integrity, judicial temperament, and professional competence met the highest standard.” 

Lisa Blatt, who has argued more cases before the Supreme Court than any other woman in history, testified: “By any objective measure, Judge Kavanaugh is clearly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.”  “His opinions are invariably thoughtful and fair….”  Ms. Blatt, who clerked for and is an ardent admirer of Justice Ginsburg, and who is, in her own words, “an unapologetic defender of a woman’s right to choose,” said that Judge Kavanaugh “fit[s] in the mainstream of legal thought.”  She also observed that “Judge Kavanaugh is remarkably committed to promoting women in the legal profession.” 

That Judge Kavanaugh is more of a centrist than some of his critics maintain is reflected in the fact that he and Chief Judge Merrick Garland voted the same way in 93 percent of the cases that they heard together.  Indeed, Chief Judge Garland joined in more than 96 percent of the majority opinions authored by Judge Kavanaugh, dissenting only once.

Despite all this, after weeks of reviewing Judge Kavanaugh’s record and listening to 32 hours of his testimony, the Senate’s advice and consent role was thrown into a tailspin following the allegations of sexual assault by Professor Christine Blasey Ford.  The confirmation process now involves evaluating whether or not Judge Kavanaugh committed sexual assault, and lied about it to the Judiciary Committee. 

Some argue that because this is a lifetime appointment to our highest court, the public interest requires that doubts be resolved against the nominee.  Others see the public interest as embodied in our long-established tradition of affording to those accused of misconduct a presumption of innocence.  In cases in which the facts are unclear, they would argue that the question should be resolved in favor of the nominee.           

Mr. President, I understand both viewpoints.  This debate is complicated further by the fact that the Senate confirmation process is not a trial.  But certain fundamental legal principles—about due process, the presumption of innocence, and fairness—do bear on my thinking, and I cannot abandon them. 

In evaluating any given claim of misconduct, we will be ill served in the long run if we abandon the presumption of innocence and fairness, tempting though it may be.  We must always remember that it is when passions are most inflamed that fairness is most in jeopardy. 

The presumption of innocence is relevant to the advice and consent function when an accusation departs from a nominee’s otherwise exemplary record.  I worry that departing from this presumption could lead to a lack of public faith in the judiciary and would be hugely damaging to the confirmation process moving forward.

Some of the allegations levied against Judge Kavanaugh illustrate why the presumption of innocence is so important.  I am thinking in particular not of the allegations raised by Professor Ford, but of the allegation that, when he was a teenager, Judge Kavanaugh drugged multiple girls and used their weakened state to facilitate gang rape.  This outlandish allegation was put forth without any credible supporting evidence and simply parroted public statements of others.  That such an allegation can find its way into the Supreme Court confirmation process is a stark reminder about why the presumption of innocence is so ingrained in our American consciousness.

Mr. President, I listened carefully to Christine Blasey Ford’s testimony before the Judiciary Committee.  I found her testimony to be sincere, painful, and compelling.  I believe that she is a survivor of a sexual assault and that this trauma has upended her life.  Nevertheless, the four witnesses she named could not corroborate any of the events of that evening gathering where she says the assault occurred; none of the individuals Professor Ford says were at the party has any recollection at all of that night. 

Judge Kavanaugh forcefully denied the allegations under penalty of perjury.  Mark Judge denied under penalty of felony that he had witnessed an assault.  PJ Smyth, another person allegedly at the party, denied that he was there under penalty of felony.  Professor Ford’s life-long friend Leland Keyser indicated that, under penalty of felony, she does not remember that party.  And Ms. Keyser went further.  She indicated that not only does she not remember a night like that, but also that she does not even know Brett Kavanaugh.          

            In addition to the lack of corroborating evidence, we also learned some facts that raised more questions.  For instance, since these allegations have become public, Professor Ford testified that not a single person has contacted her to say, “I was at the party that night.”

Furthermore, the professor testified that although she does not remember how she got home that evening, she knew that, because of the distance, she would have needed a ride – yet not a single person has come forward to say that they were the one that drove her home or were in the car with her that night.  And Professor Ford also indicated that even though she left that small gathering of six or so people abruptly and without saying goodbye and distraught, none of them called her the next day – or ever – to ask why she left – is she okay – not even her closest friend, Ms. Keyser.

Mr. President, the Constitution does not provide guidance as to how we are supposed to evaluate these competing claims.  It leaves that decision up to each Senator.  This is not a criminal trial, and I do not believe that claims such as these need to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.  Nevertheless, fairness would dictate that the claims at least should meet a threshold of “more likely than not” as our standard. 

The facts presented do not mean that Professor Ford was not sexually assaulted that night – or at some other time – but they do lead me to conclude that the allegations fail to meet the “more likely than not” standard.  Therefore, I do not believe that these charges can fairly prevent Judge Kavanaugh from serving on the Court. 

Let me emphasize that my approach to this question should not be misconstrued as suggesting that unwanted sexual contact of any nature is not a serious problem in this country.  To the contrary, if any good at all has come from this ugly confirmation process, it has been to create an awareness that we have underestimated the pervasiveness of this terrible problem.

I have been alarmed and disturbed, however, by some who have suggested that unless Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination is rejected, the Senate is somehow condoning sexual assault.  Nothing could be further from the truth.

Every person—man or woman–who makes a charge of sexual assault deserves to be heard and treated with respect.  The #MeToo movement is real.  It matters.  It is needed.  And it is long overdue. We know that rape and sexual assault are less likely to be reported to the police than other forms of assault.  On average, an estimated 211,000 rapes and sexual assaults go unreported every year. We must listen to survivors, and every day we must seek to stop the criminal behavior that has hurt so many.  We owe this to ourselves, our children, and generations to come.

Since the hearing, I have listened to many survivors of sexual assault.  Many were total strangers who told me their heart-wrenching stories for the first time in their lives.  Some were friends I have known for decades, yet with the exception of one woman who had confided in me years ago, I had no idea that they had been the victims of sexual attacks.  I am grateful for their courage and their willingness to come forward, and I hope that in heightening public awareness, they have also lightened the burden that they have been quietly bearing for so many years.  To them, I pledge to do all that I can to ensure that their daughters and granddaughters never share their experiences.

Over the past few weeks, I have been emphatic that the Senate has an obligation to investigate and evaluate the serious allegations of sexual assault.  I called for and supported the additional hearing to hear from both Professor Ford and Judge Kavanaugh.  I also pushed for and supported the FBI supplemental background investigation.  This was the right thing to do.

Christine Ford never sought the spotlight.  She indicated that she was terrified to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and she has shunned attention since then.  She seemed completely unaware of Chairman Grassley’s offer to allow her to testify confidentially in California.  Watching her, Mr. President, I could not help but feel that some people who wanted to engineer the defeat of this nomination cared little, if at all, for her well-being.

Professor Ford testified that a very limited number of people had access to her letter.  Yet that letter found its way into the public domain.  She testified that she never gave permission for that very private letter to be released.  And yet, here we are.  We are in the middle of a fight that she never sought, arguing about claims that she wanted to raise confidentially.

One theory I have heard espoused repeatedly is that our colleague, Senator Feinstein, leaked Professor Ford’s letter at the eleventh hour to derail this process.  I want to state this very clearly: I know Senator Diane Feinstein extremely well, and I believe that she would never do that.  I knew that to be the case before she even stated it at the hearing.  She is a person of integrity, and I stand by her.

I have also heard some argue that the Chairman of the Committee somehow treated Professor Ford unfairly.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Chairman Grassley, along with his excellent staff, treated Professor Ford with compassion and respect throughout the entire process.  And that is the way the Senator from Iowa has conducted himself throughout a lifetime dedicated to public service.

But the fact remains, Mr. President, that someone leaked this letter against Professor Ford’s express wishes.  I suspect, regrettably, that we will never know for certain who did it.  To that leaker, who I hope is listening now, let me say that what you did was unconscionable.  You have taken a survivor who was not only entitled to your respect, but who also trusted you to protect her – and you have sacrificed her well-being in a misguided attempt to win whatever political crusade you think you are fighting.  My only hope is that your callous act has turned this process into such a dysfunctional circus that it will cause the Senate – and indeed all Americans – to reconsider how we evaluate Supreme Court nominees.  If that happens, then the appalling lack of compassion you afforded Professor Ford will at least have some unintended positive consequences.

            Mr. President, the politically charged atmosphere surrounding this nomination had reached a fever pitch even before these allegations were known, and it has been challenging even then to separate fact from fiction.

We live in a time of such great disunity, as the bitter fight over this nomination both in the Senate and among the public clearly demonstrates.  It is not merely a case of different groups having different opinions.  It is a case of people bearing extreme ill will toward those who disagree with them.  In our intense focus on our differences, we have forgotten the common values that bind us together as Americans.  When some of our best minds are seeking to develop ever more sophisticated algorithms designed to link us to websites that only reinforce and cater to our views, we can only expect our differences to intensify.

This would have alarmed the drafters of our Constitution, who were acutely aware that different values and interests could prevent Americans from becoming and remaining a single people.  Indeed, of the six objectives they invoked in the preamble to the Constitution, the one that they put first was the formation of “a more perfect Union.”

Their vision of “a more perfect Union” does not exist today, and if anything, we appear to be moving farther away from it.  It is particularly worrisome that the Supreme Court, the institution that most Americans see as the principal guardian of our shared constitutional heritage, is viewed as part of the problem through a political lens.

Mr. President, we’ve heard a lot of charges and counter charges about Judge Kavanaugh.  But as those who have known him best have attested, he has been an exemplary public servant, judge, teacher, coach, husband, and father.  Despite the turbulent, bitter fight surrounding his nomination, my fervent hope is that Brett Kavanaugh will work to lessen the divisions in the Supreme Court so that we have far fewer 5-4 decisions and so that public confidence in our Judiciary and our highest court is restored.  Mr. President, I will vote to confirm Judge Kavanaugh…”

I Am Not Every Woman Fri, 05 Oct 2018 10:30:42 +0000 I came across a piece of word vomit by terribly self-aware young writer.  Until that moment, I’ve never heard of her.  Trying to discover something about her is like hammering lime Jello to the wall. She is apparently a feminist who is into self-discovery, spewing out words about her body and every woman.

Sisterhood is toxic.  I have a sister.  I don’t need additional ones. I have cousins aplenty. I have several nieces.  I don’t care to embrace every woman on the planet.  I don’t really like women.  I don’t want to be one with them, to discuss bodily functions, diet, exercise, puking, yoga, coffee, and mindfulness.  The beauty of self aware spewers of word vomit is they know how to connect words into run-on sentences that would make the Apostle Paul quite proud.  One of the hallmarks of his work were his run-on sentences.  He disparately needed a good editor, but I digress.

Mindful word vomit helps to unite ‘sisterhood’.  An honest person will sit there and look at the spew of words.  If it is in print, you may want to turn it upside down, over, under, and like the old preposition of old, anything an airplane might do approaching a window. It is so profound in its flow that it must be important.  It is terribly representative of post-modern feminism, totally and completely vacuous and empty, overly self-indulgent, with just a hint of that lovely pink daggert being poised right between another woman’s shoulder blades.

As a whole, I don’t like most women.  Then again, I refuse to be every woman.  I refuse to see myself in this narrative of the eternal struggle of women trying to unite against the oppression of patriarchy.  Any woman who knows anything about social and political history knows women have always used men as puppets. True women of power have allowed men to stalk around like popinjays.  Real women understand how much power we have always had.  Patriarchy is an illusion we have allowed men, in order to feed their fragile egos.

Real women understand the concept, and allow the strutting, posturing, belching, pissing, and farting because we allow them to do the annoying work of life. They are fragile little creatures, who need stroking, affirmations, and complements. They do things we don’t want to be bothered doing, like squashing spiders, reaching for top shelves, and changing the oil.  If that sounds like a sexist division of labor, well, frankly, I don’t give a damn.  I don’t need to pretend I’m strong.  I’m not going to go lift a fifty pound bag of anything, let alone one that is twenty-five.  I have nothing to prove to myself.

Do I find sisterhood with the battle of the bulge? Heck no.  Sisterhood is for lovely young women who are fit, thin, and despise themselves for that stray two pounds.  They simply must give up gluten and do extra spinning.  They find solace in their eternal sisterhood of deprivation and self-loathing.  You see, pseudo self-loathing is good for one’s image.  It works well over a health drink at the gym.

Their loathing of women who aren’t perfect of form is abjectly contemptuous.  They are allowed to vent, opine, and wax poetic over body image. They simply don’t know how they can face the world in a size eight, let alone be stuffed into a size twenty-eight.  That’s where the concept of sisterhood ends.  It becomes vicious, cruel and toxic.

Sisterhood, being every woman is about some primitive tribal goddess where she howls at the moon while holding her gluten-free, organic, non-toxic, bio-gradable tampons upward on an onyx tray to be blessed by a libation of free-trade, sustainable coffee.  One must never use paper or plastic, rather recycled bags which are grand repositories of disease one usually only finds at a non-offensive, chain version of some form of Mexican food.  It is about being one with Mother Earth, living a carbon-footprint free life, cruelty free, except when dealing with those who are beneath your notice.

One must never betray toxic sisterhood, no matter what the cost.  Sisterhood is so important, a oneness with all women, that need to be every woman that morality is optional.  Basic human decency is optional.  The ends justify the means.  If a few men are sacrificed on the altar of patriarchy, their still-beating hearts cut out and held upward for the sun goddess, as that perfect altar, so be it.  Then, according to one highly educated feminist, those white, patriarchal men are to be castrated, hung, and their manhood fed to pigs.

It’s all about sisterhood and ridding the world of toxic masculinity.  In order to do this, many of them have joined together in a mindless mob that, ironically, resembles the witch hunts of the Spanish Inquisition.  They are willing to suspend the Constitution, destroy anyone in their path, to ruin lives and futures in order to protect their sisterhood.  It is a mindless exercise in group think.  It is evil.

I am not every woman.  I refuse to regress into toxic sisterhood.  I don’t need self discovery.  I do not wish to unite with the world of women on a selfish voyage of self-discovery which is nothing but a broom flight to Never Never Land where all men are Captain Hook, and they are Tinkerbell, just adorable pixie perfect.

Good men, real men are not perfect.  They raise their voice.  They get angry.  They have righteous indignation and know when to call down the thunder. They do not do what we want them to do, when we want them to do it.  They have their own strange timing and schedules.  They are basically far more fragile than we are, doing dumb things, not realizing they did something wrong, which, in a normal world, would not be wrong.  But, in this hyper world where everything is politically correct and men are the enemy, nothing they do is right.

Sisterhood had decreed that men are evil personified.  Well, forget that. The object of sisterhood is to support one another, even when it is about lying, and destroying lives.  There is a reason for all of those unattractive myths and legends about women.  Trust me, the feminine species has earned every one of them.

I do not chose to identify with all women.  Frankly, I can’t stand them.  I have no tolerance for their self-absorbed, martyrdom, their voyages of self-discovery, and their ability to destroy anyone who gets in their way.  Hell hath no fury, and trust me, it’s true.

Please, excuse my word vomit.  There is a point, though.  Women should not be lured into the insanity that every woman’s story is their own.  It isn’t.  We are unique.  My story is not yours.  Your story is not mine. There are times when they might intersect, but there are several billion women on the planet.  Every single one of us is unique.  By trying to say that our stories are the same, that we are all one deprives us of our uniqueness. It does a disservice to us.  It is harmful.  I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to be part of this tribe of women. I find the idea of a tribe to be primitive.  There is nothing primitive about me.  I am not some goddess worshiping spinning shill for pseudo intellectual scribes who think they speak for everyone who is not male.  They don’t.  Sometimes, I think they don’t even speak for themselves.

There is another problem with sisterhood.

It is incompatible with the teachings of Christ.

Christine Ford Is a Vicious Predator Wed, 03 Oct 2018 20:06:23 +0000 Christine Ford is worse than a liar. She is a predator. Two of the people she said were at the alleged party are dealing with serious problems. Just bringing them into the spotlight can destroy them. She never told them what she was doing.

Her former friend is absolutely furious.

The way Ford phrased her denial was that Leland Keyser was having health issues but she was pleased she was doing better. The way Ford approached it makes it sound like the woman was having mental issues.

Nothing is farther from the truth. A former pro-golfer, Keyser is now dealing with the aftermath of numerous physical injuries acquired while golfing, that have left her debilitated.

As far as Kavanaugh’s friend Mark Judge, he is a recovering alcoholic. He has had to deal with cancer and depression. There are some who fear what Ford has done to him could cause a relapse.

What she did is not the action of an innocent person but a vicious predator who does not care who she destroys. She is evil.

Could you do this to someone? I certainly could not. Then again, I consider myself a moral person.

Open Season Wed, 03 Oct 2018 10:30:01 +0000 Today, twenty percent of all young men in college will be falsely accused of a sexual assault.  In the current climate, with the suspension of presumption of innocence, no man in this country is safe.  A man can be destroyed without any evidence.  The chilling problem with this is no one will be safe.

Any political foe, anyone who hates someone can make up a story and now destroy a person’s life. The left won’t stop at just allegations of sex crimes.  They will now use the death of presumption of innocence to destroy all political enemies.

We’re dealing with the ACLU.  We’re dealing with liberal institutions who once defended civil liberties.  Not any more.

If the Democrats get away with this, our country is ruined.

Once Again, It’s Over Mon, 01 Oct 2018 10:36:38 +0000 Once upon a time, a former Commissioner of Baseball wrote something quite sage.

“…“[Baseball] breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall all alone. You count on it, rely on it to buffer the passage of time, to keep the memory of sunshine and high skies alive, and then just when the days are all twilight, when you need it most, it stops.””… ― A. Bartlett Giamatti

And so it ends….

The 2018 season is over, summer has ended and fall has begun.  It has been a good year for Braves fans.  It is possible it will be even better.  But, it is over, my heart, as usual, breaking.  Around Valentine’s Day, the world will become bright again. Until then, we have post season.


A Tale of Two Americas Mon, 01 Oct 2018 10:29:41 +0000 According to Newt Gingrich, we now have two different versions of America.  One version has no problem attacking, shaming, and destroying.  The nastier they are, the more attention they receive.  Nothing is too extreme for them.  Nothing too vicious.  It is about utterly annihilating their political opposition.

There is a story about the Reign of Terror in France.  Inspired by Thomas Jefferson, who never once opened his mouth to decry the slaughter of 40,000 innocent men, women, and children, it was a conscious effort to ethnically cleans France of Christians.  Silently, the condemned were marched to Madam Guillotine.  Silently, they stood, waiting their turn, while rabid crowds threw human waste, filth, and anything nasty at them.  Every time one of the innocents silently was murdered, their head would be held up, as the crowd cheered.  It was a public sport.

Finally, one day, an aristocratic young woman, a teenager, did not go quietly to her death.  She screamed and she cried.  She was hysterical shouting that she was innocent.  Her family was innocent.  She screamed and cried, telling the crowd what monsters they were.  The crowd became silent.

The story is, the executions stopped the next day.

People were disgusted by them and by what they had become.

The bitter irony here is the Democratic Party was founded by Thomas Jefferson, the same person who was duplicitous in the reign of terror.  The irony is today’s Democratic Party, founded by Thomas Jefferson, is now embarking on their version of a new reign of terror where they are going to destroy their opposition, no matter what.

There is nothing wrong with playing the political game to win.  There is something wrong with a Georgetown professor tweets that all white men should die and be castrated and fed to swine.  Restaurants in the DC area are now being required to hire additional security to keep resistance harassers from bothering their GOP clients.

We are watching the calculated and evil destruction of a very good man.  One wonders what the conclusion will be.  I pray he triumphs.  I fear for the worst.

Sunday Morning Opera: 50 Years of Placi at the Met! Sun, 30 Sep 2018 10:30:57 +0000 Funny thing, I think I’ve seen Placido Domingo at the Met, more than any other tenor. I do think he is one of the greatest ever, right up there with Richard Tucker.


Jeff Flake Is Helping to Destroy Judge Kavanaugh Sat, 29 Sep 2018 10:30:55 +0000 Thursday night I told everyone that Senator Flake would end up screwing Judge Kavanaugh out of his abject hatred of President Trump. I’ve never been more ashamed of a Republican that I am of Jeff Flake. Brett Kavanaugh has been through hell.

The Democrats have destroyed this man because of the rantings of a seriously disturbed woman. As a woman, I see through her.

As a woman who has been abused, I am disgusted by her lies. I am disgusted by the fact that Senator Flake is incapable of taking a moral stand and doing what is right.

He is helping the Democrats ruin a good man.

How is Senator Flake going to help Judge Kavanaugh regain his good name, or is he just going to kick him under the bus and laugh at his ruined life and family. Does Senator Flake even have a conscience or is he as much of a psychopath as are the Democrats. He is an embarrassment to the state of Arizona.

I don’t think anger puts it mildly. I was watching the Democrats Friday morning.

You know… why even bother?

The Democrats are going to destroy this man.  Flake caved when confronted by a woman employed by one of the Soros front groups.

We’re screwed.

Let Lindsey Be Lindsey Fri, 28 Sep 2018 10:30:21 +0000 Once upon a time, in 1994, I was the GOP county chair for Oconee County, SC.  Long time, entrenched Democratic Congressman Butler Derrick announced he would not be running for re-election.  I screamed and shouted so long I basically lost my voice.  Within an hour I had a call from Lindsey, telling me he had decided to go for it.

He did.

He won.

He was able to build a coalition of life-long Republicans, newcomers to the area, and conservative Democrats who switched parties (officially) to support Lindsey. Everyone knew the kind of man he was – honorable, decent, patriotic, a little bit country, and a compulsive golfer.  If you knew him, the way we do, you would understand the Lindsey Graham who so passionately defended Judge Brett Kavanaugh.  That was the real Lindsey.

The real Lindsey Graham is like a dog with a bone. Once he sets his mind to something, he is obsessed, he will not let it go.  There are some who express shock and awe at his new friendship with President Trump.  I’m not in the least surprised.

On Thursday, the country saw the Lindsey Graham those of us from South Carolina know and love.  They saw the state’s favorite son, ‘our Lindsey’.  They saw the person I’ve known for many years.  He is the most honorable person I’ve ever met in my life.

If Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed for SCOTUS, it will be because Lindsey saved the day.  If we are able to get a majority of decent and honorable conservatives on the Supreme Court, it will be because of Lindsey.  I don’t think, back in 1994, we realized Lindsey would be the man who would push the Supreme Court to the right – for a generation.

Utterly Helpless Thu, 27 Sep 2018 10:30:41 +0000 As I write this, I feel utterly helpless. I’m beginning to wonder if this is how the French aristocracy felt on the eve of the Reign of Terror. They were automatically guilty.  There were no extenuating circumstances. Nothing mattered other than eliminating the political opposition, even if upward of 40,000 people were slaughtered by men inspired by the founder of the Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson.

Yes, history is ironic, bitterly ironic.

The concept of innocent until proven guilty is a hallmark, a bedrock of of our society, our country, and our modern civilization.  Indeed, the concept goes back to ancient times.  Even Romans were allowed the concept. It is only dictators and despots who do not allow innocent until proven guilty.

Now, though, the Democratic Party seems to have adopted the philosophy that a person is guilty until proven innocent.  This was what happened during the witch trials.  It was part of the Inquisition.  When any group decides to come to power and destroy the basic human rights of those they oppose, they do away with the basic right of innocent until proven guilty.  It makes it so much easier to convict those pesky twerps who want to silence their enemies.

I fear for my freedom.  If the Democrats in the United States Senate can do this to a decent and honorable man like Judge Brett Kavanaugh, they can do it to me.  They can do it to you.  They will use it to destroy all opposition.  They’re trying it on President Trump, with their not-so-silent coup.  Now they are out to destroy an innocent man.

I suspect you and I are next.