Republican Voters Are Angry

Posted on | October 4, 2018 | Comments Off on Republican Voters Are Angry

A poll by, of all people, National Public Radio shows that the Democrat smear campaign against Judge Brett Kavanaugh has motivated Republican voters ahead of next month’s midterm elections. In July, according to NPR’s polling, Democrats enjoyed a 10-point advantage — 78% to 68% — on the question, of whether the elections are “very important.” In a poll conducted this week, however, 80% of Republicans say the elections are “very important,” compared to 82% of Democrats. In other words, the GOP’s voter intensity has increased by 12 percentage points in less than three months, and only the Kavanaugh confirmation circus can explain this. “The result of hearings, at least in the short run, is the Republican base was awakened,” pollster Lee Miringoff told NPR.

The latest news:

The White House has found no corroboration of the allegations of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh after examining interview reports from the FBI’s latest probe into the judge’s background, according to people familiar with the matter.

Democrats may have unleashed a Republican firestorm:

When many conservative women around the country watched Christine Blasey Ford appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, they didn’t find her testimony compelling or convincing, as many liberals did.
They saw a political farce.
“Honestly, I don’t think I have ever been so angry in all of my adult life,” says Ginger Howard, a Republican national committeewoman from Georgia. “It brings me to the point of tears, it makes me so angry.”
In interviews with roughly a dozen female conservative leaders from as many states, this was the overwhelming sentiment: These women are infuriated with the way the sexual-assault allegations against the Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh have been handled. They are not convinced by Ford or any other woman who has come forward. They resent the implication that all women should support the accusers. And they believe that this scandal will ultimately hurt the cause of women who have been sexually assaulted.
Above all, these women, and the women they know, are ready to lash out against Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections.

The FBI investigation is complete. Mitch McConnell has scheduled the vote. Guess what? Mitch knows how to count votes. He wouldn’t have pushed this forward if he didn’t think he could win it. He has vowed he will not be intimidated by left-wing protesters.

To quote Admiral Farragut: “Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead.”

I think we’re done here. Good-bye, Professor Ford.
‘It Never Happened. Confirm Kavanaugh.’ https://t.co/5HyUuDeZp5 https://t.co/lOKVkI5L0o

— The Patriarch Tree (@PatriarchTree) October 3, 2018

Category: Election, Senate, Supreme Court

Democrat Aide Arrested for Doxxing GOP Senators During Kavanaugh Hearings

Posted on | October 3, 2018 | 1 Comment

Breaking news:

A Democratic congressional intern was arrested Wednesday and accused of posting the personal information of at least one Republican senator during last week’s hearing about sexual assault claims against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, authorities said.
U.S. Capitol Police said 27-year-old Jackson Cosko was charged with making public restricted personal information, witness tampering, threats in interstate communication, unauthorized access of a government computer, identity theft, second-degree burglary and unlawful entry. Police added that the investigation was continuing and more charges could be filed.
Senior congressional sources tell Fox News that Cosko most recently worked as an unpaid intern for Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas. He previously worked with Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., and former Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California. A LinkedIn page with Cosko’s name on it describes him as a “Democratic Political Professional & Cybersecurity Graduate Student.”
Jackson Lee’s office told Fox News that Cosko had only worked there for a couple of months, but has now been terminated.

Cosko is apparently from California.

Category: Congress, Crime, Democrats

In The Mailbox: 10.03.18

Posted on | October 3, 2018 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 10.03.18

— compiled by Wombat-socho

OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: Believe The Women? Not Always…
Twitchy: Jennifer Rubin Actually Ran With This Garbage Take On Lindsey Graham
Louder With Crowder: Rape Culture Is A Myth – Change My Mind

RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
American Thinker: New Rules For Men
Animal Magnetism: Animal’s Hump Day News
BattleSwarm: Trump, Cruz, Pentagon Attacked By Chemical Weapons
CDR Salamander: Royal Navy Media Own Goal
Da Tech Guy: Remember, None Of The Kavanaugh Accusers Were Expecting To Be Scrutinized, also, The Leftism Or The Lunacy?
Don Surber: Confirm Him Then Prosecute Her, also, Being President Already Cost Trump $1.4 Billion
Dustbury: The Lowest Form Of Cuisine
First Street Journal: Hold Them Accountable!
The Geller Report: New Witness Comes Forward Against Catherine Ford, also, MN Lawyer Who Cleared Keith Ellison Is Partner At Firm That Donated $500,000 To Democrats
Hogewash: Common Sense Legislation, also, Team Kimberlin Post of The Day
Legal Insurrection: Grassley Says Judiciary Committee Has Evidence Of Ford’s Lies, also, Disregard Law Profs’ Letter On Kavanaugh’s Temperament – It’s Political, Not Legal
Michelle Malkin: Investigate The Senate Democrat Wrecking Machine
The PanAm Post: Mexico Passes New Anti-Meme Law That Restricts Criticism Of Politicians
Power Line: The Left Declares Total War, also. Visualize This
Shark Tank: Americans For Prosperity Action – “We Can’t Afford Andrew Gillum”
Shot In The Dark: Cold For Now
STUMP: Get A Flu Shot – Last Year’s Seasonal Flu Was The Worst In 40 Years
The Political Hat: Academia Down The Memory Hole
This Ain’t Hell: When They Came For Kavanaugh’s Kid, also, Is It Time To Expand The Definition Of “Veteran”?
Victory Girls: Christine Blasey Ford May Have Lied About Polygraph & Second Door – What Else Might She Have Lied About?
Volokh Conspiracy: WSJ Editorial On Property Rights Case Before SCOTUS
Weasel Zippers: Rep. Senator Kennedy Seeks To Prohibit Federal Contracts With Banks That Cut Off Gunmakers, also, Best Thing Ever – Sen. Grassley’s Chief Counsel Replies To Creepy Porn Lawyer
Mark Steyn: Post-Democracy & The Prophets, also, The Majority As Identity Group

Featured Digital Deals
Amazon Warehouse Deals
Outlet Deals

Category: Linkagery

At the Edge of the Abyss

Posted on | October 3, 2018 | 1 Comment

When you are a professional trafficker in politically incorrect thoughts — which is about the best description of my trade I can come up with — a certain amount of caution is necessary to the craft. It’s a tightrope act, and you’re walking a wire suspended high above a dark abyss. Having seen a few friends go over the edge into that vast chasm of despair and paranoia, I sometimes have to step back and engage in self-evaluation, to take an inventory of my mind and moods, to reassure myself that I haven’t turned into some caricature of a “hater.”

The future Ambassador to Vanuatu can’t surrender to madness. It would be beneath my diplomatic dignity to become a raving tinfoil-hat kook.

There is also the problem of avoiding guilt-by-association smears. How weird is it that I’ve quoted dozens of radical feminists at this blog, but no one ever accuses me of feminism, whereas if I were to quote Jared Taylor, this would instantly be seized on as evidence of my racism? The shadow of suspicion that inevitably hovers over any conservative — we are perpetually suspected of Wrongthink — has the unfortunate effect of causing many conservative journalists to tiptoe carefully through the ideological minefields, citing only “respectable” sources, lest they give ammunition to their enemies. Nevertheless . . .

Vox Day links the ZMan who links an American Renaissance article:

Professor George Hawley of the University of Alabama is one of the more objective political analysts working today, and one of the few who correctly predicted Donald Trump would win in 2016. His book Right Wing Critics of American Conservatism is a serious examination of conservative thought outside the boundaries of Conservatism Inc., and his more recent Making Sense of the Alt-Right is much closer to the mark than junk rushed into print, such as Angela Nagle’s Kill All Normies. White advocates should therefore listen to Professor Hawley even if some of his message seems like bad news.
Professor Hawley recently published “The Demography of the Alt-Right” for the Institute for Family Studies, and his research is both a “black pill” and a “white pill.” He estimates only about 6 percent of white Americans agree with all three attitudes that he says indicate support for “white identity politics.” Furthermore, these 6 percent tend to be relatively less educated and badly paid. However, even just 6 percent amounts to millions of white Americans.

Now, the phrase “white advocates” here raises eyebrows, and the term “Alt-Right” has become nearly synonymous with Jew-hating, so this is dangerous terrain indeed. One of the things that I despise about the hall-monitor mentality of the PC crowd is their apparent fear that vast numbers of literate Americans might succumb to neo-Nazism overnight if they were to read a single article by someone on the “Alt-Right.” This is the mentality that empowers the SPLC to issue lists of allegedly dangerous Wrongthinkers, who must be banned from all social-media platforms in order to stop the spread of Wrongthink.

By contrast, I assume my readers to be intelligent, sane and mature, capable of evaluating facts for themselves, and unlikely to suddenly go join the Klan because of some article they read on the Internet. Joining the tiki-torch brownshirt parade is a bad idea, and I should hope my readers don’t need to be cautioned against this, but the issues raised by Professor Hawley’s research inspired the ZMan to declare:

It’s why the math of democracy makes white survival an impossibility. That 25% of whites who lock arms with the 40% who are non-white gets the anti-whites close enough to a permanent majority that they are the default option in an election. It’s why they put all their energy into making sure blacks,Jews, migrants and lesbians are super-angry. The left just needs the turnout and they win. They know the math of democracy too. That means the future is the Kavanaugh hearings over and over until you’re dead. . . .
Is there an argument that is going to cause Debra Katz or Michael Bromwich to reconsider their war on white people? Will Maxine Waters or Kamala Harris ever agree with you? You sat and watched Judge Kavanaugh give a stirring speech in defense of decency and civic justice that Cicero would have found moving. Think about all that has been said and written in favor of civil nationalism, yet, here we are anyway. . . .

You can read the whole thing, because you’re a mature and intelligent person who isn’t going to be marching in any tiki-torch parades, right?

And let me say this: I don’t like gloomy fear-mongering about “white survival.” That kind of attitude leads to senseless violence — Eric Rudolph, Timothy McVeigh and other such apocalyptic terrorists. However, it is fair to speak of the Left’s ideology as broadly “anti-white.” The relentless ratcheting-up of rhetoric on the Left (e.g., “Georgetown Professor Says White Men Should Be Castrated, Fed to Swine Over Kavanaugh Support”) makes their bias self-evident. Yet this should actually inspire conservatives to be optimistic. The Left wouldn’t be ranting madly like this if they were winning, would they? They wouldn’t be trotting out Julie Swetnick unless they were desperate, would they?

It is remarkable that, at this point in our history, both sides of the political divide see themselves as being at the last ditch, fighting against enormous odds for the survival of all they cherish, in a confrontation with powerful and unspeakably evil enemies. And perhaps even more remarkable is this: Both sides may be equally deluded, in the sense that our current political obsessions may not make a dime’s worth of difference in the grand scheme of things. It’s entirely possible that, 30 or 40 years from now, our grandchildren will look back on this period and wonder, “What the heck was that all about?”

Recall that, in the 1960 presidential debates between Kennedy and Nixon, much of their time was spent talking about the islands of Kemoy and Matsu off the coast of China. In the ensuing decade, did any crisis over these islands ever arise? No. Instead we descended into a frightening period of turmoil, foreign and domestic, that had nothing whatsoever to do with Kemoy and Matsu. “What the heck was that all about?”

While it is certainly the duty of the citizen to inform himself about troubling trends in society and government, we should strive to avoid generating the kind of emotional frenzy that leads to violence and madness, e.g., Soros-funded moonbats screeching at senators.

The prospect of a “permanent majority” alliance on the Left that disturbs ZMan is, indeed, a cause for concern. But despair is not a strategy. If we wish to summon to our banner all men of goodwill, we must be able to persuade them that we have hope of a better future.

How about this: Discredit the institutions of the decadent elite.

Shouldn’t the presence of Christine Fair at Georgetown University, for example, suffice to identify this as a school that propagates hatred? Georgetown is anti-white and anti-male, and white male students should assume that they are not welcome at Georgetown. Let these pricey “elite” private schools be made to suffer the consequences — e.g., let the white male alumni of Georgetown refuse to send their sons (or their money) to this perverse and depraved institution, which has been hijacked by its anti-Christian faculty — and see what effect that has.

Americans have no real cause to fear the future, if we will make the most of the opportunities we actually have, including our ability to limit and counteract the influence of the decadent elite.

Category: Conspiracy Theories, Fear. Loathing.

Hitler, the ‘Intersectional’ Führer

Posted on | October 3, 2018 | 3 Comments

Last night I nearly died laughing about the hoax perpetrated by three scholars who tricked academic journals into publishing shoddy nonsense crammed with “social justice” rhetoric and postmodern jargon. Among other things, they re-wrote a 3,000-word section of Mein Kampf and turned it into “Our Struggle Is My Struggle: Solidarity Feminism as an Intersectional Reply to Neoliberal and Choice Feminism,” which was published by the peer-reviewed feminist journal Affilia. It gets worse:

Since August, 2017 the academics — James Lindsay, a math doctorate, Peter Boghossian, an assistant professor of philosophy at Portland State University, and Helen Pluckrose, a London-based scholar of English literature and history — submitted 20 papers to various peer-reviewed journals under pseudonyms and seven were accepted.
In one particularly telling example, the academics submitted a paper to the feminist geography journal Gender, Place & Culture detailing the “rape culture” supposedly prevalent within dog parks.

Yes, feminists consider sex between animals to be rape culture:

“Dog parks are microcosms where hegemonic masculinist norms governing queering behavior and compulsory heterosexuality can be observed in a cross-species environment.”

How do you know determine “consent” in dogs? But this absurdity was published in a peer-reviewed academic journal, and among the scholars who address the underlying problem is Neema Parvini:

The news that these journals are nakedly ideological will not surprise many of those who work within the disciplines of the humanities in the modern academy. Now the ticking off of buzzwords seems to stand in for checking the quality of scholarship or the coherence of arguments. The battle was lost around 1991. . . .
In literary studies, the radical feminist Hélène Cixous argued that the ideology of patriarchy was all around us: “a kind of vast membrane enveloping everything”, a “skin” that “encloses us like a net or like closed eyelids”. How could anyone lay claim to “objectivity” in such conditions? By 1991, such thinking had become de rigueur. . . .
Thus, the competing systems of knowledge that came out of the Enlightenment — rationalism and empiricism — are both always-already tainted as “products of the patriarchy.” It has been the explicit goal of post-modernity to reject reason and evidence: they want a “new paradigm” of knowledge.

(Hat-tip: Instapundit.)

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! You’ll find no “social justice” jargon here, where we favor blunt words and capitalism, including The Five Most Important Words in the English Language:

HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!

Category: Education

The Accuser Is a Liar

Posted on | October 3, 2018 | Comments Off on The Accuser Is a Liar

Something was wrong with Christine Blasey Ford’s story, and I couldn’t put my finger on it, but I pointed to a possible source:

[W]hile at Pepperdine University, she dated a man named Brian Merrick, who told the Wall Street Journal that “at no point in their relationship did she mention… any case of sexual assault,” nor the name of Brett Kavanaugh: “It strikes me as odd it never came up in our relationship.” Merrick, however, mentioned that his ex-girlfriend was liberal, while her father was staunchly conservative — a fact apparently corroborated by her husband Russell Ford, who told the Post: “She didn’t always get along with her parents because of differing political views.”

That was just a stab in the dark in my American Spectator column Tuesday, but lo and behold! Guess who came forward later that day?

In a written declaration released Tuesday and obtained by Fox News, an ex-boyfriend of Christine Blasey Ford, the California professor accusing Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault, directly contradicts her testimony under oath last week that she had never helped anyone prepare for a polygraph examination.
The former boyfriend, whose name was redacted in the declaration, also said Ford neither mentioned Kavanaugh nor said she was a victim of sexual misconduct during the time they were dating from about 1992 to 1998. He said he saw Ford helping a woman he believed was her “life-long best friend” prepare for a potential polygraph test. He added that the woman had been interviewing for jobs with the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s office.
He also claimed Ford never voiced any fear of flying (even while aboard a propeller plane) and seemingly had no problem living in a small, 500 sq. ft. apartment with one door — apparently contradicting her claims that she could not testify promptly in D.C. because she felt uncomfortable traveling on planes, as well as her suggestion that her memories of Kavanuagh’s alleged assault prompted her to feel unsafe living in a closed space or one without a second front door.
Ford “never expressed a fear of closed quarters, tight spaces, or places with only one exit,” the former boyfriend wrote.

Why would she lie about something like being afraid to fly? Because she was trying to delay her testimony to the Senate. Once you know that someone has a motive to lie, and then you can demonstrate clear evidence that they have testified falsely, they are no longer “credible,” no matter how persuasive their story may otherwise seem. My hunch that Brian Merrick might have knowledge helpful to the investigation was just a hunch, but it was a pretty doggone good hunch. Oh, and guess what else Merrick said? He broke up with her because she cheated on him.

So she’s a cheater and a liar, and she’s withholding evidence:

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is giving Christine Blasey Ford and her legal team one more chance to turn over material evidence supporting her allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her . . .
“Your continued withholding of material evidence despite multiple requests is unacceptable as the Senate exercises its constitutional responsibility of advice and consent for a judicial nomination,” Grassley wrote. “I urge you to comply promptly with my requests.” . . .
“First, I renew my request for the notes from therapy sessions in which Dr. Ford discussed the alleged assault by Judge Kavanaugh,” Grassley wrote. “The Washington Post reported that some notes were provided to The Post, and Dr. Ford’s testimony indicated that these notes were highly relevant to her allegation.”
The letter also calls for any audio or video recording of Ford’s polygraph test, which she took in August. There was a notable exchange between Ford and Rachel Mitchell, the outside prosecutor hired by the GOP to question her, in which Ford eventually admitted that she assumed her polygraph session was recorded.
“It’s unfair to rely on the results of a polygraph examination while withholding the materials necessary to assess the accuracy of the results,” Grassley wrote.

We have already established that Professor Ford is a liar — she’s not afraid to fly — and we know she also lied under oath when asked about whether she’d ever counseled anyone about taking a polygraph.

I think we’re done here. Good-bye, Professor Ford.

‘It Never Happened. Confirm Kavanaugh.’

UPDATE: Charles Cooke at National Review points out that Rachel Mitchell, the sex-crimes prosecutor brought in by Senate Republicans to question Professor Ford, was probably aware of this information from Brian Merrick, because Mitchell asked two key questions:

MITCHELL: Had — have you ever given tips or advice to somebody who was looking to take a polygraph test?
FORD: Never.

And:

MITCHELL: Have you ever had discussions with anyone, beside your attorneys, on how to take a polygraph?
FORD: Never.

This is a basic police interrogation method to assess if someone is telling the truth: Ask them a question to which you already know the answer and see how they answer it. Senate investigators had almost certainly interviewed Merrick and gotten this information about Ford advising a friend on how to take a polygraph, so they instructed Mitchell to ask a question about this. And then after the FBI questioned Merrick, he decided to send this letter to the Judiciary Committee.

Category: Senate, Supreme Court

Et Tu, George Mason U?

Posted on | October 2, 2018 | Comments Off on Et Tu, George Mason U?

by Smitty

I went to the GMU bookstore, and I guess what they say about the state of humor on campus is true. pic.twitter.com/9XvtwEAwbs

— I Came; I Saw; I Got Over Macho Grande [K?] (@smitty_one_each) October 2, 2018