Democrats, Dogma, and the Law

If you are an astute political observer, you almost certainly recall Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and her subsequent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in early September of 2017. You also probably remember Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein’s questioning of Mrs. Barrett and Feinstein’s concern of “the dogma” that supposedly “lives loudly” within Mrs. Barrett.

I certainly recall these things. However, as often as I’ve pondered this revealing line of questioning by Senator Feinstein, I don’t think I’ve ever read or heard the full quote that contained the infamous “the dogma lives loudly within you” phrase until just recently. Here’s the full quote:

Why is it that so many of us on this [democrat] side have this very uncomfortable feeling that, you know, dogma and law are two different things? And I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, Professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you.

Of course, the “dogma” that concerns Senator Feinstein—and her like-minded leftist colleagues in the U.S. Senate, and all throughout the political left in America—is that of Christianity. They forget (or ignore) that it was dogmatic Christians who were most responsible for the founding of America. They forget that it was dogmatic Christians who gave us the U.S. Constitution. They forget that it was dogmatic Christians who founded higher education in America, who led the abolition movement in America, and who led—and continue to lead—America in becoming the world’s most charitable nation.

Most importantly, the left in America forgets that it has its own dogma. What’s more, this dogma often “lives loudly” within American leftists. This is especially true for many who have won election to a political office, gained an appointment to a political office, work at a school, sit on a local, state, or federal court, or support Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and the like.

Leftist dogma was loudly on display in 2020 during the riots, looting, and burning that plagued dozens of American cities. Without fail, those behind this widespread destruction were of the political left and were enabled by like-minded democrats who run these American cities. Included in the “dogma that lives loudly” within such leftists is a hatred of Donald Trump and his political allies, a hatred of law enforcement, a hatred of capitalism, and the foolish and ignorant notion that America is systematically racist.

In 2020 alone, each of these dogmas led to numerous deaths and broad destruction—to the tune of billions of dollars—across the U.S. In spite of the drive-by media’s attempts to have us believe otherwise, nothing equivalent to the violent and destructive forces of Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and the like, exists on the political right, and they certainly don’t exist within Christianity.

Another recent episode where the left’s dogma was loudly on display was the disgraceful Brett Kavanaugh hearing before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. In one of the worst political displays in U.S. history—probably the worst in the history of Senate Judiciary Committee hearings—dogmatic democrats horrifically attacked a stellar Supreme Court nominee. Brett Kavanaugh was accused of everything from “violent drunken behavior” to “sexual assault” and “gang rape.”

Worse still, in spite of the complete lack of evidence, or any corroborating witnesses, democrats across America—along with some spineless republicans—gave these absurd charges serious consideration. Virtually all of this “most unethical sham,” as Senator Lindsey Graham passionately described it at the time, could be attributed to democrats’ dogmatic support of the “right” to kill children in the womb.

The “right” to kill the most innocent and helpless among us has long been dearly held dogma within the Democrat Party. One needs only to run slightly afoul of this dogma to quickly find out just how “loudly” it lives within today’s democrats. Abortion dogma lives so loudly within today’s democrats that many of them are now unafraid to openly call for what could only be described as infanticide. They were led down this disgusting path by the dogmatic Barack Obama.

Speaking of a “lack of evidence,” driven by their dogmatic hatred of President Trump, for four years democrats in Congress, the FBI, the drive-by media, et al, subjected us to the farcical Trump-Russia-collusion hoax which led to a phony Special Counsel investigation. Undeterred, because the Trump-hating dogma lived so “loudly” within them, democrats went so far as to impeach a President of the United States! Thankfully, their dogma was not enough to keep President Trump from being acquitted by the U.S. Senate.

Dogmatic democrats are also leading the charge in implementing the evil LGBT agenda. Because of their dedication to this perverse dogma, we have, through judicial fiat, a legal redefinition of the oldest institution in the history of humanity—marriage. Democrats would have us believe that a devotion to science is part of their dogma, but their devotion to the LGBT agenda has made it comically clear that few things are further from the truth.

Tragically, democrat dogma also now won’t allow them to define what is a woman! This dogma has so strongly taken hold in the Democrat Party that, earlier this year, not a single House democrat voted to keep deluded men and boys from invading women’s and girls’ sports. Additionally, Joe Biden recently said that he supports the biologically impossible and morally reprehensible: allowing children as young as eight to “change” their gender.

Because their dogma has led them to make a god of government, it seems highly likely that 2020 democrats engaged in widespread election fraud in order to lift their frail, basement dwelling, mentally deficient presidential candidate to an electoral “victory.” It seems that democrat dogma led to nothing short of an election “miracle” for Joe Biden!

Every American needs to understand: someone’s “dogma” is going to inform and guide the law and politics that govern America. In other words, Diane Feinstein could not have been more wrong. The law in America is always rooted in someone’s dogma. It will be the dogma of Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and the like, or it will be the dogma of Amy Coney Barrett and the like. Every election in America essentially boils down to this: by whose dogma do you want to be governed?

Copyright 2020, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith and Reason.
www.TrevorGrantThomas.com
Trevor is the author of The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@TrevorGrantThomas.com

A Conservative Supreme Court Must Deliver

After the confirmation of now Justice Kavanaugh to the United States Supreme Court, Susan Collins was widely lauded by republicans and conservatives alike for her speech before the U.S. Senate. As she announced her support for Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court, I, like many others, was also very grateful to hear her condemn the hideous tactics employed by democrats to keep him off the highest court in America.

While I agree with and like much of what Senator Collins said in her Friday afternoon speech, I did not enjoy or appreciate her emphasis on “precedent” as she tried to persuade her audience that a Justice Kavanaugh would be no real threat to Roe.

I’m under no illusions when it comes to Senator Collins’ sad position on the supposed “right” to kill children in the womb. It is possible that, in spite of her speech, she’s under no illusions about the very real threat Justice Kavanaugh poses to Roe. Perhaps Senator Collins just heard what she wanted to hear in her talks with Judge Kavanaugh.

Perhaps she was just providing herself political cover if the current court indeed reverses the tragedy that is Roe v. Wade. Or, perhaps Justice Kavanaugh was just careful enough with his language that he was able to provide Senator Collins answers that would comfort her without revealing anything about how he might actually vote on any issue. (Per the “Ginsburg Rule,”—or, more accurately, the “Biden Rule”—and the Model Code of Judicial Conduct, U.S. Senators well know that nominees to the Supreme Court are under no obligation to reveal how they would vote in matters that might come before them.)

Whatever Senator Collins’ real thoughts on Justice Kavanaugh, many of us who voted for Mr. Trump were very pleased with the confirmation of another conservative federal judge, especially one that should play a significant role in decidedly putting a stop to the left’s misguided use of the courts as some sort of “unelected super-legislature,” and thus return the Supreme Court to its proper role in our government. In other words, in spite of what Senator Collins implied, Justice Kavanaugh cannot be a clone of Anthony Kennedy.

What’s more, a conservative court—one that is dedicated to “conserving” an originalist (read: “proper”) view of the Constitution—should indeed reverse much of what the left has achieved via rogue federal courts. This certainly includes, but is by no means limited to, nationwide abortion on demand and a perverse legal redefinition of marriage.

Note that, while defending the legal right to kill children in the womb, those like Senator Collins often refer to Roe as “long-established precedent,” but while defending the legal right to same-sex “marriage,” they declare 2015’s Obergefell—a recent and precarious 5-4 ruling—as an “important landmark precedent.” Thus, either way, “precedent” rules the day.

Speaking of “precedent,” there is nothing with as much precedent as marriage being the union of one man and one woman for life. As I’ve often noted, marriage is the oldest institution in the history of humanity—older than God’s covenant with the nation of Israel, older than The Law, older than the church. Marriage is one of the earliest truths revealed by God. As the first three chapters of Genesis reveal, before we were even aware of the preciousness of life—because there was no death—humans were made aware of what is marriage.

In spite of what Susan Collins would have us believe, when it came to legally redefining the oldest legal “precedent” in the history of humanity, liberals on the Supreme Court found it perfectly sufficient to overturn a long-established precedent because “five current justices believed” they were right, and history, the Bible, and long-established overwhelmingly popular human law was wrong.

One gets the feeling that those on the left view as “precedent” any opinion that sits well with a liberal worldview. This is because much of what modern liberalism holds dear was not achieved via the ballot box or through the legislatures, but through judicial tyranny. Winning elections and actually achieving law the way our founders intended has proven far too difficult for liberals and the party they own. Thus, the courts have long been a favorite tool of the modern left. It’s time for leftists to learn: what the courts giveth, the courts can taketh away.

No doubt this is why the behavior of those opposed to Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation was so abhorrently evil. Not “crazy,” as so many have been quick to say, but evil. If you thought it was bad during the Kavanaugh confirmation, just wait until a 5-4 decision overturns Roe or Obergefell.

Nevertheless, the courts should be above such intimidation and fear. Jurists dedicated to a constitutional view of our laws cannot allow erroneous views of precedent, the courts, law, and the Constitution to prevail because of how those on the unhinged left might react.

It is sometimes said that “politics is downstream from culture.” Others insist that such a view is “profoundly mistaken,” because “politics is a part of culture.” Whatever the case, our courts should be as free as possible (because judges are human beings, the courts will never be completely blind to politics or culture) from influence by political or cultural forces. Otherwise we end up with such absurd notions as a “living Constitution” and the law is whatever a five-vote majority on the highest court in the land says it is.

As the late, great Justice Antonin Scalia—who repeatedly stood against such nonsense—said, “the Constitution is not an organism, it is a legal document…(it) is an enduring document but not a ‘living’ one, and its meaning must be protected and not repeatedly altered to suit the whims of society.”

Conservatives like myself have long waited for this to be the prevailing view of the highest court in our land. With the confirmation and swearing in of Justice Kavanaugh, it is time for the conservatives on the Supreme Court to deliver.

Copyright 2018, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

On Kavanaugh, for Democrats It’s Always Been Delay and Destroy

Counting today (Sunday, September 30) it’s been 84 days since Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. Of those on the current Supreme Court, the average time for Senate confirmation was 67 days. From 1967 to 2010, the median time for confirmation was 69 days. Going all the back to the beginning of our nation, the average time for confirmation is 23 days. In spite of what some have implied—hoping to encourage even further investigation of a 36+ year-old supposed assault involving teenagers—there’s been no “rush” to confirm Brett Kavanaugh. In fact, it’s been quite the opposite.

All along the name of the game for democrats in this whole fiasco has been DELAY and DESTROY! Lindsey Graham was exactly right, the democrats want to destroy Judge Kavanaugh, hold the seat open, and hope they can fill it in 2020. The democrats didn’t really want an FBI investigation. If they did, it would’ve happened weeks ago, prior to Judge Kavanaugh’s first appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee. They didn’t really want one, because almost certainly they knew where it would lead: nowhere.

Again, democrats want further delays so they can hurl more lies. And an evil and eager media will almost certainly aid and abet. With this extra time that the latest investigation (that makes seven) into his life allows, if liberals continue to assault Judge Kavanaugh and his family with their ugly lies, Senator Jeff Flake will be an accomplice.

Flake—after a confrontation in an elevator with those who have no qualms about assaulting the unborn, and after a conversation with those bent on destroying a good man in the name of assaulting girls in the womb—decided that we needed to drag the ugly circus that is Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation out even longer.

The elevator confrontation preceded Flake’s conversation with Democrat Senator Chris Coons, which led to this new “investigation” of Ford’s uncorroborated accusation of a 36+ year-old assault. In the elevator, two women—Ana Maria Archila and Maria Gallagher—screamed at Flake:

Archila screamed, “What you are doing is allowing someone who actually violated a woman to sit on the Supreme Court. This is not tolerable. You have children in your family. Think about them. I have two children. I cannot imagine that for the next 50 years they will have to have someone in the Supreme Court who has been accused of violating a young girl. What are you doing, sir?”

Gallagher added, “I was sexually assaulted and nobody believed me. I didn't tell anyone and you’re telling all women that they don’t matter, that they should just stay quiet because if they tell you what happened to them you are going to ignore them. That’s what happened to me, and that’s what you are telling all women in America, that they don’t matter. They should just keep it to themselves because if they have told the truth you’re just going to help that man to power anyway.”

Flake appeared totally surprised and scared to death, and had no words for the two women whose whole verbal assault was premised on a lie. (Thus, why should we assume either woman was telling the truth about their own lives—falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus—right Senator Blumenthal?) Any conservative politician of Flake’s experience who has no sound answer for such “nasty” attacks should get out of the game (as Flake is doing).

Of course, there’s absolutely no evidence Brett Kavanaugh “violated” or “assaulted” anyone! Thus support of Judge Kavanaugh in no way implies anything untoward about women and sexual assault or any other such wickedness.

Again, this confrontation was little more than a miniature version of a “nasty” woman’s protest. Yet Senator Flake couldn’t or wouldn’t see it for what is was. Just after Trump’s inauguration, I told the GOP to gird themselves for this fight. It seems Senator Flake was not ready for what many of us knew was coming.

After President Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, in early 2017, Bloomberg reported that there were over 200 liberal groups across the U.S. who were organizing and mobilizing opposition to Gorsuch. Marge Baker, executive vice president of People for the American Way, said, “We’ll make sure the narrative makes clear he is out of the mainstream, is extreme and in many ways is to the right of Scalia.”

Ahh, again with “the narrative.” As I noted a few years ago, for liberals, it seems it’s always about the narrative. As has been demonstrated for decades now, liberalism is quite adept at creating “narratives,” i.e. making its own “truth,” which can easily change as soon as it’s advantageous. Such skill and flexibility is very necessary when one needs political power to make sure the preferred notion of “truth” rules the day.

This notion of ones’ own “truth” was trumpeted proudly by liberals who hailed Christine Ford’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee. A smug Corey Booker told Judge Kavanaugh, “She came forward. She sat here. She told her truth.” A “hyper-partisan” Kirsten Gillibrand told MSNBC,

Well, I think Dr. Blasey Ford’s testimony was incredible. I thought she was so heartfelt. She spoke her truth so passionately, with such candor; with such emotion, I was really inspired by what she did today.

There is no “her truth” or “his truth” or “your truth” or “my truth.” There is only the truth. Sadly, most liberals today long ago abandoned such a notion, which is why we’ve had to endure this evil circus that is the Senate confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2018, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Suspicions Abound in Ford's Accusations Against Judge Kavanaugh (Update: New Accusations)

Four supposed witnesses identified by Christine Blasey Ford in her accusations against Brett Kavanaugh have ALL refused to corroborate her account of the events from 36+ years ago. In letters to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mark Judge, Patrick Smyth, and now Leland Ingham Keyser have all denied any memory of the party Ford describes, much less any sort-of assault. It’s important to note that, under 18 U.S.C § 1001, letters to the Judiciary Committee are subject to criminal penalty if false.

This law states that,

[W]hoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States knowingly and willfully...makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years...

It seems that somehow, Ms. Ford may have been made aware of such potential penalties, because we now find out that Ford didn't send her accusing letter to Feinstein but to Rep. Anna G. Eshoo. According to CBS News today,

Eshoo said she met with Ford at her district office "for about an hour and a half" over the summer while Ford described her alleged encounter with Kavanaugh in the early 1980s. She alleges Kavanaugh pinned her down and groped her on a bed at a party while the two were in high school. Kavanaugh has strenuously denied ever doing so and has said he is willing to testify publicly and defend himself.

"My impression of her was she was intelligent. She spoke softly. It was wrenching for her, I think, to tell the story because there's a re-experience when the story is told," Eshoo said on "Face the Nation" Sunday. "She went into many details and at the end of our conversation I told her that I believed her and that it was important she tell me if, what she wished me to do with information, if in fact she chose another path. And she did. She wanted me to take it down a different pathway, and of course with anonymity and privacy, that's paramount in sexual abuse allegations or cases because the individuals are terrified."

Ford later sent Eshoo a letter detailing the allegations, which was also received by California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. The committee is considering Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court.

It is interesting that Eshoo got the letter first. As a member of the U.S. House, she has zero jurisdiction over or authority to investigate presidential nominations. So why would Eshoo not make Ms. Ford aware of this and have her send the letter to a democrat member of the Senate Judiciary Committee? Perhaps it was because anyone providing false information to a member of the U.S. House would not be covered by 18 U.S.C § 1001, and thus not subject to the legal penalties it prescribes.

Thus Ford may have been trying to avoid the legal consequences of making false statements. Of course, almost certainly she would have not have been aware of such legalese on her own. This raises several questions. For example: Did Rep. Eshoo make Ms. Ford aware of where her information against Judge Kavanaugh must be sent? Did Rep. Eshoo make Ms. Ford aware of 18 U.S.C § 1001? Were any other democrats involved with informing Ms. Ford of how to proceed with her accusations?

If Ms. Ford is falsely accusing Mr. Kavanaugh—again, no one has corroborated her accusations, and dozens of women have provided contradictory information on Judge Kavanaugh’s treatment of women—all these questions carry even more weight. In other words, if democrats knowingly conspired with a woman making false accusations, there should be severe legal consequences for all involved.

In other words, it seems there may need to be an FBI investigation into this unsavory affair after all. However, as in the case with the Presidential election and the Russians, the real crimes to be concerned with are not with republicans, but democrats.

UPDATE: Given the delays democrats have achieved, did ANYONE not see this coming?! The New Yorker is now reporting on a second accusation against Judge Kavanaugh. (He supposedly exposed himself to Deborah Ramirez.) This time its a year later, when he was 18 and a freshman at Yale. And again, there's no corroboration. Also, as Paul Mirengoff at Powerline notes, Ramirez told The New Yorker she wasn’t certain what happened until "after six days of talking with her attorney" a former elected Democrat. As Mirengoff points out, "one can do plenty of brain washing in six days."

From the article:

The New Yorker has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present at the party. The magazine contacted several dozen classmates of Ramirez and Kavanaugh regarding the incident. Many did not respond to interview requests; others declined to comment, or said they did not attend or remember the party.

A friend of Ramirez, who of course refuses to be identified, claims that Ramirez told him of the incident and he is “one hundred per cent sure” that he was told at the time that Kavanaugh was the student who exposed himself to Ramirez. Other Yale students Ramirez identifies as being present when Kavanaugh exposed himself to her refuse to support her account.

In a statement, two of those male classmates who Ramirez alleged were involved the incident, the wife of a third male student she said was involved, and three other classmates, Dino Ewing, Louisa Garry, and Dan Murphy, disputed Ramirez’s account of events: "We were the people closest to Brett Kavanaugh during his first year at Yale. He was a roommate to some of us, and we spent a great deal of time with him, including in the dorm where this incident allegedly took place. Some of us were also friends with Debbie Ramirez during and after her time at Yale. We can say with confidence that if the incident Debbie alleges ever occurred, we would have seen or heard about it—and we did not. The behavior she describes would be completely out of character for Brett. In addition, some of us knew Debbie long after Yale, and she never described this incident until Brett’s Supreme Court nomination was pending. Editors from the New Yorker contacted some of us because we are the people who would know the truth, and we told them that we never saw or heard about this."

The New Yorker continues,

The former friend who was married to the male classmate alleged to be involved, and who signed the statement said of Ramirez, "This is a woman I was best friends with. We shared intimate details of our lives. And I was never told this story by her, or by anyone else. It never came up. I didn’t see it; I never heard of it happening." She said she hadn’t spoken with Ramirez for about ten years, but that the two women had been close all through college, and Kavanaugh had remained part of what she called their "larger social circle." In an initial conversation with The New Yorker, she suggested that Ramirez may have been politically motivated. Later, she said that she did not know if this was the case.

Interesting question: Was the statement made by Ramirez's classmates made to the Senate Judiciary Committee? If not, will such a statement be made? Again, the interesting scenario of the legal penalties against false statements would carry weight. Also, according to Guy Benson at Townhall, The New York Times states that they interviewed dozens of people over the past week in, what I'm sure was a desperate attempt to corroborate Ramirez’s story. No one could be found.

The Times also states that, "Ms. Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates asking if they recalled the incident and told some of them that she could not be certain Mr. Kavanaugh was the one who exposed himself." Again, it was only after six days of "carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney" (remember, a former elected democrat) that she remembered it was Kavanaugh.

Yeah, this reeks as well. This is politics at its worst folks, and remember, it's ALL about keeping legal across the U.S. the right to kill children in the womb. It takes someone pretty deceived or vicious to stand for such a thing. We should not be surprised at their tactics to defend something so morally indefensible. We need to pray for the truth for all of those involved in these grave matters, and for strength and peace for those standing for the truth, and vote for conservatives (or at least, against liberals) in November!

(See a version of this at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2018, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

GOP: Do Your Job and CONFIRM KAVANAUGH!

Again we see one of the big reasons why Donald Trump was elected U.S. President: unlike so many in the GOP, he fights. So we now know the name of Brett Kavanaugh's accuser: Christine Blasey Ford. She's a democrat-donating Bernie Sanders supporter who teaches clinical psychology at Palo Alto University in California.

Even more telling, the lawyer she's hired is D.C. swamp-dweller Debra Katz. As Townhall notes,

Katz...has a long history of dismissing sexual assault allegations against liberal politicians, donating to left-wing causes, and even publicly demonizing all Trump advisors as "miscreants" who are worse than deplorables...readers should remember that Katz treated Paula Jones' accusations of sexual harassment against President Bill Clinton very differently in the 1990s...Katz dismissed Jones' assertions on March 30th,1998 on CNN's "Talkback Live" saying that, "Paula Jones' suit is very, very, very weak. She's alleged one incident that took place in a hotel room that, by her own testimony, lasted 10 to 12 minutes. She suffered no repercussions in the workplace."

Likewise, Katz again said on CBS' Evening News on April 2nd, 1998 that Jones' allegation could not hold up in court because, "Clearly a one-time incident that took place in 10 to 12 minutes, she was not forced to have sex, she left on her own volition, the courts increasingly are finding that that is not enough to create a sexually hostile work environment claim."

Katz continued to argue throughout the 90s that because Jones could not show that the harassment was "severe and pervasive," she did not have a case. In 1998, Katz told the media that, "If a woman came to me with a similar fact pattern, that is someone in the company above her propositioned her but only once and she suffered no tangible job detriment. I would probably tell her that I'm sorry, it's unfair, but you don't have a case.’

But, of course, not in this case. This is because, as I noted on Twitter, Judge Kavanaugh is a good man, an excellent judge, and a reliable conservative, and liberals hate him for it all. These accusations by Ford are nothing but last ditch Clarence Thomas-like theater that reeks of political desperation. As Erick Erickson puts it,

Here we have one Bernie Sanders supporter who waited about 30 years before telling anyone and did so during a therapy session, which itself raises questions about whether this is real or a therapist contrived "recovered memory." At the time, Brett Kavanaugh was on the United States Court of Appeals. Kavanaugh's accuser did nothing publicly until 2018, thirty-five years after the accusation.

The accusation itself is that Kavanaugh, then a teenager, tried to force himself on to her at a party while drunk. Kavanaugh and his accused friend both vehemently deny the accusation. While I suspect the accuser will bring forward some friends who claim she told them at the time, because that is just how convenient this story is, thus far none have come forward.

What we do have, however, are 65 women who have known Brett Kavanaugh since high school who have vouched for his character since high school. We have a herd of reporters who accused the GOP of clearly knowing about the accusation because they could not conceive of 65 women working through the night to defend their friend's character. That not only speaks to the poor character of the reporters, but also to the fact that most political reporters in DC are already pre-disposed to oppose Kavanaugh.

We have dozens of female colleagues who have come forward to defend Brett Kavanaugh's character. We have moms of basketball players and those same female players defending him.

We have no pattern of conduct. We have no multiple accusers. We have no evidence. We have one Bernie Sanders donor against close to 100 women and girls who say this is outside the character of Brett Kavanaugh.

If the GOP decides to entertain this, we will start seeing this pattern repeatedly where one accusation from decades ago is given more weight than a lifetime of work and character witnesses that span a nominee's lifetime. Democrats want to weaponize the #MeToo movement to sabotage Brett Kavanaugh. The irony is that they are doing it to protect an abortion industry that preys mostly on innocent girls in the womb.

It seems that retiring GOP Senator Jeff Flake has decided to "entertain this." After Ford's identity became known today, Senator Flake said, "We said before that these allegations were anonymous and uncorroborated. That is no longer true." He then went on to say, "We can't vote until we hear more." As I noted in a Tweet to Arizona's new "maverick": What "corroboration?! There's no "corroboration" with Kavanaugh's accuser. It's still just her word. The only thing different is that we now know her name.

Is this Flake's "NeverTrump" hatred spewing forth? John Hinderaker at Powerline thinks so:

Kavanaugh unequivocally denies Ford’s allegation, and the only witness to the event (per Ford), Mark Judge, says “It’s just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way.” I think Ms. Ford is pretty obviously lying (don’t get me started on the friendly “lie detector test” that the Washington Post says she passed), or, on the most charitable explanation, possibly has Brett Kavanaugh confused with someone else. 

In any event, the idea that a 30 to 40 year old story of this sort–He tried to kiss me! He lay on top of me!–that has never been heard before, can derail the nomination of a man who by all accounts, including those of political adversaries, is of the most sterling possible character, is ridiculous. 

Despite the feebleness of Ford’s complaint, it is easy to understand why the Democrats are clinging to it like a life raft. But what could possibly prompt Jeff Flake, who ran for office and was elected as a Republican, to join in their attempt to block one of the most superbly qualified jurists ever appointed to the Court? There is only one answer: his insane hatred for President Trump.

As any sound-minded conservative, or even devoted republican, should well know: The democrats and their stooges in the media are going to seek to destroy WHOMEVER is a conservative nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court. Those who would've gladly cast their vote for Kavanaugh last week should also note, THIS is the best they can do with Kavanaugh: uncorroborated accusations from HIGH SCHOOL!

I warned the GOP during the Gorsuch hearings, "Gird Your Loins and be ready for Battle over the Supreme Court." Now is the time for republicans to do what they were elected to do! The wall's not being built, Obamacare's not been repealed. Among other things, republicans were elected to nominate and approve judges like Kavanaugh! Take your cue from President Trump and FIGHT! Now do your job GOP and seat Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court!

Copyright 2018, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Kavanaugh and Pence Prove: Liberals Don’t Care About Character

By all accounts, Brett Kavanaugh is not only an excellent jurist, but also a good man. According to Msgr. John Enzler, CEO and president of Catholic Charities for the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C.,

This is the guy next door, this is what he's like. He’s not like some intellectual powerhouse you’d never talk to. This is a guy who’s very friendly, very outgoing, very nice, lot of laughter, big smile, wonderful father, wonderful husband, man of faith, lives his faith, goes to church every week.

When introduced as President Trump’s nominee to replace the retiring Justice Kennedy, Judge Kavanaugh—a former altar boy—spoke adoringly of his parents, wife, and two daughters. “I thank God every day for my family,” he told the audience gathered at the White House. He also spoke of his commitment to serve others through his D.C. Catholic Church.

From all indications, Brett Kavanaugh loves his wife, loves his children, loves his parents, loves his fellow man, and, most importantly of all, loves his Lord. As is the case with all of those who possess such character, Kavanaugh’s love is not revealed only through words. Those who know him well confirm that he lives out his faith. In other words, through his deeds Mr. Kavanaugh is known and admired. And liberals just don’t care.

In spite of all that we’ve heard about President Trump’s character—or lack thereof—as I noted last year, there’s nothing in President Trump’s personal past that runs afoul of the perverse “standards” of modern liberalism. As the Kavanaugh hearings again remind us, for modern liberals, it’s never really about the character of the individual. Virtually all that matters is furthering the liberal agenda.

As Ron Ross at American Spectator recently pointed out, President Trump’s real crime—seemingly now “the most unforgivable hate crime”—is “obstruction of liberalism.” No doubt liberals fear that Brett Kavanaugh is part of the same “criminal” cabal. What’s more, given that the office of U.S. President is decided every four years, and Supreme Court judges receive lifetime appointments, Justice Kavanaugh—and those in the judiciary who are like minded—are on liberals’ “most wanted” list.

Hence the absurd and clownish display we witnessed last week when Mr. Kavanaugh went before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee. After the opening day hearings, David French well summed up the sad spectacle:

[F]rom the top down, from senators to protesters to online trolls, the Democrats offered a preview of how they’d react to any Republican nominee, and it was a shining example of how and why conservatives don’t believe for one moment that Donald Trump is the sole source of American dysfunction.

In other words, it was as if Kramer and Newman had taken over the hearings. After enduring a couple of days of ugly liberal antics, David Catron soundly piled on:

During the first two days of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee demonstrated why their party lost control of Congress, and that they still can’t be trusted with a majority in either house. In addition to interrupting the proceedings countless times on hopelessly frivolous grounds and engaging in outrageous demagoguery, they openly encouraged demonstrators to disrupt the hearings with such disgusting behavior that Judge Kavanaugh’s wife was forced to lead his children out of the room on the first day. These are the very Democrats, remember, who routinely lecture President Trump on matters of decorum.

As the caption above Catron’s piece notes, “Kavanaugh hearings reveal why their symbol is the jackass.” Indeed! A braying looney jackass:

 

Again, things will only get worse if President Trump has the opportunity to replace Ruth Ginsburg or one of her constitutionally-ignorant left-wing colleagues. Along with the rise of fake news and fake Christianity, lovers of the truth have had to contend with fake law. Much of what is precious to modern liberals has become entrenched in U.S. law, not because of constitutionally legislative efforts, but through a rogue unconstitutional judiciary.

Whether abortion, same-sex “marriage,” immigration, climate change, speech, property rights, and so on, left-wing jurists on the highest courts in our land have conducted themselves, not as “umpires”—as Judge Kavanaugh put it—but as “super legislators.” Because the U.S. federal courts have been a reliable resource for liberal causes and left-wing law, anything or anyone—no matter their character—seen as a threat to the left’s hold on the courts must be “taken out.”

Because liberals have made a god of government, almost any politician or judge—no matter their character—with their sights set on Washington D.C. must be ready to deal with the vile, crazy left. In their lust to be rid of Trump, many liberals have forgotten how much they hate Mike Pence. This past July, Frank Brunni of The New York Times reminded them:

There are problems with impeaching Donald Trump. A big one is the holy terror waiting in the wings.

That would be Mike Pence, who mirrors the boss more than you realize. He’s also self-infatuated. Also a bigot. Also a liar. Also cruel.

To that brimming potpourri he adds two ingredients that Trump doesn’t genuinely possess: the conviction that he’s on a mission from God and a determination to mold the entire nation in the shape of his own faith, a regressive, repressive version of Christianity. Trade Trump for Pence and you go from kleptocracy to theocracy.

Or, to put it another way, because he follows a version of the “Billy Graham rule,” the left sees Mike Pence as part of the “American Taliban.” Last year, The Atlantic reported on “How Mike Pence’s Marriage Became Fodder for the Culture Wars.” The author references a 2002 The Hill piece:

The Hill article gives more context on how the Pences were thinking about this, at least back in 2002. Pence told the paper he often refused dinner or cocktail invitations from male colleagues, too: “It’s about building a zone around your marriage,” he said. “I don’t think it’s a predatory town, but I think you can inadvertently send the wrong message by being in [certain] situations.”

The 2002 article notes that Pence arrived in Congress a half decade after the 1994 “Republican revolution,” when Newt Gingrich was the speaker of the House. Several congressional marriages, including Gingrich’s, encountered difficulty that year. Pence seemed wary of this. “I’ve lost more elections than I’ve won,” he said. “I’ve seen friends lose their families. I’d rather lose an election.” He even said he gets fingers wagged in his face by concerned Indianans. “Little old ladies come and say, ‘Honey, whatever you need to do, keep your family together,’” he told The Hill.

Mike Pence puts his family and his marriage ahead of politics, and the left thinks this is lunacy. As the Apostle Paul told Titus, “to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled.”

A defiled heart and mind distorts everything. The left hates Trump supposedly because he’s vile, vulgar, “trashy,” undignified, un-presidential, piggish. Mike Pence and Brett Kavanaugh can be accused of nothing similar, and the left hates them also. For those corrupted by a liberal worldview, it’s never really about character, it’s always about politics…and sex. 

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2018, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com