Megyn Kelly as she used to be

For most of the period between 2007 and 2015, my favorite news personality was Megyn Kelly. Not because of her looks, although they didn’t hurt, but because she took no nonsense from anyone. She made so many of them (especially Obama’s not too bright shills) look like utter fools. Then for some reason, she decided her spit didn’t stink and that the whole thing was about her.

When that happened it all went south, with her leaving Fox and not doing at all well at NBC. Well, the other day the old Megyn was back. She took some of NBC’s partisans to the cleaners  It was a joy to watch, and if she’d do more of it, well, who knows?

Watch and enjoy a woman who used to know how to interview, and maybe still does.

I haven’t checked this morning where the negotiations are, but for me, Dr. Ford has pushed (or allowed the Democrats controlling) it too far. She has convinced me that she is simply a plant, a landmine that was supposed to blow up the nomination.

Sorry, but that is what over politicization does. She managed to dehumanize herself, by continually moving the goalposts.

Advertisements

Aussie breasts spoil Deutsche fest

You guys ready for something a bit lighter? Yeah me too. What we talk about is important, but doom and gloom make Neo a dull boy. It seems that our Aussie cousins (the female ones) don’t wear the German national costume to some Germans’ satisfaction. From The Spectator (Australia).

Franz Thalhammer, 70, a former chairman of Munich’s Georgenstoana Baierbrunn folk group, called out Australian and Italian tourists specifically for sexualizing the uniform.

“A dirndl is something nice, it can make almost anyone pretty. But some of the dresses you see these days are crazy,” he said, Daily Mail reports. “You go in a tent and it’s full of paralytic Australians and Italians and they’ve forked out €250 ($290) for a complete Bavarian outfit and think they’re Bavarians. It’s as if I’d walk around half-naked and say I’m Australian.”

Now, now! Herr Thalhammer, that’s some terrible national stereotyping. Plus, no one wants to see a 70-year old Bavarian folk musician half-naked.

The truth of the matter is that no one can quarantine their culture and protect it from being borrowed, blended, kitsched and misused. And no one should, whether that culture is Indian or German, African or Chinese.

But Oktoberfest is more fun than most, and who can blame the Aussies. In fact, seems like a good reason to go. Beer and half-naked beautiful women, what’s not to like, and even better, they speak English. And the beer is better than that stuff that comes in oil cans. 🙂

Raping Justice

Senator Chuck Grassley

And so we all wait, with bated breath, to see whether Dr. Blasey Ford will deign to speak with the US Senate Judiciary Committee. Personally, I doubt it, mostly because her motives might come out. But I’m no expert, nor do I want to be. Who is? Probably as much as anyone, R.S. McCain is, and he wrote about it in The American Spectator yesterday. Let’s take a look.

Where were you in the spring of 1982? Can you verify your whereabouts and produce evidence to establish that you weren’t molesting prep-school girls in suburban Maryland? Christine Blasey Ford insists she’s a victim and, while the main suspect is Brett Kavanaugh, perhaps no man can be entirely sure he won’t be summoned before the Senate Judiciary Committee in some future investigation.

Feminist “rape culture” discourse, which has sowed a climate of sexual paranoia on university campuses in recent years, has escaped its native habitat and is now wreaking havoc in our politics, to say nothing of its damaging effect on our culture. Do I want to discuss what allegedly happened at a party in Montgomery County, Maryland, on an unspecified night in 1982? Do you want to read such a discussion? Do any of us want to watch such a claim litigated on national TV with Judge Kavanaugh and his accuser testifying in front of a Senate panel, with cable-news pundits endlessly rehashing every angle of the sordid saga day after day?

No, we don’t. Particularly since it is apparent that while somebody may have attacked Dr. Ford, this entire attack is nothing but politics and a further unhinged scream of rage that Donald Trump is President.

One who sees clearly, perhaps because this is even more prevalent in the UK, is Laura Perrins, Co-Editor of The Conservative Woman. She notes:

First, the allegation is serious – namely that Kavanaugh held down Ford, groped her, attempted to remove her clothes and covered her mouth when she tried to call out. As I said, they were both minors at the time. However, secondly, and let’s be clear, there is no way this allegation can be seriously or fairly challenged either in a court of law (it is 36 years ago and I believe out of time under statute of limitations) or in the Senate politically. [Maryland, where the incident supposedly took place, apparently doesn’t have a statute of limitations, but that isn’t relevant, really. The Democrats, and Ford, don’t want justice, they want Kavanaugh destroyed. Neo]

The Democrats have set up a checkmate scenario here: any challenge by the Republicans against the testimony of an event that happened 36 years ago will be seen as bullying and harassing victims of sexual assault. In the #MeToo era this is toxic. As CNN gleefully pointed out: ‘If Republican senators attempt to impugn her character, they will disgrace themselves in the eyes of the American people.’Checkmate.

In sum, Kavanaugh is seriously limited in his defence. In fact many on the Left are saying that, as it will be men asking questions of the accuser, this disqualifies them straight off. So if the Judiciary committee don’t call Ford, they are not taking the allegation seriously. If they do call Ford, they are disqualified from asking her any questions by the mere fact of being men. Checkmate.

Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary committee, could have brought this to the attention of the committee and FBI weeks ago. Instead she kept quiet, knowing it would leak eventually. And so the media circus continues and the show trial begins. Where were you, Brett Kavanaugh, 36 years ago, at a time we can’t specify, on a day we can’t specify, in a place we can’t specify? If this sounds Kafkaesque, it’s because it is.

One of the reasons I love ConWom is because of plain common sense like this, and she’s right, there is no way out? Or is there. Gateway Pundit tells us that Sen Grassley laid down the law yesterday.

“It is not the FBI’s role to investigate a matter such as this,” Grassley wrote, “The FBI does not make a credibility assessment of any information it receives with respect to a nominee.”

“You have stated repeatedly that Dr. Ford wants to tell her story. I sincerely hope that Dr. Ford will accept my invitation to do so, either privately or publicly, on Monday. In the meantime, my staff would still welcome the opportunity to speak with Dr. Ford at a time and place convenient to her,” said Grassley.

“The Constitution assigns the Senate, and only the Senate, with the task of advising the President on his nominee and consenting to the nomination if the circumstances merit. The job of assessing and investigating a nominee’s qualifications in order to decide whether to consent to the nomination is ours, and ours alone”

The short form of that is well known to all Americans of my generation: “Put up or shut up”. And that is the key. Conservatives have allowed the left to bully us for decades, and of course, they have taken advantage. When we elected President Trump we gave conservatives permission to fight back. And that is the key. Bullies stop bullying when they get a few sharp punches to the nose. You know it, I know it, we all know it. It’s time and past time for a brawl on this playground.

R.S. McCain ends this way:

Whether Ford’s accusation is true or not, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein orchestrated the leak and subsequent release of Ford’s letter, not merely to sink Kavanaugh and level accusations in a way that would make it difficult for the judge to defend himself, but also to try and delay Republican efforts to confirm any nominee until after the midterms.”

There is only one possible way to resolve this. “We the People of the United States” are still sovereign in our national affairs, and the verdict in the case of Ford v. Kavanaugh will not come from the senators in the hearing room, but from the people themselves on Nov. 6. May God grant us the wisdom to judge rightly.

Amen. From his keyboard to God’s eye. I think the people will. If the Senate caves to this bullying, well, they will never have another chance to put a solid Constitutionalist on the Court. This is the last trench, the battle must be won.

And you know, even Sens. Flake, Collins, and Corker appear to be on board. Maybe they, like us, have finally figured out that enough is enough.

Maskirovka, Deep State Style

A commenter over at Ace’s noted yesterday that Robert Ludlum wouldn’t concoct such a plot as we are seeing in the deep state, it’s too complex by far to be real. He has a point. It’s worse than a daytime soap opera. And yet it seems that it is. Either these folks are geniuses, or it is multiple people acting more or less on their own, in their own interest. Occam’s Law would suggest the latter.

But in any case, I would suggest that all of these moving parts, on multiple continents, may be why the wheels are apparently coming off, thus the desperation we are increasingly seeing, as Leavenworth stares some very powerful people in the face. Or not. We will see.

A point that Sean Hannity makes repeatedly is both valid and very important if Hillary Clinton had won we would likely never known how corrupt and self-seeking our so-called civil service had become. This is likely to be Donald Trump’s greatest service to his country.

In any case, Lee Smith in The Federalist has done some digging on why the leak campaign has switched from offensive operations to defensive. It’s interesting.

There is a huge amount of information here, and I strongly recommend reading it all. I have chosen to emphasize the section that talks about the declassifying of documents (that Trump has now ordered) and that has unhinged (or further unhinged) former DNI James Clapper. Maybe this is part of why.

Now congressional Republicans are urging the president to declassify three sets of documents — 20 pages of the final renewal of the warrant to spy on Carter Page in June 2017; records of the FBI’s 12 interviews with Bruce Ohr; and exculpatory material related to the warrant on Page. Anti-Trump officials continue to dig in, pre-emptively leaking information about CIA and FBI Russia-related operations that appears to combine classified intelligence with some degree of fiction intended to obscure wrongdoings.

Halper’s name popped up again last month in the New York Times. A veteran GOP operative, Halper collected intelligence on Trump associates. But according to unnamed officials quoted in the story, uncovering his identity has “had a chilling effect on intelligence collection” against Russian targets.

The apparent purpose of the article, say sources, is to deter Trump from declassifying documents damaging to law enforcement and intelligence agencies.

“Informants close to President Vladimir V. Putin and in the Kremlin who provided crucial details” to U.S. intelligence about the 2016 race have gone silent, the Times reported.

Washington Post article last year, co-written by Entous, made similar claims about U.S. intelligence sources close to Putin. According to the story, the Obama White House knew of “Putin’s direct involvement in a cyber campaign to disrupt and discredit the U.S. presidential race” based on “a report drawn from sourcing deep inside the Russian government.”

If the 2017 Post story is true, that would explain why U.S. intelligence is blind on Russia going into the 2018 midterm elections. After American spies leaked classified intelligence regarding informants in Putin’s inner circles, Moscow would have moved quickly to shut down those channels.

But present and former intelligence officials doubt the veracity of both the Times and the Post stories. “Our sources and methods are sacred, and what we do regarding Russia is extraordinarily secret,” former CIA Moscow station chief Daniel Hoffman told RCI.

Gentlemen: place your bets. In some ways, that’s where we are right now. I’m inclined to quote the old advice, “Expect the worst and hope for the best'”.

Another recent Times story that has raised eyebrows is its Sept. 1 account of the FBI’s efforts to recruit Russian businessman Oleg Deripaska, an oligarch close to Putin, as an informant. Published just days after the release of documents showing that the DOJ’s Ohr was in close contact with Christopher Steele, who was employed by Deripaska’s London lawyer, the Times story reports that the FBI operation included Ohr and Steele.

According to the Times, Deripaska was one among half a dozen Putin associates that the FBI attempted to recruit for the purpose of reporting on Moscow’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. A congressional Republican source who spoke to RCI on the condition of anonymity is skeptical of the Times’ account.

“The takeaway is that in trying to flip a Putin-allied oligarch, the FBI told Putin that they’re investigating his interference in the 2016 elections. That is not a good look. It looks like the story they’re trying to bury is that in the period leading up to the FBI’s using the dossier to get a warrant to spy on the Trump campaign, a senior DOJ official whose wife [Nellie Ohr] worked on the dossier is meeting with the author of the dossier, who works for a Putin ally.”

Sources say the Ohr story is evidence that the leak campaign is continuing, even as it is being exposed. And a precedent has been established with this joining together of political operatives, law enforcement and intelligence officials to prosecute a campaign based on illegal leaks of classified intelligence. It’s not hard to imagine it happening again, regardless of who the next president is, and regardless of party.

And that, of course, is why it is so pernicious. If we don’t get it rooted out, rather like crabgrass, it will haunt us far into the future. And yet, it is going to be very hard to do when it threatens the lifestyle and even the liberty of people, who while they may be important, are even more self-important. In fact, their self-importance is greater to them than the country itself. It is something we need to get done.

Anatomy of a High Tech Lynching

So, I imagine you’ve heard, this Bernie supporting California Professor, Christine Blasey Ford, has suddenly remembered that she was sexually assaulted by none other than Brett Kavanaugh. But she doesn’t remember what house, address, or even the year. Hard to defend against that, there is no there, there.

It’s a bit suspicious I think, that Diane Feinstein sat on the allegation for well over a month, during which the nomination interviews and hearing were held, and only brought it forth, and anonymously a few days before the committee vote. Odd, that?

Still, she deserves to be heard, but I’m pretty skeptical. So is Bookworm, as she relates here.

By now you’ve all heard that Christine Blasey Ford is the woman accusing Kavanaugh of attacking her 35 years ago, a claim he strenuously and absolutely denies. Her story is a bizarre pastiche of precise details and huge memory holes. It’s also got a big lie planted right in the middle, which is Ford’s claim that she always meant to be private and only went public now because she couldn’t hide anymore.

That’s bull crap. The moment Ford sent a letter to a Democrat pol, she knew with absolute certainty that this would be a big deal, that her name would emerge, and that she’d become the Democrats’ new darling.

Put aside for now the fact that the notes don’t jive with the accusations Ford is making. Focus, instead, on that date: 2012.

It’s a weird date. Keep in mind that Ford, aside from being a Bernie supporting academic, is a psychologist. Part of getting a degree in psychology is going through analysis. One would think that, even if, as a shy 15-year-old, Ford was too afraid to go public with her charge against Kavanaugh, when she went through psychoanalysis on her way to her degree, she would have spoken about this alleged assault, especially because she says it traumatized her for years. But she didn’t. Instead, suddenly, in 2012, she’s bathed in flop sweat from an incident decades before.

In an update, Book informs us that getting psychoanalyzed is not part of a psychology degree, although it is for an analyst. A small matter, really, but worth correcting. You may know what we called psychology majors in my world: “Nuts and s***s”. I’ve never found a valid reason to reverse that youthful opinion.

So what happened in 2012? Coincidentally (or not), 2012 was another election year.

In 2012, Romney ran against Obama. Up until his 47% gaffe, Romney was doing well. He actually had a shot of winning.

For the Democrats, as has been the case since Bork, having a Republican in the White House, especially with the ever-aging but never retiring Ruth Bader Ginsburg a perpetual risk, raised the specter of a conservative judge getting appointed to the Supreme Court. With that in mind, one Twitter user, who must have an amazing memory, remembered something interesting he’d read back in 2012:

I’ll save you a click to The New Yorker website. The article, which The New Yorker published in 2012, is a Jeffrey Toobin analysis about Bret Kavanaugh and the threat he would pose should he get on the Supreme Court. According to Toobin, Kavanaugh was a scary conservative who, if he got on the Court, might overturn Obamacare:

In other words, according to Kavanaugh, even if the Supreme Court upholds the law this spring, a President Santorum, say, could refuse to enforce aca because he “deems” the law unconstitutional. That, to put the matter plainly, is not how it works. Courts, not Presidents, “deem” laws unconstitutional, or uphold them. “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is,” Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in Marbury v. Madison, in 1803, and that observation, and that case, have served as bedrocks of American constitutional law ever since. Kavanaugh, in his decision, wasn’t interpreting the Constitution; he was pandering to the base.

In the nineteen-nineties, during Kavanaugh’s first brush with prominence, it was said that some conservatives suffered from Clinton derangement syndrome—an obsessive belief that the President and the First Lady had committed every misdeed that was attributed to them. (Hillary Clinton was involved in Vince Foster’s death; Bill Clinton had trafficked narcotics through Mena, Arkansas; and so on.) Kavanaugh’s bizarre opinion confirms that a contemporary analogue to the Clinton malady has taken hold: health-care derangement syndrome.

There’s more blah-blah from Toobin, a man who can never be trusted to be honest about the law. Don’t bother reading it. Just pay attention to that last paragraph:

If a Republican, any Republican, wins in November, his most likely first nominee to the Supreme Court will be Brett Kavanaugh. (Emphasis mine.)

In 2012, Romney might have won the election. In 2012, Toobin stoked Democrat fears that Kavanaugh, a conservative, might get on the Supreme Court and overturn Obamacare. And in 2012, Ford, a psychotherapist who undoubtedly had years of prior therapy herself, suddenly can’t stop talking about her hitherto undisclosed claim that Kavanaugh was a bad boy almost 30 years before.

There is quite a bit more there, and you owe it to yourself to read it.

Results: Well, so far the traitorous Jeff Flake, preparing for his new career as a Democrat wants to think about it. And that is enough to keep the nomination from reaching the floor from the committee, since no Democrat can survive Chuckie Schemer’s wrath and vote for Kavanaugh.

And Ford may even have a personal motive: It seems that when her parents were involved with a foreclosure case, years ago, the judge that ruled against them was Judge Martha Kavanaugh, Brett’s mother. Or so says PowerLine.

In other words, this has all the hallmarks of a planned character assassination, perpetrated by the Democrats, just as they did on Judge Bork and attempted to do on Justice Clarence Thomas, who first called it a high tech lynching in the Senate hearing. Of course, Democrats have lots of practice with lynching, although usually of black men who get uppity, as their action arm, the KKK used to say.

I speak for no one but myself, but if the Republicans (and even Susan Collins is very skeptical of this stunt) cannot get this nomination done, I see very little reason to ever vote for one of them again. I strongly doubt I’m the only one.

Why? Because the Republic in recognizable form will no longer exist. It is time for a bit of spine.

We the People

September 17, 1787

Today is Constitution Day. It may be the most widely disregarded of US Holidays. It shouldn’t be. As we are seeing lately, freedom is an endangered thing, held by a thread, or three. One of those three is the Constitution.

When I write, as I did the other day, about the loss of freedom of speech in England, I thank God and Jemmy Madison for the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights. For here, right in one of the Charters of Freedom, is my right to speak, and yours too.

Back in 2012, I wrote about this, and here is part of what I said:

I’m glad you brought attention to this most important of days.

I was a very lucky person. During WWII my father was sent over from Britain to Washington D.C.on the British Raw Materials Mission…basically to get brass to make ammunition. My mother joined him. this was in early 1942. We three children,were in Canada, my mother’s native land, spent the Winter and Easter vacations from boarding school with them in D.C..

My father was paid in pounds which didn’t go very far in the US in those days. My mother, being very ingenious, planned twice weekly excursions to the various historic sites and museums. It was always planned with both my two older sisters in mind and myself, some stuff that interested boys and some girls. There were of course, some places that interested all of us.

One such trip was to the Capitol Building. In the Rotunda on display were the three most important documents of the world. There under protective glass were the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States of America, and the one on which both of these are based the Magna Carta. It had been sent over from England together with many other historical artifacts for protection for the duration of the war. Sad to say I didn’t even have a “Brownie” to record this amazing day.

What an awesome sight that must have been in the Rotunda of the Capitol, which is pretty awesome in itself! Thank you, David.

Let’s talk about this comment a bit.

If you wish to know about individual freedom in this world, there are two countries who have pioneered it and presented the case in writing:. England and the United States. There are three documents existing that spell it all out. There are legends that there are other’s, for instance, there is what is called King Alfred’s Charter which supposedly was similar. But anyway, there are really only three documents that have changed the world, and they are all in English or Anglo-French.

The first of these is Magna Charta signed by King John at Runnymede, in 1215, as we have said it was based upon older charters including Henry I’s  Charter of Liberties. It was forced upon King John by the barons of England by force of arms, and like our Emancipation Proclamation did not really do anything in the present. But it has come down to all of us whose law code descend from the Common Law as the basic statement of the rights of the Freeman. At that time in history, it was the first and only attempt anywhere to limit the power of the King. That would make it the basic document of freedom for the entire world.

This particular copy is from 1297 and bears the Seal of Edward I, it is privately owned and is on permanent loan to the National Archives and is displayed in the same manner as the other ‘Documents of Freedom’. There are four copies of the original 1215 Charter, all are in England.

The other two documents David mentions seeing were the Declaration of Independence, perhaps the most succinct, concise, and thoroughgoing statement of rights of the individual ever written, and the Constitution of the United States of America, in which we codified how free men could best organize to govern themselves.

Now here’s some thinking matter for you, these three documents plus the Bill of Rights, have become the sine qua non of freedom for men everywhere, how remarkable that all of them are derived from the history of the English freeman and his tenacity in resisting the imposition of tyranny by his own government. Where are the similar document from Europe, or Asia or Africa?

Individual liberty is the bequest of the English speaking countries to the world. We have a lot to do to uphold our heritage.

Today, all around the world, in London, in Germany, in Poland, in Israel, in India, in Japan, in Australia, in fact, wherever free men, or men who wish to be free, gather, they will take heart from a simple document written long ago, that starts,

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That is the document that turned us from these semi-united squabbling states into The United States.

Brave words, but like Magna Charta, and the Declaration before them, only words on paper. The difference is that in America they were made good in patriots’ blood. And still are, every day.

Today would be an excellent day to take that little book out of your pocket (as so derisively said by a US Senator to Judge Kavanaugh during the hearing) and read again why America is different, and why it is free.

%d bloggers like this: