Sunday Funnies; Awesome Notepad

The awesomeness of an empty notepad

Meanwhile Outside Alys’s Restaurant

And of course

Meanwhile, I’ve noticed a strange feel in the air, like a ginger is trying to steal my soul



Neo will roll his eyes but I have to mention the television series, West Wing. I learned so much from that series about which I had known nothing.

We’re watching the confirmation hearing for Amy Coney Barrett and I never understood what that entails. Fortunately, West Wing covers some of that and I always operate under the assumption that if I don’t know something, other people may not know either. I think it’s a fair assumption.

The process takes far longer than you may expect it to. There’s generally one person in charge of the confirmation process, usually the ‘policy guy’ (I don’t have to type ‘or woman’, do I? I think we’re all adults here). He’s the guy with the ‘check list’. Amy Barrett allowed that she submitted 1800 pages for the confirmation team. Several people will have been chosen to read all or some of those pages, depending upon what topic the page covers. They read to see if the nominee for Supreme Court Justice has any legal writings detrimental to the policy of the current administration. They look for any mention displaying bias, discrimination, defamation, and/or disagreement with the current administration. They look for malfeasance and any hint of scandal.

If the written collection holds nothing that red flags the nominee, they begin the interviews of friends, co-workers, family, neighbors of the nominee. They go to previous employers. They sniff out every possible wrong the nominee may have participated in.

If there are still no red flags, the confirmation team will meet with the nominee and have a few face to face meetings, and the person’s work record is questioned and uncertain ground can be clarified and cleared. If the confirmation team finds no issues that require further inquiry, the team will then inform the president of that administration of their findings. If the president has reasons of his own, he may turn down the potential nominee and ask that another person be looked at using the same process.

If the president accepts the recommendation of the confirmation team, he then meets with the potential nominee to decide for himself whether or not he thinks the possible nominee meets whatever his personal criteria may be.

Having gone through this process and passing all the attendant laser focus of this background check of all time, the president will then announce to the press his nominee for the seat of Supreme Court Justice. And from that second forward, the members of the ‘other party’ begin the same process in regard to that nominee, considering the other party has other interests and policies that they are concerned with.

The actual hearing for confirmation, as we have learned – large and in our faces on the major networks – is a mud flinging, party boosting, scandalous innuendos, aspersions casting attempt to both ruin and/or elevate the nominee, depending on the party asking the questions.

This is what we need to understand. In this particular case, in this particular place and time, the hatred for the President of the United States is such that there is no depth of disgusting to which the Democrats will not delve. According to the Democrats, Amy Barrett has been nominated by the President to INSURE that what He wants gets done to the DETRIMENT of millions of Americans. You’re all very nice people so all I’m going to say to that is ‘stuff and nonsense’! Should she be confirmed, she will be one of eight Justices. [Nine including the primus inter pares Chief Justice*] So when they repeat – ad nauseum – that her decision will kill Roe v Wade, Obama Care, any of the cases that will come before the Court – they are lying. Pure and simple.

*The Chief Justice has no control over any legal decision made by any Justice, he does assign the writing of opinions with which he agrees and has a fair amount of administrative control of the court. admin.

Sunday Funnies; The Nomination and More

And so, now we know

Keep this in mind, it is not Ginsburg’s seat nor is it a liberal seat. It belongs to the American people, and we long ago gave the President the power to nominate and the Senate to advise and consent on whom we allow to sit in it. They are doing what we said.


The Redhead of the week will never be as beautiful as this one. Right, Jess? Although I can think of one candidate.

Heh! My kind of Governor

But be careful fishing!

And of course

Murdering Babies

The Heritage Foundation reminds us:

[C]urrent federal law recognizes that all infants born at any stage of development, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the birth, are “persons.” But this recognition alone is insufficient to provide protections for infants born alive following an attempted abortion. The federal Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act would augment current law to require that proper medical care be given to an infant born alive following an abortion procedure and impose criminal consequences on health care providers who violate the law.

In the past decade, states have enacted more than 300 laws that protect innocent human life. In response to this wave of significant pro-life victories, some state legislatures across the country are passing or considering sweeping pro-abortion legislation that far exceeds Roe v. Wade and its progeny. These bills are radically out of step with the American people’s consensus that abortion should be significantly restricted.1

Knights of Columbus, “Americans’ Opinions on Abortion,” January 2019, (accessed February 20, 2019).

While the bills in various states differ based on current state law, they have generally sought to allow for elective abortion up to birth, reduce or eliminate health and safety standards for clinics and practitioners, and end requirements to provide medical care to babies born alive following an abortion procedure.

In response to these radical proposals, Members of the United States Congress are working to advance pro-life policies, including the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, to protect women and their babies—born and unborn.

Which was introduced by my Senator, Ben Sasse. As most of you know, I have my problems with Sen Sasse, based mostly on his inability to see why we elected Donald Trump, but here there is no daylight between us at all. It’s something that it is repulsive that we need, but need it we do. As some states introduce bills that allow abortion (infanticide, really) during labor, and some claim proudly, even after birth.

That bill, the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, was defeated in the Senate, with every Democrat presidential contender voting against it. Every One of them: Truly the party of death. David Harsanyi tells us:

Senate Democrats unsurprisingly struggled to find an effective way to lie about opposing a bill that prohibits abortion in the fourth trimester. Some of them maintained that Sasse’s bill was superfluous because all the things in it were already illegal. Others claimed the bill would “restrict doctors from making case-by-case decisions about what is best for infants and mothers.” Still others claimed the practice never ever happens. Other Democrats, who support government intervention in every nook and cranny of human existence, argued that tough choices should only be the domain of women and their doctors, not the state. Many of them saw no conflict between these ideas and argued all these things at the very same time.

Sen. Patty Murray claimed the bill was “clearly anti-doctor, anti-woman and anti-family” and that “proponents claim it would make something illegal that is already illegal.” This is untrue, regardless of a full-court press from Democrats and the media. As bills in both Virginia and New York clearly illustrate, the practice isn’t illegal. Both bills specifically provide legal protections for doctors who terminate babies who survive abortion attempts.

This was the practice Gov. Ralph Northam of Virginia hamfistedly explained to us on video, forgetting to use the standard euphemisms typically used to conceal the horrific specifics of the procedure. In New York, abortion—and post-birth termination—of a viable, once-healthy infant is legal through the entire pregnancy, and after, for virtually any reason. The rite of abortion is so intrinsic to progressive ideology (and coffers) that not one major player on the left had the moral spine to condemn either.

And so the Democrats continue to be the party that wants to protect the guilty, such as MS-13, while killing the completely innocent, like newborn babies. [Break time so you can go throw up, like I want to] What a craven lot they are.

But the American people are onto them. CNS tells us that in the last month, polling has detected a seismic shift in views of abortion.

A new, national survey on the heels of legislation in New York and Virginia to allow abortion up to the moment of birth shows a major shift to the pro-life side among Democrats and young people, according to the Marist College for Public Opinion and the Knights of Columbus.

The Feb. 12-17 survey revealed that in just one month, the number of Democrats who identified as pro-life shifted from 20% to 34%. Also, the number of Democrats identifying as “pro-choice” fell from 75% to 61%. That’s a 14-percentage point swing in only four weeks.

For Americans age 45 and younger, the shift was from 28% identifying as pro-life four weeks ago to 47% today; the percentage of young people who said they were “pro-choice” fell from 65% to 48%.

So, today, 47% of young people identify as pro-life vs. 48% who say they are “pro-choice.”

“Current proposals that promote late-term abortion have reset the landscape and language on abortion in a pronounced – and very measurable – way,” said Barbara Carvalho, director of The Marist Poll, in a statement.

Well, that is good news, but until it seeps into every American politician’s thick head that it is wrong to murder babies, there is more to do. So, let’s get to doing.

A Credible Witness?

How many hundreds, or perhaps thousands of times, have we, in the last fortnight, heard Dr. Christine Basey-Ford referred to as a credible witness? Yeah, me, as well. But is she?

First, she is not properly, in modern usage, a witness at all, she was a participant, granted if we believe her version, an unwilling participant, but she participated in it, if only as a victim. Yes, she is witnessing her account to the Judiciary Committee, but that is a somewhat different definition. She is in fact, the plaintiff or the complainant.

Then there is that word credible, which has become a seemingly necessary prefix to the word witness. Oxford dictionary defines it as follows:

Able to be believed; convincing.

Ok, there is the first problem, I’m not likely to find her more credible because every left-wing rag in western civilization tells me she is. Deciding her credibility is my job, or at least the job of the Senators on the committee. That is why we go through the whole rigamarole of testimony. It helps us to define whether a witness is credible.

The witnesses looks and demeanor matter, as does their consistency. In this case, her looks, and general demeanor fit with her c.v. But her voice sounded more like an entitled, whiney, teenager than an Adjunct Professor with a Ph.D. in her 50s. The voice was jarring, not of a piece with the rest. And little things matter, like facial expression, remember this picture from yesterday:

That look, just like it is on Strzok, is the look of a smug, self-satisfied person who has outsmarted themselves, and thinks they have put one over on somebody. It speaks pretty loudly against credibility.

What makes a credible witness? Well, it certainly helps if there is more than one. In this case, we have Dr. Ford, the supposed victim, accusing Judge Kavanaugh, naming four people who were there, all of whom, including her best friend, deny that it ever happened. That works strongly against credibility.

And along that line, we have seen much of Judge Kavanaugh wife, children, parents, friends, and all the rest. Dr. Ford either is, or at least was, married, she certainly has, or at least had parents, and likely siblings, and one hopes, friends. Where are they all, we have heard nothing from any of them, and a cursory Google search brings up nothing on point. Has she driven away all human contact, or are they simply not willing to support this charade. I have no clue but am curious. And that too, speaks to her credibility or perhaps incredibility.

It is also useful if one can speak to when and where, here the only witness seems to have no clue at all, really. That doesn’t speak as much to credibility (although it does, to a point) as to making the whole thing unactionable because it is inconceivable that it can either be proved or disproved. In other words, it’s a story, maybe a fable. Perhaps a lesson as to why teenage girls should not get drunk at parties, but little more.

Then we have to compare her credibility to that of Judge  Kavanaugh, the accused here. It would be difficult to find another person whose c.v. is more consistent, from childhood to today. A smart, conscientious overachiever, who always shows respect to everybody and,, more than most, to women, and who promotes women professionally if anything more than is equitable.

Yep, he likes beer, and when he was young, he liked to party, perhaps a bit too heartily. Well, I hate to say it, but quite a few of us did, and when we were 16, we made stupid fart jokes too. My high school yearbook burned down in my folk’s house, so you can’t introduce it into evidence, and that’s a good thing for me.

But the thing is, nothing in Judge Kavanaugh, is not consistent, not his professional life, not his personal life, not his religious life. Not even his impassioned statement. How many of us could sit there and listen for hours to some person tell unsupported derogatory tales about us, and not at some point burst into an impassioned defense? In fact, I found his self-control admirable.

Then there is the way the committee Democrats, above all Senator Feinstein, handled the matter.

Hiding the accusation, instead of passing it along so it could be properly (and quietly) examined by the committee investigators and/or the FBI. Referring her to a highly partisan law firm who a arranged a non-credible lie detector test, which is nothing of the sort in the first place, done once again by a partisan operator, and then outing Dr. Ford as a ‘Hail Mary’ bomb when all other ammunition had been expended, against (supposedly) Dr, Ford’s own wishes. With friends like Diane Feinstein, one has no need for enemies.

Essentially Diane Feinstein poisoned whatever chance Dr, Ford’s accusation ever had, which wasn’t much since the process is evidence-based, and there still ain’t any.

So, in the final analysis, is Dr. Ford a credible witness? No, she is not. I’m sympathetic that something of this sort may have happened to her at some point but am completely convinced that it was not by Brett Kavanaugh.

In fact, this whole kerfluffle has become an incredible demonstration of arrogance and disdain for the proper evidence-based procedure by the Democratic Party and looks rather like an attempted fascist take over of the government, incredible as that seems.


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.

%d bloggers like this: