Calumny as a Stock in Trade

forked tongueIt is a defining moment. Brett Kavanaugh confirmed! Don’t think it doesn’t matter to us. We can all sleep a little safer in our beds, at least for the time being, with the US Supreme Court out of the hands of left-wing activists. It’s worthwhile to recap the contemptable calumnies directed at Kavanaugh to demonstrate that there are no depths to which the Left will not sink; no truth that they will not subvert; no man, woman or child that they will not tear down.

No one came forward with any remotely believable claim that Kavanaugh had ever acted in a sexually inappropriate manner. Hmm? Methinks, I might have once or twice been a tad too forward. But luckily for most of us men, who had a beer or five in our youth, we are not in the Dems’ and the sinister George Soros’s firing line. I also doubt that many of us could extract glowing references. Kavanaugh could and did. Large numbers of women who knew him, some of whom dated him at school and throughout his college and working life, came come forward to vouchsafe and extol his good character.

“It’s just absolutely nuts. I never saw Brett act that way,” attested Mark Judge, who Christine Blasey Ford claims was in the bedroom when, or so she says, a teenage Brett Kavanaugh drunkenly attempted to sexually assault her. She doesn’t remember the date or the address or precise location of the house and variously placed the incident at a party, or “gathering”, in a summer of the early-1980s (or was it the mid-1980s when, inconveniently for her, Kavanaugh was away at Yale) or specifically, as she finally decided, in 1982 (but take your pick). If it was 1982 she would have been fifteen and Kavanaugh seventeen.

She clearly didn’t write anything down at the time to verify the time and place, nor did she tell anyone. What, not even her friends? She doesn’t remember how she got to the house in question, what happened when she escaped from the bedroom or how she got home. What, she made no one else at the party aware of her acute distress, having escaped Kavanaugh’s drunken clutches.? No one else noticed? No one took her home?

Dr Ford by all accounts first reported this alleged assault to her therapist in 2012. Why did she consult a therapist? Her husband had trouble with her plan to install two front doors in their home because of her ‘claustrophobia’. Caused, you guessed it, by Kavanaugh. The only fly in this ointment is that the two front doors were installed in 2008 to accommodate a home office. Didn’t know that? You wouldn’t find out from Fairfax or the ABC.

Before seeing the therapist, she had told no one else of the assault in the intervening years. Apparently, according to the Washington Post, the therapist’s notes do not name Kavanaugh but record her saying that there were four boys in the bedroom. Ford excused this by saying that the therapist made a mistake. There were four boys at the gathering but only two in the bedroom. Sloppy therapist.

Of the four people she has been able to name as being at the gathering, including a close girlfriend, none remember the event or  backed her story. For good measure she refused to release the therapist’s notes and couldn’t remember(?), under questioning, whether she provided them to the Washington Post or simply summarised their content. And, really, she is to be given the time of day, never mind taken seriously?

Put simply, Ford’s account is not credible; it is incredible. Well, something must have happened to her, almost everyone bleats. I don’t agree. Her well-rehearsed, affected, baby-girl, simpering testimony left me cold. I’d like to see a proper cross examination. “So, Dr Ford, because of this alleged assault you suffer from claustrophobia and thus can’t fly, yet you have flown often — here there and everywhere,” challenged Sir Wilfrid Robarts (Charles Lawton) who finished with flourish, “were you lying then, are you lying now, or are you not in fact a chronic and habitual LIAR!”

Incredible is not strong enough a description for the recovered drunken memory of Debbie Ramirez who, after meeting with Democrat lawyers over six days, was able to recall that it was Kavanaugh who exposed himself to her at a dorm party at Yale thirty-five years’ ago. Even the NYT wouldn’t print the story after trying hard and failing to find anyone who could corroborate it. It was left to the The New Yorker to run the hit job. I liked Kavanaugh’s response on Fox News. If he’d done this, he said, don’t you think it would have been the talk of the dorm?

And talk about ‘talk of the dorm’, the third accusation would have been the talk of Maryland and Washington. Julie Swetnick, represented by Stormy Daniels’ creepy porn lawyer, Michael Avenatti, claims that in 1982 Kavanaugh and Judge led a rape ring. Ms Swetnick, who was at college at the time yet attended school parties, claims that she went to at least ten parties at which young girls were drugged and gang raped and that she herself was raped at one party she attended. And nobody, nobody, said a word about it at the time? It redefines absurd.

Predictably, even more trivial and unverifiable accusations were subsequently made, and would have gone on being made. It’s ‘flying saucer theory’, you see. The more false sightings, the more surely one must be true.

Let me say as pompously as I can that, personally, I don’t know what happened on that summer evening back in 1982 in Maryland or at the dorm party at Yale or at those rapist parties. What an utterly stupid, redundant and bleedingly-obvious statement for me to make. Yet we heard it all the time from some Republicans, desperate to be politically correct and pay homage to the prevailing #MeToo hysteria. And, apparently, any she, whoever she is, however tenuous her claim, has “a right to be heard.” Even that conservative media warrior on Fox News Sean Hannity was at pains to show how solicitous he was of Ford’s so-called right.

What exactly does a right to be heard mean? All the accusers were heard. Loud and clear. And for me they should have shut up or put up at their local police stations. What evidence did they have? In a word, none. You can’t go around spewing odious accusations that will damage a person’s livelihood, their reputation and the wellbeing of their family decades after the alleged offences, without a scintilla of corroborating evidence. Certainly, you shouldn’t be given kid-glove treatment and a national platform and megaphone. Ford, Ramirez, Swetnick and company are described as “the victims.” Let’s be crystal clear. Kavanaugh’s wife and daughters are the real female victims.

The left has lost all probity. Before they had ever met Ford, Democrats lined up — Senators Chuck Schumer, Kirsten Gillibrand, Mazie Hirono, Richard Blumenthal and others — to say that they “believed” Ford. Along with me, they weren’t there on that summer evening, in the unlikely event that there was ever such an evening when Ford was assaulted. These people are unethical demagogues. In other ages they would be Holy Inquisitors or on the French Revolutionary Tribunal or prosecutors at Stalin’s show trials.

Those not willing to go the whole hog and “believe her” said that her account was “credible.” It wasn’t, according to my dictionary. It was unbelievable. It was only credible if the meaning of the word is contorted to mean that it could possibly have happened. Even timid me in my youth might possibly have tried to grope the damsel next door. Go on, howl the baying mob, the uncorroborated accusation has been made. Prove it didn’t happen!

Ford originally wrote to her state congressional representative Anna Eschoo (Dem, Calif) back in July. The letter made its way to Senator Dianne Feinstein, the ranking Dem on the Judicial Committee overseeing Kavanaugh’s confirmation. She sat on it during the whole time Kavanaugh met with her privately and was subsequently questioned by the Committee in-camera and publicly. Nary a mention. Its leaking was timed just before the committee was to vote in order to be as disruptive as possible.

It was a political hit job. Blind Freddy sees that. But in the prevailing climate any woman, claiming any wrong, done by any man, at any time in the past, however distant, is adjudged “credible.” What reason would she have for lying and putting herself in the spotlight? You would have to be a charlatan or simple-minded to ask.

Lying is ubiquitous. Condemnation of lying is not an accidental inclusion in the Ten Commandments. One of the many reasons for bearing false witness is to court advantage, fame or money. Imagine the adulation from the left which would be heaped on this Democrat-supporting woman, now well-schooled by her Democrat-activist lawyers, if she single-handily stopped Kavanaugh in his tracks. They’d make a statue of her. Give her a book deal. Get her on the TV circuit. Fawn over her at the next Oscars and Emmys.

Liars come in all shapes, sexes and sizes. Automatically believing women and disbelieving men is an utter abandonment of due process, which affords protection to us all – black, brown, white, men and women. This particular woman, Ford, expressed a desire for anonymity. Is that believable in all of the circumstances? I think not.

She is highly intelligent. She is a psychologist and professor of statistics at Palo Alto University, specialising in designing statistical models for psychological research. She would know that you can’t send a letter to your state Democratic representative, containing scurrilous accusations against Trump’s Supreme Court pick, and assume it would travel no further and be kept secret. It doesn’t pass the smell test.

Her claim is an obvious lie. That is clear to me. I can’t get into her head to know why. But that is irrelevant. Whatever the explanation for the lie, the whole thing stinks to high heaven. Since the Dems have been taken over by left-wing activists, serving an agenda prevails over any objective search for truth. At one point, Senator Feinstein had the temerity, when taken off-guard by a reporter, to concede that Ford’s story might not be entirely true. She was soon beaten into conformity with the party line.

Like rats, today’s Democrats hunt in packs. Can’t have a maverick rat.

20 thoughts on “Calumny as a Stock in Trade

  • Jody says:

    Got to agree with this essay. And, yes, the Democrats are mavericks – peak rats. They excused Kennedy and Clinton and that other Kennedy which left the woman drowing in the car under the bridge at Chappaquiddik (spelling). They are convenience-rats with the morals of a rat’s nemesis – an ally cat!!

    Let’s get this picture into a frame: women have claimed the right to promiscuity to equalize their behaviour with males in an equal-opportunity grab for licentiousness thanks largely to ‘feminism’. Now it turns out they’re actually VICTIMS. How can that equate? I’m allowed to do as you do, be treated as you do and now I’m a victim! Sorry; if you don’t want to be a victim don’t drink when you’re 15 at an unsupervised ‘party’ and then go into a room alone with a boy. He might get the idea that you’re ‘easy’!! But, typical of Generation Snowflake is “I CAN BEHAVE AS I LIKE AND YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT HAPPENS TO ME”.

    Ah, no; YOU are responsible for your own behaviour. Only in criminal cases of assault and rape are you NOT responsible. And, as I’ve said before, the whole ‘incident’ in 1982 where the victim attended 9 more ‘parties’ where the offender was present, reminds me of the joke about the nuns raped while walking through the park. The second nun turns to the first and asks, “why are we going back that way; we don’t want to have to tell the others we were raped twice!”.

  • Tony Tea says:

    I am eternally grateful there were no phone cameras when I was younger.

  • en passant says:

    I (and my children) are lucky to be alive.

    My father began dating my mother when he was 24 and she was 14. Today he would be branded a predator an imprisoned, notwithstanding that they were later happily married for 52 years.

    In my own case I had to ask seven times before scoring my first date with my bride of 43 years. On the sixth attempt the possibility of the SWAT Squad lying in wait in case I asked a seventh time had not occurred to me. Today it would be a given.

  • en passant says:

    “My children and I …”

  • Andrew Campbell says:

    By 6.00 pm on Sunday, there was nothing on the ABC website to indicate the result of the Senate’s decision (Sunday morning our time). Perhaps our tax billion can’t come to working over the weekend. Or perhaps they are struck speechless. Lets enjoy their discomfort! The best the ABC can do is an article from 2 or 3 days ago with predictable progressive bile, ‘The ugly fact of American Misogyny: Fear, anger, envy and disgust at the Kavanaugh hearing.’ It will be interesting when they get to simply report what happened rather than express their fury.

  • pbw says:

    “Let me say as pompously as I can that, personally, I don’t know what happened on that summer evening back in 1982 in Maryland or at the dorm party at Yale or at those rapist parties. What an utterly stupid, redundant and bleedingly-obvious statement for me to make.”

    Thank you. But why is this do difficult for the likes of Hannity to say? The earthquake currently shaking the foundations of American (and consequently Western) politics if moving the ground so fast that it may only be a matter of weeks before it can be said, and said plainly. Who is this Trumperman, with powers and abilities far beyond those of mortal men?

  • Jody says:

    In the name of god, have you ever read – within the last quarter century – anything as appalling and that incites violence like this? And this is precisely what is destroying the New York Times. What a hideous rag that so-called newspaper is.


    I write on an American classical music board and there are 3 or 4 people who write on the general section (non-musical) who are rabid Trump haters and they’ve written dreadful things about him, gloating in the various scandals – Russia etc. I always avoid that section but I couldn’t help lately commenting on the Kavanaugh affair. In the past dissenters have been treated harshly on that board for going where angels fear to tread but my comment attracted one gentle, “she speaks the truth”. The others have calmed down. In short, a reasoned voice of leadership is needed here and I can’t help feeling that job is the one for a PRESIDENT.

  • Keith Kennelly says:

    Just goes to show
    Jody you missed Trumps speech in Mississippi
    Where he called out the fundamental flaws in the liars claims.

    He absolutely in a calm and reasoned voice highlighted her flawed claims.

    The mainstream media and Trump haters, like you were, (I guess you’ve now backflipped on that and accepted the stupidity of your opinions), all claimed he mocked the poor victim.

    He did she deserved it and it was the first turning point in this sordid performance.
    The second turning point was Kavanaghs emotional defence.

    Even the mad msmedia are starting to acknowledge both events.

    I saw them both. Both have galvanised the Republicans. They’ll increase their majorities in the Niv elections and Trump will win a second turn.

    A far cry from your ‘any day now”,. Ya think?

  • Michael Galak says:

    I can sympathise with Brett Kavanaugh wishing to put all this insanity behind and to get on with his job and his life. However, there is a rub. The woman-accuser , who maliciously declared herself to be a victim of a sexual assault by the man of high standing , was not believed. essentially, she was found to be lying . Under oath. In addition to slander, defamation and character assassination. It is my belief, that in such a case the lying accuser has to be prosecuted. Will Mr Kavanaugh find the strength to sue his lying accuser?

  • lloveday says:

    The most bizarre comment I’ve read about the matter was made shortly before the vote:
    If confirmed Kavanaugh should step down. — Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson).
    Seriously? Go through that hell then having succeeded walk away! Another I’ll cull from my reading list – so many words written, so few hours to read them.

    Quote: Like rats, today’s Democrats hunt in packs

    Wolves and other canines, even domestic dogs hunt in packs, as will lions and other animals, including aquatic ones, even some ants, but rats? I thought they were primarily scavengers and that when they do kill, it’s mostly an opportunistic kill by a lone rat of a smaller animal. I’ve seen lots of rats of various types, in the city, bush and farm fields, but never seen or heard of them hunting in packs, and I’m genuinely interested whether others have.

  • mgkile@bigpond.com says:

    “Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter.”


    Once upon a time TM meant “transcendental meditation”. Today it means something else.

    Indelible in the hippocampus is this tweet from a stunned Minnie Driver, struggling to come to terms with the decision by Senator Collins (R-Maine) to support Justice Kavanaugh:

    “Women not believing women. Assuring the rise of toxic masculinity.” TM

    Interesting letter released too, also indelible in the hippopotamus:


    A man who dated Brett Kavanaugh’s primary accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, for six years claims she had no fear of flying, no fear of small spaces or rooms with single exits, and once used her psychology training to prepare a friend for a polygraph examination, according to a Tuesday Fox News report.

    In a sworn statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee dated Tuesday, the California man claims to have met the then-Christine Blasey “in 1989 or 1990,” then had been romantically involved with her for about six years from 1992 to 1998. In that time, he claims to have witnessed Ford, then studying psychology, coach a close friend as she prepared for government administered polygraph exams. Fox News’s Shannon Bream posted a redacted version of the letter on Twitter:

  • gerardbarry@ozemail.com.au says:

    As a father of two daughters, one of the missing ingredients are the accuser’s parents.

    How was it possible for a 15 year old ‘girl’ to have spent an afternoon at a country club before going on to a party with other older teenagers where there were no responsible parents in sight?

    According to her, she did not know how she got to the party and how she got home. If she had indeed suffered sexual trauma, then surely any self-respecting parent would have noticed it and done something about it.

    Where were her parents then and where are they now?

  • padraic says:

    The spectacle of those rent-a-crowd harpies pounding on the door of the court makes one realise what happens to spoilt brats when they achieve the voting age.

Leave a Reply