the accusation by itself convicts

WARNING: Some individuals will be offended as we go unfiltered today.

Recipe to thwart a disliked, male nominee to a judicial position, or a disliked male who is seeking elected office:

Ingredients needed: one or more leftist (also known as liberal or “progressive”) women, who may or may not be actual victims; one or more corrupt US Senators (needed for the timing of the release of the accusation(s) at the eleventh hour); an effectively brain-dead news media that enjoys stirring the pot or turning up the heat in order to create a “media circus”; and last, but certainly not least, many public figure and celebrity women who will second the accusation(s).

Woman makes accusation(s) about supposed actions of the male that are said to have occurred decades in the past.  These to work most effectively must be in the area of sexual harassment and even sexual assault.  These accusations are not made public but are kept as a closely guarded secret until the time is most opportune for making them public.  At that time, a leading US Senator (one who sits on the Senate’s judiciary committee) releases the woman’s accusations to the news media which eagerly disseminates these in real time around the world almost instantaneously.

Public figure and celebrity women very quickly start tweeting (as on Twitter) “I believe her.  I believe her.”  These numerous tweets are retweeted as fast as possible and soon much of the world is convinced of the truth (in objective reality) of the allegations or accusations.

Lather, rinse, and repeat as necessary.

 The accused nominee is pilloried, defamed and shamed in wide-ranging public discussions throughout the land and many demands are made that he withdraw or that the Senate vote him down.  This is so, independent of the truth, or lack thereof, of these tawdry allegations.

Thus, the accusation by itself convicts the accused for much of the adult population of these United States today.

some needed historical context

But, consider for a moment that this was done once before for a spot on the US Supreme Court.  This was, of course, back in 1991, when Clarence Thomas (a black man who happened to have a conservative judicial philosophy) was accused by Anita Hill.  And, basically, the recipe we outlined above was followed back in 1991.  Even though about two-thirds of women believed Ms. Hill, the reality was that she was a spurned woman (as the Senator from Alabama, Howell Heflin, at the time queried her about), and not a sexually harassed or victimized woman.  How do we know this?!  Because after the period of alleged sexual harassment, she continued to call for him after they no longer worked together.  These phone calls went on for some time and she only stopped calling for him when she was informed that he had gotten married.  The bottom line is that Hill was, by her phony allegations, able to seek revenge (for being spurned) against Thomas and also oppose a nominee to the Court whose judicial philosophy she did not agree with.  Say, I am old enough to remember quite clearly what happened in September, 1991.  The allegations were only made public after one of the Democrat Senators said on the national news that he did not believe the Democrats had the votes to stop Thomas’ confirmation.  (Who leaked the story to the media back then?  Was it Senator Kennedy or Senator Metzenbaum, or the bow tie wearing Senator from Illinois, what was his name?)

relevant questions

Both Judge Thomas and Judge Kavanaugh had previously sat for Senate confirmation hearings when they were nominated to the federal bench (at the circuit court level).  These prior hearings were for lifetime appointments to the federal judiciary.  Why did these accusers not come forward at that time with their allegations, if these allegations be true?

Why do conservative men never sexually harass, grope or sexually assault conservative or moderate/centrist women?  It is only liberal women who are so victimized.  Or at least, that is what we conclude since no conservative or moderate women come forward with any such allegations.

Why are we being put through this circus at this time, and for this nominee?  Repeat the process (recipe above) each and every time you believe – or fear – that a deciding 5th vote is at stake on any future abortion related cases.  That, dear readers, is what this is about.  Doubt that?  Recall the questioning of Kavanaugh earlier this month.  Which issue was broached again and again by various Senators, some of whom will be running for president in the future, no doubt.  (Answer: Roe v Wade).  Back in 1991, who did we see intently watching (really lurking in the background) the proceedings in the Senate chamber when Hill and Thomas gave their contradictory testimonies?  Why it was Kate Michelman of NARAL, and some facially pock-marked creep from the ACLU (I cannot recall his name either).

It must be noted that Brett Kavanaugh is not another Clarence Thomas or William Rehnquist.  He is more like another Anthony Kennedy, who he would be succeeding on the Court.  There would be a certain poetic justice, if Kavanaugh withdraws or is voted down, in Trump nominating a black woman who has a judicial philosophy similar to Clarence Thomas to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court.  Then we all could observe the racism and sexism of many on the Left on public display.  Say, blacks and women are not supposed to be, nor are allowed to be, conservative!!

A food for thought question is: Why do feminists seem to always forge alliances with gay men?

We have reached the point in America where each and every perpetual victim group* must bless a nominee before he/she can be confirmed to the high court (*this includes gays (really the whole LGBTQX complex), feminists, racial and ethnic minorities, and, of course, Jews).

The problem with these kinds of allegations is that these are used too often (and many of these are later found to be fraudulent claims).  For today’s progressive woman, you can, without remorse, resort to making such accusations any time you do not like a man’s politics or moral convictions, or when you fail to get the desired promotion you feel you deserved (even when it went to another female), and you then claim the male boss sexually harassed you.  It matters not if the alleged actions ever occurred in objective reality, the harm you suffered is quite real and distressing to you.

decoding some popular terms

“Women’s rights” is codespeak for abortion on demand (the same is true for so-called “reproductive rights”).

“me-too”, as in the me-too movement, is codespeak for removing men from positions of power, and for the perpetual victimhood (a mental illness of sorts) of many emoting women.


“Oh, you do not like nor approve of my views, eh? . . . 

“What’s that? . . . 

“I did what? . . . 

“You say I groped you at a social event in high school in 1975? . . . .

“But, I’m not seeking elected office, and that really is not my style” (referring to the alleged groping).

closing remarks

Our feature image is of Ruthie Ginsburg, a current associate justice of the US Supreme Court, and former General Counsel of the ACLU.  Ginsburg is a social engineer, “progressive”, and revolutionary who is driven to “liberate” all peoples of the world (not only US citizens) from their long-held traditional values.  Her nomination and confirmation to the high court (in 1993) truly ought to have been stopped for the good of the republic.  We observe that Ruthie is soon to be lionized in a film about her life to be released on Christmas Day (now that is chutzpah!).



copyright 2018 –


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s